Journalists aren't mathematicians, nor are they the bastion of credibility or critical thinking.
Artists and athletes buy the lies, or the decidedly uneducated holders of worthless degrees like pseudo scientist sociologists, engineers/economists/scientists even philosophers howver who know how to htink don't and won't.
IF an honest discussion ever does actually emerge, like so many of the disinformed naive rafters posters say they want, they aren't going to like the result...
It isn't. I've had many worthless back/forths with him over hte years I can easily tell the differencee, most of the time he loses it and gets these threads closed when a moderator comes around. i'm not going to out the sock account though, don't care
Artists and athletes buy the lies, or the decidedly uneducated holders of worthless degrees like pseudo scientist sociologists, engineers/economists/scientists even philosophers howver who know how to htink don't and won't.
IF an honest discussion ever does actually emerge, like so many of the disinformed naive rafters posters say they want, they aren't going to like the result...
It isn't. I've had many worthless back/forths with him over hte years I can easily tell the differencee, most of the time he loses it and gets these threads closed when a moderator comes around. i'm not going to out the sock account though, don't care
Also, didn't you say something about agreeing if it was 5× the ratio earlier?
The calculations I did for you also show blacks are more likely to be killed by police. That paper doesn't attempt to investigate why that might be happening. In other words, the assumption is that it must be racially motivated. The paper really doesn't reinforce your contention because we already know blacks are killed at a higher rate than whites by police, but they aren't killed at a higher rate than whites when adjusted for their higher violent crime rate. So, in conclusion, nice article, but it doesn't say what you hoped it would say.
Hahahahaha using that flawed PNAs study.
Even left wing Wapo trashed that ******** garbage. Smh. That research is full of trash and Wapo called it out
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...ias-heres-why-thats-dangerous/?outputType=amp
Lol, yes they are. Again, 2 issues with that. Both violent and non violent crimes tend to show a similar risk of death by police. So it negates the claim that violent crime is the factor. Hell, black people get killed at high rates when they are the ones who called the police or aren't even invovled at all. Black people also commit almost 100,000 less violent crimes annually, yet still out pace whites by a lot in deaths. Your argument is so easily negated with evidence.
Did you even read the article? The headline is misleading as it says in the first paragraph that the 6 times ratio happens in certain parts of the country, not for the country as a whole. Chicago is one of those places. Can you guess why that might be the case in Chicago? I agreed blacks are killed at roughly three times the rate of whites, but they commit violent crime at three times the rate of whites, so it's not surprising that the police killing rate would also be three times the rate of whites.
Lol, that is an opinion piece. Literally anyone can submit one of those for publication.
As has been shown numerous times, more white people are killed by police each year than blacks. The rates at which each are killed pretty closely matches the rate at which each commits violent crimes.
As I said, the indoctrinated and poorly educated.
You will not see serious scientists or thinkers, like Freyer, pull this BS.
LeadBelly will just throw up a bunch of links deferring to authority without any analysis. The real academics with real degrees in real disciplines don't buy this nonsense. Feldman admits he is out of his league, Harvard educated indoctrinated or not.
Social epidemiologist[eyeroll] vs economist
You will not see serious scientists or thinkers, like Freyer, pull this BS.
LeadBelly will just throw up a bunch of links deferring to authority without any analysis. The real academics with real degrees in real disciplines don't buy this nonsense. Feldman admits he is out of his league, Harvard e
Social epidemiologist[eyeroll] vs economist
Yes
Yes, actually I did. Which is how I found this little gem.
What's it say about your conclusion of it being measurable to crime rates?
Can't wait for this next spin.Really, well this study disagrees with your assessment. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854
Lol, that is an opinion piece. Literally anyone can submit one of those for publication.
you use garbage phony research. It was so bad that Wapo called ********.
LOL
I did? You may be confused on the differences in WAPO and their opinion pieces. The more you know!
Half of all scientific studies are irreproducible, and much more when you start doing all this pseudo science in psychology/sociology funded$ by bad actors and motivated reasoning.
Simplified, you will see this if you look closely in every situation. Only those involved in fake science like sociology think they can show any of these lies to be true, any and every time this is looked at by a hard scientist, they will tell you the truth which is not what you are going to hear out of the mouths of the uneducated useful idiots like Lebron James or whomever.
They never treat the data carefully or give it the care it deserves... ideologues don't even know what that means and why it's so important.
Simplified, you will see this if you look closely in every situation. Only those involved in fake science like sociology think they can show any of these lies to be true, any and every time this is looked at by a hard scientist, they will tell you the truth which is not what you are going to hear out of the mouths of the uneducated useful idiots like Lebron James or whomever.
They never treat the data carefully or give it the care it deserves... ideologues don't even know what that means and why it's so important.
Lol, how do you get owned on the internet? HAHA, I think you may take this whole message board thing a bit too seriously.
How have I double talked or walked myself into a corner? So far it seems like I have just debated with a bunch of angry white dudes who are afraid of admitting reality.
I would point to this thread as a pretty thorough example of getting owned.
As I said, you keep being you. We are all enjoying your double talk and continued posts completely void of substance repeating the same nonsense while refusing to acknowledge clear evidence. Googling and citing articles you appear to not have even read aren’t helping your cause. At this point, I would compare your posts to that of a 5-year old throwing a temper tantrum in the corner while ignoring his surroundings. But that may be too nice.
BTW, I don’t have anything against you personally. And I learned long ago not to take the internet Esp message boards seriously. You just have a hard time knowing when to quit. I’m also pretty stubborn I can sympathize. But you are losing this one bro. Pretty badly.
Lol, if you think you can own someone on the internet, particularly an anonymous message board, you obviously take this all way too seriously. But, hey, if that makes you happy, you do you boo.I would point to this thread as a pretty thorough example of getting owned.
As I said, you keep being you. We are all enjoying your double talk and continued posts completely void of substance repeating the same nonsense while refusing to acknowledge clear evidence. Googling and citing articles you appear to not have even read aren’t helping your cause. At this point, I would compare your posts to that of a 5-year old throwing a temper tantrum in the corner while ignoring his surroundings. But that may be too nice.
BTW, I don’t have anything against you personally. And I learned long ago not to take the internet Esp message boards seriously. You just have a hard time knowing when to quit. I’m also pretty stubborn I can sympathize. But you are losing this one bro. Pretty badly.
What double talk? I have laid out some pretty good evidence and sources from pretty accomplished people.
Here is one:
That is your opinion. The problem with that logic is all of you seem to share the same beliefs and want to silence those who don't share it. It's a product of groupthink. There seems to be this strong desire to convince me I am losing, being humiliated, owned, made a fool amd so forth, but what exactly am I losing? But, how exactly am I being humiliated, onwed, made a fool? This all just seems like tactics to silence a dissenting opinion people don't want to exist. And it honestly doesn't bother me. It only encourages me to keep going.
So the guy who produced this study, Cody Ross, works as a researcher in the anthropology dept at UC Davis. Are we considering him pseudo or educated and hard scientists?
Here is a bit of his background.
Why would I need to spin anything. I took your numbers and made calculations that show you are wrong. It's pretty straight forward math. You refuse to counter with any calculations of your own. Instead, when proven wrong, you now scour the internet to try and find something that supports your contention. Why should we read article after article that you put up and try and determine whether it was well executed or not? If you are so sure of your point, you should have been able to mathematically show your point.Yes
Yes, actually I did. Which is how I found this little gem.
What's it say about your conclusion of it being measurable to crime rates?
Others have posted studies that contradict the one you posted. Why would I try and reconcile them all into some consistent study? I have looked at the data and calculated the rates, and the results makes sense to me and countless other people who have reviewed the same data. I don't care enough to try and review and critique the various contradictory studies that have been done on the subject. Congratulations that you have found one that says what you want. I didn't read it, but I'll take your word for it. Why is that one better than others who say the opposite?
Your group think comment is hilarious given that you apparently grew up in Massachusetts. I have a friend who moved to Boston years ago. He owns a company there. He says there is no diversity of thought there. The city is so liberal that anyone who openly is pro Trump or expresses conservative opinions is persecuted. He says they will try and ruin your business, etc., if you are openly conservative. I'm not sure if he is exaggerating or not, but he seems convinced that conservative thought is not welcome in Boston. If you are a product of that environment, I can understand why you can't accept fact when you see it if it contradicts what you were raised to believe.
LMAO, so now your argument has dissolved into not even considering facts and evidenceand blaming someone for utilizing research? That isn't a great look.
I gave you the data. Broke it down into years, by race. You choose not to accept that.
What contradicting studies did people post?
I have posted several that agreed with my assessment. You referenced a WAPO article/database that confirmed my assessment. I don't recall seeing any studies except those I provided.
I think this is relevant because it's more recent and is from a renowned anthropologist and researcher at UC Davis. He has been published several times and has coauthored with several other notable scholars. I would be willing to bet you did read it, but are having a hard time forming a credible argument against it.
There's a difference between opinion and invalidation of the null hypothesis, which you didn't even know what that meant until you just googled it.
Anthropology is not a hard science. It involves a lot of speculation and filling in the gaps whereas hard science doesn't. None of what you think can be proven can actually be shown, no matter how long you google or how many links you post.
This is because it doesn't exist; anyone competent and honest knows you cannot show any sort of racial disparity due to racism today, and if that were true a whole slew of other things would also be true which aren't, like you would see white police officers more likely to be aggressive with black agitators but the opposite is true, black policemen are significantly more likely to use force with black citizens. To compensate for that reality, the sociologists had to come up with pseudo scientific theories like implicit bias, that black officers were racist against themselves unknowingly.
It's all failed logic, motivated reasoning to prove causality simply from correlation, so inherently flawed that it strains credulity people of good will have not long since stood up to stop these people like this anthropologist and this nonsense getting this far. I wouldn't care personally, people are going to believe thigns which aren't true, but this BS costs lives and it will not lead to a better society but a worse one and you can see that playing out clearly in the streets. YUou just misplace the blame.
Anthropology is not a hard science. It involves a lot of speculation and filling in the gaps whereas hard science doesn't. None of what you think can be proven can actually be shown, no matter how long you google or how many links you post.
This is because it doesn't exist; anyone competent and honest knows you cannot show any sort of racial disparity due to racism today, and if that were true a whole slew of other things would also be true which aren't, like you would see white police officers more likely to be aggressive with black agitators but the opposite is true, black policemen are significantly more likely to use force with black citizens. To compensate for that reality, the sociologists had to come up with pseudo scientific theories like implicit bias, that black officers were racist against themselves unknowingly.
It's all failed logic, motivated reasoning to prove causality simply from correlation, so inherently flawed that it strains credulity people of good will have not long since stood up to stop these people like this anthropologist and this nonsense getting this far. I wouldn't care personally, people are going to believe thigns which aren't true, but this BS costs lives and it will not lead to a better society but a worse one and you can see that playing out clearly in the streets. YUou just misplace the blame.
Either he is incredibly paranoid or he lied to you. Now, he could have had a bad experience. There are ******** everywhere. Not to mention, people in Boston and NE in general talk different. It comes across harsh when it really isn't intended. However, Boston is very diverse, welcoming and has it's share of conservatives and independents. Hell, MA has a Republican governor. Boston is obviously a huge part of Ma and you aren't winning state wide office without a good deal of support from Boston.
So you agreed with the study or no? Did you think is was pseudo or from a credible scholar?
You sure utilize a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
Roland G. Fryer, Jr. is a Professor of Economics at Harvard University. Fryer's research combines economic theory, empirical evidence, and randomized experiments to help design more effective government policies. His work on education, inequality, and race has been widely cited in media outlets and Congressional testimony.
shut the NBA down, sick of this garbage the magic and bucks aren’t playing and they’re contacting the wisconsin attorney general in the lockeroom right now can’t even watch sports. I’m glad the media has these popular athletes believing black people are just being hunted down like animals in the streets by police.
In March 2018, Harvard barred Fryer from his research lab, the Education Innovation Laboratory (EdLabs), upon launching an investigation into Title IX complaints against him alleging sexual harassment.[22] Fryer alleged that he was "unfairly scrutinized ... for his skin color."[23] Harvard confirmed that its Office for Dispute Resolution received complaints against Fryer in January, March, and April 2018.[24]
Roland G. Fryer, Jr. is a Professor of Economics at Harvard University. Fryer's research combines economic theory, empirical evidence, and randomized experiments to help design more effective government policies. His work on education, inequality, and race has been widely cited in media outlets and Congressional testimony.
In December 2018, Fryer resigned from the executive committee of the American Economic Association, to which he had been elected (but had not yet taken up his seat); Fryer submitted his resignation after coming under pressure from fellow economists to step down due to the sexual harassment allegations against him.[25] In a letter to the New York Times later that month, Fryer expressed regret for having "allowed, encouraged and participated" an atmosphere at EdLabs that included "off-color jokes" and comments about personal lives, but denied bullying, retaliating against employees, or making sexual advances to any employee.[26]
Harvard's investigation concluded that Fryer had "engaged in unwanted sexual conduct toward several individuals" and "exhibited a pattern of behavior that failed to meet expectations of conduct within our community and was harmful to the well-being of its members."[24] In July 2019, Fryer was suspended from the Harvard faculty for two years without pay, a disciplinary action determined by a panel of tenured faculty.[24][23] Harvard also determined that, after returning from suspension, Fryer cannot be an adviser or supervisor, have access to graduate fellows, or teach graduate workshops, but can teach graduate classes.[23] Fryer had been one of Harvard's most highly paid professors.[23] As the sanctions took effect, Harvard permanently closed EdLabs in September 2019.[27]
In 2016, Fryer published a working paper concluding that although minorities (African Americans and Hispanics) are more likely to experience police use of force than whites, they were not more likely to be shot by police than whites.[11] The study generated considerable controversy and criticism.[12][13][14][15] Fryer responded to some of these criticisms in an interview with the New York Times.[16] In 2019, Fryer's paper was published in the Journal of Political Economy.[17] Other scholars criticized Fryer's study, arguing that due to selection bias, he was unable to draw any conclusions about racial bias in shootings from police stops. If police are more likely to stop a black person than a white person, then the average white person that they stop might be dissimilar to the average black person (for example, the white person might be behaving in a more threatening manner), thus leading to faulty inferences about racial bias in shootings. A 2020 study by Princeton University political scientists disputed the findings by Fryer, saying that if police had a higher threshold for stopping whites, this might mean that the whites, Hispanics and blacks in Fryer's data are not similar.[18] Nobel-laureate James Heckman and Steven Durlauf, both University of Chicago economists, published a response to the Fryer study, writing that the paper "does not establish credible evidence on the presence or absence of discrimination against African Americans in police shootings" due to issues with selection bias.[19].
Roland G. Fryer, Jr. is a Professor of Economics at Harvard University. Fryer's research combines economic theory, empirical evidence, and randomized experiments to help design more effective government policies. His work on education, inequality, and race has been widely cited in media outlets and Congressional testimony.
Those are your words, not mine. For example, another posted noted the Roland Fryer study. Why is the study you linked better than his? My point is that I'm not going to read all of these studies and try to critique them. I don't have the time, the qualifications, nor the interest to do it. You found a study that presumably supports what you say. The Fryer study would not agree. There are other studies that have looked at the same thing and some would agree and some would disagree with the study you linked.
You obviously disagree, but I'm not sold on the idea that an anthropologist is going to give me a study based on hard data without trying to account for cultural bias and things like that which cant really be measured. Like I said, I didn't read it. Nor have I read Fryer's study. Nor am I interested enough to read either. I can think for myself and we have data that is easy enough to obtain and do analysis from.
That is dumb! Not doing your job isn't going to garner justice. At least give people some entertainment to stay home and off the streets.
Well I just posted why. His was widely discredited and he is currently suspended from Harvard for sexual harrassment, in which his defense is that he was targeted for being black. Do you feel like his would be that credible?
The Fryer study is better because it's done by a competent academic, it's much more thorough and much more careful with data than anything you will see from a soft scientist like a sociologist.
All real scientists, or otherwise competent academics, come to the same conclusion as Fryer and they don't go around spreading lies, bastardizing statistics and taking advantage of the public's scientific naivete to promote an agenda.
An agenda that costs lives.
All real scientists, or otherwise competent academics, come to the same conclusion as Fryer and they don't go around spreading lies, bastardizing statistics and taking advantage of the public's scientific naivete to promote an agenda.
An agenda that costs lives.
So then why was he widely discredited?
In 2016, Fryer published a working paper concluding that although minorities (African Americans and Hispanics) are more likely to experience police use of force than whites, they were not more likely to be shot by police than whites.[11] The study generated considerable controversy and criticism.[12][13][14][15] Fryer responded to some of these criticisms in an interview with the New York Times.[16] In 2019, Fryer's paper was published in the Journal of Political Economy.[17] Other scholars criticized Fryer's study, arguing that due to selection bias, he was unable to draw any conclusions about racial bias in shootings from police stops. If police are more likely to stop a black person than a white person, then the average white person that they stop might be dissimilar to the average black person (for example, the white person might be behaving in a more threatening manner), thus leading to faulty inferences about racial bias in shootings. A 2020 study by Princeton University political scientists disputed the findings by Fryer, saying that if police had a higher threshold for stopping whites, this might mean that the whites, Hispanics and blacks in Fryer's data are not similar.[18] Nobel-laureate James Heckman and Steven Durlauf, both University of Chicago economists, published a response to the Fryer study, writing that the paper "does not establish credible evidence on the presence or absence of discrimination against African Americans in police shootings" due to issues with selection bias.[19].
You simply won't see it, no one like Neil Degrasse Tyson is going to make these BS arguments, but plenty of Lebron's or Jamile's will...
And there's a reason(s) for that
And there's a reason(s) for that