Jump to content

Drew Brees: Controversial comments


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Coach Tuesday said:


Maybe he’d undertake that near-impossible task if you first post some examples of you actually changing your mind about something in your lifetime.  

I'll gladly be open to hearing any data that backs up an argument, or anything that can substantiate the argument, and make an informed decision based on that.

 

You, among others wanting me to see something for what its not, and telling me to just bend at your will makes no sense.

 

If someone wants to make a claim they swear as truth, well prove it, bring the facts to the table.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:


Maybe he’d undertake that near-impossible task if you first post some examples of you actually changing your mind about something in your lifetime.  

 

If the position is nearly impossible to support, why are you so confident it's correct?

 

The problem with nearly all these arguments is that they're based purely on conjecture, cliches, and anecdotal evidence. That is the exact opposite of the scientific method.

 

Hypotheticals are nothing more than conjecture supported by the speakers own bias. Anecdotes give no frame of reference for scale. They grossly over or underrepresent the phenomenon being depicted. Everyone understands this when Sean Hannity does it with illegal immigrants, but it's a different story when it fits the narrative. But

 

This clearly unreliable method that is roundly rejected in all fields of study, is the foundation of "the most important issue facing our nation."

 

Despite the glaring lack of supporting evidence, the mere suggestion that the perception of disparity may be an illusion sparks anger. 

 

The empirical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that any disparity that may exist is statistically negligible. I've scoured the internet for the last two weeks and have not seen one person attempt to support this conclusion with anything resembling the scientific method and empirical data. 

 

If you're not allowed to honestly question a theory it's usually because someone is afraid they don't have a good answer. Otherwise they'd welcome the question as an opportunity to explain their position instead of coming down on you with sanctimony and derision.

 

Not everyone has the strength of character to honestly question and actively challenge their own core beliefs. It's much easier to demonize those who would challenge them for you.

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

If the position is nearly impossible to support, why are you so confident it's correct?

 

The problem with nearly all these arguments is that they're based purely on conjecture, cliches, and anecdotal evidence. That is the exact opposite of the scientific method.

 

Hypotheticals are nothing more than conjecture supported by the speakers own bias. Anecdotes give no frame of reference for scale. They grossly over or underrepresent the phenomenon being depicted. Everyone understands this when Sean Hannity does it with illegal immigrants, but it's a different story when it fits the narrative. But

 

This clearly unreliable method that is roundly rejected in all fields of study, is the foundation of "the most important issue facing our nation."

 

Despite the glaring lack of supporting evidence, the mere suggestion that the perception of disparity may be an illusion sparks anger. 

 

The empirical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that any disparity that may exist is statistically negligible. I've scoured the internet for the last two weeks and have not seen one person attempt to support this conclusion with anything resembling the scientific method and empirical data. 

 

If you're not allowed to honestly question a theory it's usually because someone is afraid they don't have a good answer. Otherwise they'd welcome the question as an opportunity to explain their position instead of coming down on you with sanctimony and derision.

 

Not everyone has the strength of character to honestly question and actively challenge their own core beliefs. It's much easier to demonize those who would challenge them for you.

 

I would link directly to the WaPo but the article is now behind a paywall and I don't subscribe.

 

https://thesocietypages.org/toolbox/police-killing-of-blacks/

 

Some discussion on the rate of unarmed deaths.  5% looks like a low number but its 1 in 20 individuals.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/

 

Maybe the issue isn't systemic or nationwide, but it certainly looks like Minneapolis has a problem.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/03/minneapolis-police-are-7-times-more-likely-to-use-force-against-black-people/#7c8cdafb1321

 

All the stats I've seen over the years are consistent and point to materially higher rates of shootings and fatalities.  I disagree with the assertion of negligible differences. 

 

One major grey area is situation and relevant facts as detailed in the "Is this the right comparison?" paragraphs.  We also have no statistics in how many times a routine traffic stop results in an arrest or jaywalking like the video from Tulsa.  We do have lots of anecdotal evidence and together with the raw data it tells a consistent story.  Make your own conclusions.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I would link directly to the WaPo but the article is now behind a paywall and I don't subscribe.

 

https://thesocietypages.org/toolbox/police-killing-of-blacks/

 

Some discussion on the rate of unarmed deaths.  5% looks like a low number but its 1 in 20 individuals.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/

 

Maybe the issue isn't systemic or nationwide, but it certainly looks like Minneapolis has a problem.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/03/minneapolis-police-are-7-times-more-likely-to-use-force-against-black-people/#7c8cdafb1321

 

All the stats I've seen over the years are consistent and point to materially higher rates of shootings and fatalities.  I disagree with the assertion of negligible differences. 

 

One major grey area is situation and relevant facts as detailed in the "Is this the right comparison?" paragraphs.  We also have no statistics in how many times a routine traffic stop results in an arrest or jaywalking like the video from Tulsa.  We do have lots of anecdotal evidence and together with the raw data it tells a consistent story.  Make your own conclusions.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

This is an extremely reasonable approach.

 

To be clear, it is not my position that there is no disparity anywhere in the country - it varies from locality to locality - but rather that the facts do not support the theory as it is being presented in the mainstream.

 

The issue is far more complex than the current narrative would suggest, and there is certainly room to debate the topic, but the extreme rhetoric and absolute certainty, particularly wrt to some assertions that are patently and demonstrably false, is troubling. The fervent desire to brand others as racists for questioning the narrative is even more troubling.

 

I don't have time at the moment to delve into your articles, but I'll try to circle back this evening.

 

Based on the data I've seen, I don't think there's a strong case for the theory that racism causes black men face a disproportionate threat of death at the hands of police on a national level, but when someone presents their argument in a reasonable manner, and offers support for it as you have, I'm much more inclined to listen. I think if this was the approach being taken across the country we'd make a lot more progress.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SDS locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...