He doesn't make the same flawed argument the proponents of the systemic racism myth make.
You will never see a real scientist bastardize the data the way WaPo or whomver so happily do
You will never see a real scientist bastardize the data the way WaPo or whomver so happily do
You will never see a real scientist make the sort of claims on the data or the reality of systemic racism you hear thrown around carelessly on CNN, and there's a reason for that.
I don't think whether or not he sexually harassed someone has any bearing on the quality of his work, so I couldn't care less about that. Whether his study is above criticism, I haven't read it. I would assume most any study can be criticized.
A quick google search on the article you posted turned up a criticism of his use of maps of county level estimates. I'm not sure what that is referring to, but no study will be free of criticisms.
Once again, I'm not going to read all these studies and try to figure out which ones are the best. I'm not qualified or interested enough to do that. I'm going to look at the data, do some calculations and draw my own conclusions. If you want to embrace studies that agree with your preconceived opinion, then have at it. It doesn't mean those studies are any better than the ones who disagree with your preconceived opinion. Lots of people do studies to get a certain result. I chose not to get into that and instead think for myself.
Lol, I think it calls into question his honesty, integrity and character. Particularly how he tried to blame it on being black. And again, when there were multiple cases/instances that were found to be credible enough to warrant a 2 year suspension. That's some pretty serious stuff.
Also, it wasn't just a couple or something trivial. There were other renowened economist and scientists that came about against his research methods and data sources. Seems very odd you would consider it credible after all that. It's as if you only find it credible because it agrees with your narrative.
It doesn't matter obviously with the respect to the quality of his work and analysis.
It's probably not a coincidence that he bucks the status quo $perpetuated$ by pseudoscientist academcis in the soft academic fields of psychology or grievance studies, only to be #metoo discredited.
There's lots of money on the line, funding, and there are fledgling academic egos of these people who can't cut it in real science so they go to sociology or they can't even do that...study something entirely farcical like the $grievance$ studies.
Lol, so now we have dissolved to creating a conspiracy theory to explain his indiscretions and knocks to his credibility? That is truly sad.
You are reading what you want to read, which seems to be a pattern with you. I never said it was a credible study. I said I am not qualified, nor interested, in reading various studies and trying to determine which ones are more credible than others. I can think for myself and do my own analysis if I so desire. Nice try though.
all this racism talk is just destabilization they’re building up the marxist ranks for the revolt
Hahaha, I am reading it all and considering it openly. However, the data a credible studies clearly indicates than, in America, black people are disproportionately killed at the hands of law enforcement. Regardless of circumstance, economics, geographics and so forth.
If you don't think you are qualified to read studies and understand data, I am not sure how you can feel qualified to do your own analysis? Seems kind of contradictory.
of re-educating generations of students to change their ways of thinking. He believed this development would successfully occur in the United States when the student radicals of the 1960s and '70s came to power and assumed roles as educators and business leaders. According to Bezmenov, these individuals would throw out classical education and weaken belief in traditional Judeo-Christian moral values.
They would indoctrinate future students and our business culture with Marxist-Leninist values (such as destroying free speech and replacing it with politically correct speech codes). The truth of this prophecy is evidenced by simply witnessing (1) what passes for education today in our high schools and colleges, where virulent anti-Americanism is embedded in the educational system and thus becomes part of the student's values, and (2) the infusions of cash by major business entities to social movements such as BLM or Antifa.
Referring to such people and, in turn, to the new generations of students they would lead astray, Bezmenov said, "Exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him."
He continued: "They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior."
Stage two, "destabilization," is a process of weakening the essential structural elements of a nation by targeting changes in its economy, defense systems and international relations, such as the effort to overhaul 20% of the economy through Obamacare or providing billions of dollars to Iran.
The third stage utilizes "crisis" (whether it be a pandemic or the killing of an unarmed black man) to achieve the ends of the revolution. During this time, "a violent change of power, structure and economy" can take hold. It can also accelerate the process of redistributing wealth.
And finally, Bezmenov referred to stage four as "normalization" — what we may now call a "new normal." By this time, America has basically been taken over and lives under a new ideology and reality.
He warned us this is what will happen to America unless it guards against people who desire to bring on times of crisis: "If people will fail to grasp the impending danger of that development, nothing can help the United States. You may kiss goodbye to your freedom."
They would indoctrinate future students and our business culture with Marxist-Leninist values (such as destroying free speech and replacing it with politically correct speech codes). The truth of this prophecy is evidenced by simply witnessing (1) what passes for education today in our high schools and colleges, where virulent anti-Americanism is embedded in the educational system and thus becomes part of the student's values, and (2) the infusions of cash by major business entities to social movements such as BLM or Antifa.
Referring to such people and, in turn, to the new generations of students they would lead astray, Bezmenov said, "Exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him."
He continued: "They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior."
Stage two, "destabilization," is a process of weakening the essential structural elements of a nation by targeting changes in its economy, defense systems and international relations, such as the effort to overhaul 20% of the economy through Obamacare or providing billions of dollars to Iran.
The third stage utilizes "crisis" (whether it be a pandemic or the killing of an unarmed black man) to achieve the ends of the revolution. During this time, "a violent change of power, structure and economy" can take hold. It can also accelerate the process of redistributing wealth.
And finally, Bezmenov referred to stage four as "normalization" — what we may now call a "new normal." By this time, America has basically been taken over and lives under a new ideology and reality.
He warned us this is what will happen to America unless it guards against people who desire to bring on times of crisis: "If people will fail to grasp the impending danger of that development, nothing can help the United States. You may kiss goodbye to your freedom."
It's very easy for real scientists (not anthropologists/sociologists/WaPo journalists or with other motives) to see the glaring flaws in the type of studies leadbelliy links, which is why you will never see a hard scientist make those sort of claims that are predicated on data misuse.
You will never see Neil Degrasse Tyson,(sometone of that intellectual caliberI just used him because he's known but he also got #metoo-ed incidentally) make these claims of rate or disproportionately or whtaver
The data is not there and the logic is not there because it's a lie. If you have to lie to prove a point, it's because your point is a lie.
You will never see Neil Degrasse Tyson,(sometone of that intellectual caliberI just used him because he's known but he also got #metoo-ed incidentally) make these claims of rate or disproportionately or whtaver
The data is not there and the logic is not there because it's a lie. If you have to lie to prove a point, it's because your point is a lie.
Lol, not even close. You've bought into the conspiracies and fear-mongering tactics a certain political ideology is selling.
oh I see anything that you don’t like is suddenly a conspiracy theory and fear mongering ok sure bro keep being blind
Proud black Replublicans standing up all over the place. Even Leo Terrell went TRUMP!
You have reiterated time and again that any source who doesn't share your viewpoint is not credible. It's quite comical.
Ohh, there's lot's of things I don't like that are credible; however, this wouldn't be one.
Republicans have claimed every election for decades that if democrats win they will bring about communism and socialism. It's never happened. Likewise, democrats have claimed Republicans will bring about the end of democracy and the rise of a dictatorship. That hasn't happened either. You are being played!
that’s not what yuri is saying he’s not even talking about political parties. Lol?
Lol, are you really trying to deny what you are using it to insinuate? Don't play the appeal to ignorance fallacy. You can do better!
It would be very easy to prove systemic racism were it real. If a competent scientist wanted to, he could take data from the 1950s and definitively show the effects of systemic racism in all manner of interactions because it was real. He could easily prove the correlation as causal in nature without speculation and it could be done by real scientists, no social epidemiologists required.
These weak studies you link are failed and flawed logic due to motivated reasoning, done exclusively by political scientists or anthropologists or sociologists or other lesser academics, and never done by hard scientists to reach the grossly misleading claims that they do in the media.
This is because they cannot actually falsify the null hypothesis; their conclusions are not predicated on data, but upon data misuse. They only ever prove that which they set out to prove because the core logical flaw, namely the circular reasoning, is already baked into the cake.
All hard scientists understand this, why they let this farce continue in $academia$ is anyone's guess, no conspiracy theory needed, just true scientific rigor will show you cannot make the claims you make.
And that doesn't even make them not true, just that you couldn't prove it true. The distortion in the media costs lives, sows hatred and discord, and that can easily be proven true... it's no $joke$
These weak studies you link are failed and flawed logic due to motivated reasoning, done exclusively by political scientists or anthropologists or sociologists or other lesser academics, and never done by hard scientists to reach the grossly misleading claims that they do in the media.
This is because they cannot actually falsify the null hypothesis; their conclusions are not predicated on data, but upon data misuse. They only ever prove that which they set out to prove because the core logical flaw, namely the circular reasoning, is already baked into the cake.
All hard scientists understand this, why they let this farce continue in $academia$ is anyone's guess, no conspiracy theory needed, just true scientific rigor will show you cannot make the claims you make.
And that doesn't even make them not true, just that you couldn't prove it true. The distortion in the media costs lives, sows hatred and discord, and that can easily be proven true... it's no $joke$
Lol, scholars, scientist and others have proven systemic racism has continued to exist in our society well beyond the 50's snd 60's. They have proven it still exists today. Maybe not to the degree some claim, but still far more than certain dudes would want you to believe.
They cannot let you in on knowledge that could disrupt that status quo. It must be discredited at all costs. They will gaslight you and use fear-mongering tactics. They will google terminology like null-hypothesis, which they have no background or working knowledge of, to convince others they are more knowledgeable than reality dictates. If you notice, they never actually provide real sources or data. They will tell you they can't because you wouldn't understand; that they aren't going to do the work for you; or they just reference tweets posted from ghost accounts that clearly aren't the person they reference, and are always taken out of context, missing key components.
They will work to convince you what times will be like under other leadership, even though it's happening real time under the current. It's all a ploy for maintaining power and racial dominance.
They cannot let you in on knowledge that could disrupt that status quo. It must be discredited at all costs. They will gaslight you and use fear-mongering tactics. They will google terminology like null-hypothesis, which they have no background or working knowledge of, to convince others they are more knowledgeable than reality dictates. If you notice, they never actually provide real sources or data. They will tell you they can't because you wouldn't understand; that they aren't going to do the work for you; or they just reference tweets posted from ghost accounts that clearly aren't the person they reference, and are always taken out of context, missing key components.
They will work to convince you what times will be like under other leadership, even though it's happening real time under the current. It's all a ploy for maintaining power and racial dominance.
Last edited:
Then give me a critique of the statistical techniques he uses and if there are any bias that could have been introduced in the selection process. Is there heteroscedantcity in the data. There are probably other questions I could ask, but if you think you are qualified to judge those kinds of issues in each study, I would love to hear your thoughts.
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.
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. 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.
It's also another instance of him not being able to think on a higher logical level.
That it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it can't or won't happen, nor does it even statistically affect the likelihood of the future event happening. That's the type of fundamental reasoning ability necessary to thinking probabilistic that is always absent in these discussions.
He also just tells you you are being played, imitation is not sincere flattery here, I've been making the claim that these people have been played by media and failed by society for a long while on the catpaw now, and I say that as a liberal.
This thread is itself proof... no scholar can prove systemic racism except the motivated ones involved in pseudo science who can fill in the gaps, any real look by a hard scientist shows it's all nonsense. I'd welcome any serious look at the mathematics and logic of it all by anyone capable of it, leadbelly simply isn't that.
If these lie were true, they could be easily proven true and they wouldn't rely on taking advantage of the public's scientific or mathematical illiteracy and they wouldn't involve emotional appeals like "put yourself in their shoes!" No, all of this costs lives, normalizing or justifying bad behavior towards cops or other lawlessness... the purveyors of these half-truths are making a dire mistake.
Last edited:
Reading from his paper isn’t critiquing his paper. You seem to think that the average person can discern how good a study is, well lets see your critique. I would like to start with the pluses and minuses of the statistical techniques he chose. Could there be others that might be more appropriate?
Yea, they were really good and well applied for coming up with the data that was able to be derived.
This data set is less likely to be biased by police reporting practices, because it relied less on the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide Reports that were constructed from self-reported cases of police-involved homicide. Another benefit is the multi level modeling. It is also built off the most updated data sets available.
I am not familiar of any real negatives. Heterogeneity in encounter rates between suspects and police as a function of race could play a strong role in the racial biases in shooting rates presented, and it would be nice to see this study replicated using varying metbods instead of the bayesian method.
Now what's yours?
Regurgitating what’s in the paper isn’t a critique.
I didn't. I wrote that. Obviously I had to use the study to develop my analysis.
IIRC, didn't you say you didn't even read the study?
Correct, I didn’t read it, but I recognize something that is taking comments the author is making about his work from an outside objective analysis of the author’s work. Your comments are clearly a regurgitation of comments in the paper.
Last edited:
They are mine. Obviously you were hoping I wouldn't be able to respond to your question. Now you just want to discredit its origins.
Just a reminder... twice as many black people have died during the protest as were killed unarmed by police in all of 2019. That isn't counting all black on black murders. That's just during the act of protesting. If you say you understand the outrage then you should buy heroin for addicts.
Because they stupidly don’t follow cops commands when caught committing a crime?