ObjectivityIncarnate @ damnedfurry @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

591

Joined

1 yr. ago

The original source of the oft-spread "40%" figure also counted incidents where the one reporting was the victim. If cop/civilian couple had "a one time push, shove, shout, loss of temper, or an incidents where a spouse acted out in anger" within the relationship, with the cop being on the receiving end of the civilian spouse's 'abuse', that relationship was tossed into the 'domestic violence' bucket, because it was actually counting relationships, not cops.

My point is that yes, you can definitely argue one might be reluctant to admit to one's own acts of DV, but I don't think anonymously reporting your spouse's acts against you would be 'stifled' the same way.

To add to this, I'll toss in a copypasta I've seen that has a few other/different links/info:

Hello, you seem to be referencing an often misquoted statistic. TL:DR; The 40% number is wrong and plain old bad science. In attempt to recreate the numbers, by the same researchers, they received a rate of 24% while including violence as shouting. Further researchers found rates of 7%, 7.8%, 10%, and 13% with stricter definitions and better research methodology.

The 40% claim is intentionally misleading and unequivocally inaccurate. Numerous studies over the years report domestic violence rates in police families as low as 7%, with the highest at 40% defining violence to include shouting or a loss of temper. The referenced study where the 40% claim originates is Neidig, P.H.., Russell, H.E. & Seng, A.F. (1992). Interspousal aggression in law enforcement families: A preliminary investigation. It states:

Survey results revealed that approximately 40% of the participating officers reported marital conflicts involving physical aggression in the previous year.

There are a number of flaws with the aforementioned study:

The study includes as 'violent incidents' a one time push, shove, shout, loss of temper, or an incidents where a spouse acted out in anger. These do not meet the legal standard for domestic violence. This same study reports that the victims reported a 10% rate of physical domestic violence from their partner. The statement doesn't indicate who the aggressor is; the officer or the spouse. The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The “domestic violence” acts are not confirmed as actually being violent. The study occurred nearly 30 years ago. This study shows minority and female officers were more likely to commit the DV, and white males were least likely. Additional reference from a Congressional hearing on the study: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951003089863c

An additional study conducted by the same researcher, which reported rates of 24%, suffer from additional flaws:

The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The study was not a random sample, and was isolated to high ranking officers at a police conference. This study also occurred nearly 30 years ago.

More current research, including a larger empirical study with thousands of responses from 2009 notes, 'Over 87 percent of officers reported never having engaged in physical domestic violence in their lifetime.' Blumenstein, Lindsey, Domestic violence within law enforcement families: The link between traditional police subculture and domestic violence among police (2009). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862

Yet another study "indicated that 10 percent of respondents (148 candidates) admitted to having ever slapped, punched, or otherwise injured a spouse or romantic partner, with 7.2 percent (110 candidates) stating that this had happened once, and 2.1 percent (33 candidates) indicating that this had happened two or three times. Repeated abuse (four or more occurrences) was reported by only five respondents (0.3 percent)." A.H. Ryan JR, Department of Defense, Polygraph Institute “The Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Police Families.” http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4951188/FID707/Root/New/030PG297.PDF

Another: In a 1999 study, 7% of Baltimore City police officers admitted to 'getting physical' (pushing, shoving, grabbing and/or hitting) with a partner. A 2000 study of seven law enforcement agencies in the Southeast and Midwest United States found 10% of officers reporting that they had slapped, punched, or otherwise injured their partners. L. Goodmark, 2016, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW “Hands up at Home: Militarized Masculinity and Police Officers Who Commit Intimate Partner Abuse “. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2519&context=fac_pubs

It's unfortunate the Viagra and Cialis didn't do the trick, but we do have an alternate treatment we can try.

Actions speak louder than words, and despite all the No True Scotsman-ing, many, many words and acts of sexism against males has occurred under the banner of feminism.

I've read public press releases from mainstream feminist organizations like NOW proclaiming that the only reasons a father would ever seek custody of his child in a divorce is because he's either a wifebeater who wants to retain access to the woman he's abusing, or he's a deadbeat who's just trying to get out of paying child support.

There is a reason that the vast majority of people believe in equal treatment for both sexes, but only a small minority self-identify as "feminist".

It's ironically self-unaware victim-blaming to use the male-based word "patriarchy" to describe a set of societal norms and expectations that both sexes are equally responsible for creating and perpetuating. Puts the blame entirely on men and takes women completely off the hook.

Pure sexism.

That's kind of a fucked up reason to decrease the rating of your driver, don't you think?

Seems unlikely, considering a request for "doggy style" has literally nothing to do with domestic violence, either literally or in any double meaning way.

I mean, it's hard to know you're ace before you become aware that sex is a thing most people want and seek, lol.

I'd like to think that if someone from the working class would randomly get such money they would. But it still seems unlikely.

Almost all big lottery winners are working class. Look at what they do with their winnings on average, you don't need to guess.

So, who here didn't know that there are several orders of magnitude more kids than there are billionaires?

lol

"Female Dating Strategy", at least, has been around on Reddit for years and years.

Well, they made themselves mad over their own ignorant assumption, they have no one to blame but themselves for that, lol.

News to me, I've never seen that a single time. Also makes no sense in context to think that's what I was doing, as what I replied to with that was nothing 'Karen-like' at all.

it definitely read like you were using a "generic perjorative term like calling someone a 'Karen'"

Even though there is no such term/trope/meme associated with the name "Cathy" at all? Pretty frustrating to see that people are so eager to just assume the worst possible motivation instead of just asking, if they didn't know what I was referencing. Or forbid, actually try to figure it out on their own.

Ironically, I would have been perfectly justified in straight-up calling them a jerk for strawmanning and obviously twisting my words, as it is in fact a shitty thing to do, especially so blatantly.

But since you actually asked me, even though I contend that it's quite easy, especially now with the additional context, to figure it out independently with a Google search, fine, I'll tell you: Cathy Newman.

Calling out strawmanning is literally not a personal attack, it's an attack on the dishonesty of the argument.

Comparing someone who is strawmanning to an actual person (read: not a generic pejorative like calling someone a "Karen", for example) who literally became infamous for blatantly and shamelessly strawmanning during a public interview, is also not a personal attack, especially when the basis of the comparison is something they literally just did, not something I've accused them of without evidence or something.

I pushed back against specifically the implication that you can just throw these people into some sort of housing and now you can consider the problem “solved” and wipe your hands of it.

Nobody ever said that.

From the OP:

"It would cost $20 billion to end homelessness in America."

This $20 billion figure comes from an old estimate of what it'd cost to pay for homeless people's rent, and nothing more. And that person effectively said that paying for that, and nothing more, would "end homelessness."

So yes, somebody said that.

It’s a fact that a few of America’s most wealthy have enough money to house every homeless person in the US

If they have enough to do that, then the government certainly already has enough to accomplish this, no? Even the wealthiest person on the planet's total net worth is nothing compared to what is already spent every single year by the US government.

It also really isn’t infeasible to build enough homes to house all the homeless in the US within one or two years.

I thought it was commonly said that there were more empty houses in the country than there are homeless people, already?

It’s not infeasible to spend that same amount of time setting up universal basic income and healthcare.

If you're talking about something that goes only to homeless people, then it's not "universal". If you're now talking about true UBI, I just don't see how it can be realistically afforded.

Back of the napkin math, a measly $10,000 to every working-age adult in the US amounts to an annual bill of over $2 trillion each year. We have no realistic way of paying for that--even if you squeezed all the billionaires completely dry, it'd only pay for it for a couple of years. And that's just $10,000.

It just doesn't seem feasible until/unless we are literally post-scarcity, from the raw numbers. And that's assuming it doesn't replace any of the welfare systems already in place--if it would, then it really wouldn't lift anyone out of anything long-term.

And there are a handful of people in the US whose combined personal wealth could easily fund all that.

It's honestly very difficult to believe this, knowing all the trillions upon trillions of dollars the government has already spent over the years on issues like these, without them being 'solved'.

It’s cash when they want to use it

When you sell a possession, you can obtain cash in exchange for it. It's not cash until then--up to that point, it's only a price tag, a valuation.

And taking out a loan using a possession of yours as collateral isn't income at all. Loans are not income--you need to pay loans back.

And you might be surprised to find out politifact is in fact not the arbiter of reality.

Until it debunks a claim made by the Other Team, right? That article goes into a lot of detail about how and why the claim is wrong/misleading.

It is literally equivalent amount of cash lol

Cash can't increase or decrease in quantity without any transaction having happened.

One of us wrote an entire comment that contained nothing but a lie and personal attack, and it wasn't me.

Edit: Facts make y'all real mad, lol.