Law Enforcement Reform Thread (formerly Defund the Police) (1 Viewer)

[First Time Poster]

So I got busy the other day with the intention to revisit this topic and answer some of the responses put forward but I realized the thread was deleted. But, I felt we had good dialogue happening before I left so I wanted to restart the topic to get the conversation going again. We started some dialogue about it on the liberal board but I feel this topic transcends party lines so I'm making a MCB thread. Post #2, or my next post, is the post I made on the liberal board when asked to elaborate how I felt.

 

[RobF]

Why would I email the authors to ask them what corrections you were referring?

You quoted the authors stating, "we felt the right decision was to retract the article rather than publish further corrections."

You're referencing the one correction they issued, but you've apparently missed that the authors said that the alternative to retracting the paper was to publish further corrections. That is, it's not simply @Ayo's assertion that further corrections would have been needed, it's the authors'. Hence they would be the logical ones to ask if you wanted to know what those corrections would have been.

Would this be something someone would chalk up to the demise of academic freedom?

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...icized-over-removal-transgender-study-n906741

Hmm. As an academic, I would say both of these instances are indications more of the existence of academic responsibility, rather than the lack of academic freedom.

I'd suggest moving this tangent to another topic if someone wants to go into this more though, since it's getting off-topic for this thread.

 

[Farb]

You quoted the authors stating, "we felt the right decision was to retract the article rather than publish further corrections."

You're referencing the one correction they issued, but you've apparently missed that the authors said that the alternative to retracting the paper was to publish further corrections. That is, it's not simply @Ayo's assertion that further corrections would have been needed, it's the authors'. Hence they would be the logical ones to ask if you wanted to know what those corrections would have been.


Hmm. As an academic, I would say both of these instances are indications more of the existence of academic responsibility, rather than the lack of academic freedom.

I'd suggest moving this tangent to another topic if someone wants to go into this more though, since it's getting off-topic for this thread.

Hmm, thought I already said this, but thanks for your suggestion.

 

[superchuck500]

If Obama had said this, I think the entire right of American politics, including the modern populists and the more traditional GOP conservatives would have absolutely flipped their shirt.

 

[MT15]

I can’t say what I think of this sorry excuse for a human being. He’s a sick you know what.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

^^ essentially a citizen discussing the effect of paying the police, 95% of whom live outside of the community/city

 

[Ayo]

Another dynamic of white-based affirmative action that people don’t even realize is in play. With real consequences.

 

[First Time Poster]

I watched that a few days ago and didn't even think about posting it. Thanks @GMRfellowtraveller

 

[JimEverett]

It is a complicated problem though.

For instance - what is more important: a residency requirement or a force that more resembles the demographics of the policed community? There is some reason to believe that the residency requirements actually hurt the ability to have a diverse police force: " What we found was that police departments with a residency requirement had consistently higher dispersion scores than those without. In other words, these police forces were less demographically similar to their cities." https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/reexamining-residency-requirements-for-police-officers/

 

[JimEverett]

Another dynamic of white-based affirmative action that people don’t even realize is in play. With real consequences.

I think that is a very simplistic way of looking at these things. Often times the problems we deal with are born out of good intentions. Here, the abolishing of residency requirements and civil service tests were a reaction to corruption in municipal governments.

 

[Ayo]

I think that is a very simplistic way of looking at these things. Often times the problems we deal with are born out of good intentions. Here, the abolishing of residency requirements and civil service tests were a reaction to corruption in municipal governments.

I disagree. I'm not attributing intent, but the result is problematic and cities and municipal governments aren't terribly inclined nor motivated to doing anything about it and the policies end up reifying and/or magnifying the problems and the schisms.

You can look at, for example, school zoning and funding policies. There are valid reasons for local tax bases to have a say in their schools and funding is a part of that. But up here, they did away with that model and changed policies that are more equitable and what you see is different from what you see in Houston, for example, with the city districts with lower tax bases and the more affluent ones, even including their maxing out of the cap.

So, if you want to call it simplistic, go ahead. But it seems like that's borne from an attribution of intent and conviction of guilt that I didn't assert.

 

[JimEverett]

I disagree. I'm not attributing intent, but the result is problematic and cities and municipal governments aren't terribly inclined nor motivated to doing anything about it and the policies end up reifying and/or magnifying the problems and the schisms.

You can look at, for example, school zoning and funding policies. There are valid reasons for local tax bases to have a say in their schools and funding is a part of that. But up here, they did away with that model and changed policies that are more equitable and what you see is different from what you see in Houston, for example, with the city districts with lower tax bases and the more affluent ones, even including their maxing out of the cap.

So, if you want to call it simplistic, go ahead. But it seems like that's borne from an attribution of intent and conviction of guilt that I didn't assert.

I took the meaning of "affirmative action" as meaning a policy designed to benefit some sort of class of people - I do not think history shows that these non-resident requirements were born out of a desire to help white people advance as opposed to non-whites.

But not only that, there seems to be evidence that the non-resident requirements actually promote aspects of policing that people policed say they want. Hence, the complicatedness of it as opposed to treating the policy as just another example of racism or of benefit to whites only.

 

[zztop]

Since there is, oddly, not really a direct topic on the killing of Floyd and protests going around the country, I guess I'll put this here

'Wall of Moms' speak out on getting tear-gassed at Portland protests

The group, which includes hundreds of mothers, has said the protests are peaceful, but the police have been violent.

www.today.com

police gassing peaceful protesting moms and grandmoms

 

[JRad]

If Obama had said this, I think the entire right of American politics, including the modern populists and the more traditional GOP conservatives would have absolutely flipped their shirt.

Isn’t this almost exactly what Fox said Obama was going to try to do?

 

[SaintForLife]

Tragic shooting and I believe it's the biggest mass shooting this year.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Tragic shooting and I believe it's the biggest mass shooting this year.

Agreed that it’s tragic
What is it’s relevance to the thread?

 

[brandon]

Tragic shooting and I believe it's the biggest mass shooting this year.

Agreed that it’s tragic
What is it’s relevance to the thread?

That he's finally coming around to gun control.

 

[Complex Kid]

Agreed that it’s tragic
What is it’s relevance to the thread?

I think it's pretty obvious what he's doing. He's setting a trap AND killing two birds with one stone.

1. If you care about BLM then this should be your number one priority!!! (ignoring that government authorities killing black people with no consequences is an entirely different animal than black on black crime)

2. If you defund the police then you are allowing this to happen in greater numbers proving that you don't care about Black Lives!!!! (ignoring what I'm sure has been explained over and over in this thread that defund the police doesn't mean get rid of all of the police).

3. When someone calls him out on it since he put the bare minimum on the post he can claim "you guys are just reading into it and putting words into my mouth wah wah wah" feeding into his martyr complex of posting on a board overrun with "liberals" just itching to ban all these innocent conservatives just looking for genuine debate.