Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 10-16-2018, 04:43 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
No, I'm very interested in the studies you cited, and I'm very interested in finding more data, both since the data available is so sparse, and since the ProPublica study directly conflicts with the data you cited.
Pro publica didn't do a study.

They did some simple math.

Quote:
But because your mind is already made up on this, and you're choosing to dismiss any data that doesn't match your preconceived notions, I'm not really interested in further exploration of your opinions on the issue.
Its not data. 37 deaths over 3 years is simply not data.

Neither of us are going to change each others minds.
My mind will not change until the facts change.
Your mind will not change until your feelings change.

Quote:
And not surprisingly, you're misstating my views on some other things, a discussion of which would probably belong in another thread.
I'm sorry you're right, you did not say you were disregarding the peer reviewed studies. You simply went ahead and placed it on even footing with the pro publica crap. If anyone other than a liberal on this board tried to pull this sort of bullshit, they would be buried under a mountain of jeers and ridicule.

The FACT of the matter is that accusations of racism as you expressed in your last post are abused to vilify those that disagree with you and allow you to close your mind to the notion that you might be wrong.
  #202  
Old 10-16-2018, 05:13 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,249
Any study about police violence would be "some simple math", since such a study would involve nothing more than mathematical analysis of statistics. But okay, we're done on this. You're not interested in any information that doesn't confirm your own preconceived notions. And manufacturing accusations of racism, apparently, since I didn't call you a racist (but hey, cry wolf if that's your thing).

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-16-2018 at 05:14 PM.
  #203  
Old 10-16-2018, 10:31 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Any study about police violence would be "some simple math", since such a study would involve nothing more than mathematical analysis of statistics. But okay, we're done on this. You're not interested in any information that doesn't confirm your own preconceived notions. And manufacturing accusations of racism, apparently, since I didn't call you a racist (but hey, cry wolf if that's your thing).
So when you say "considering what you've said before about black culture..." you are NOT implying that I may be racist?
What you're doing is plain for all to see.

And no, the studies on police violence did more than just crunch numbers. It was an actual study that analyzed the numbers and compared them ti the situations when deaths occurred and they came to the conclusion that cops do not kill blacks more often than whites.

Pro publica seems to have gone through the numbers and said, "hey, lets see if there is some sliver of the data set where we see really big disparities and call that a statistic and rile up the rubes into thinking that the number is indicative of something" They found 37 deaths out of thousands over three years and call it an epidemic of some sort. Its statistical noise.

Like I said, based on pro-publica's methodology, cops kill asian teenagers at 3 times the rate they kill white kids.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 10-16-2018 at 10:33 PM.
  #204  
Old 10-16-2018, 10:58 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
What you're doing is plain for all to see.
...no it isn't. iiandyiiii has a reputation for being a "straight shooter." If he intended to call you racist he would have just called you racist. He didn't: he gave you a careful, specific and nuanced reply. What is plain to see is that you have chosen to interpret his reply in the worst possible of ways.
  #205  
Old 10-17-2018, 02:23 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
How many arguments have you won with racists?
All of them?
Quote:
Have you changed even one racist mind in your life? Probably not.
At least 5 that I know of...
Quote:
But unless you are saying that all Trump supporters are racists and bigots
It's an interesting question - I would say "all Trump supporters are unquestionably supporters of racism and bigotry" and argue that it's a picayune distinction.
Quote:
there are in fact people whose minds can be changed and shouting them down with accusations of racism isn't going to do it.
Once again - it's not the racists I expect will change. It's the subsequent generations.
Quote:
No, I think they can debate just fine. I know Mari Matsuda
Oh, and have you told her your views on CRT?
Quote:
and as Posner says, she is among the most likely contemporary legal scholars to have a long lasting effect on society. She uses Crit race theory to try and provide another lens through which we can [should?] view the law. She doesn't use it as the foundation for legal arguments.
I wouldn't know, I don't follow her cases. But you admit she uses it for arguing what the law should be. How does that gel with CRT only gaining traction with losers?
Quote:
No that's not what crit race theory does. Here is the wiki link for our viewers at home. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
From your own cite:
Quote:
CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.
I'm sorry, what about what I said disagrees with that?
Quote:
Science and facts beg to differ.
Give me the scientific definition of "Truth", then...
Quote:
You can proselityze on this board but the board does in fact have a mission. Its right there in the banner (its in a small font tho).
Dude, that's a (stupid) fucking marketing slogan. Not holy writ. Don't make the mistake of thinking it is.
Quote:
I think you are misinterpreting the notion that race is a social construct.
No, I'm just highlighting one implication of that fact.Social constructs are inherently subjective. You disagree?
Quote:
So you think that you photo proves that America is Naziland? Really?
Are those not Nazis?
Quote:
It seems like you do.
I'd say the same for you.

As your refusal to carry out empirical studies shows.
Quote:
I think I have some idea what your political goals are (or at least your political views). I think any7one reading this thread does.
Oh, really? From this thread(not elsewhere on the Dope) you think you can identify my political views? What would those be, then, pray tell? In 5 words or less.
Quote:
OK fine. Do you think the civil rights movement could have stopped the Holocaust?
Sure. Of course, it wouldn't look like the Civil Rights movement of King by the end. Probably end up a lot more like the ANC...
Quote:
I take your point, and not to quibble but those were widely regarded as revolutions not civil rights movements.
"Not to quibble" but you're going to anyway. And like all quibbles it's a distinction without real difference you choose to make.

Let me expand - the first sentence of your cite is:
The Revolutions of 1989 formed part of a revolutionary wave in the late 1980s and early 1990s that resulted in the end of communist rule in Central and Eastern Europe and beyond.
What do we find under the heading of "20th C" at that 1st link?
The Black Power movement and the Civil Rights Movement organized successful protests against government and private discrimination. Continuing unrest in African-American communities led to the multi-city riots during the "Long Hot Summer of 1967" and the various 1968 riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. In Trinidad the Black Power Revolution is successful.
Please, by all means continue to give cites that undercut your own arguments...

Quote:
It does when I am repeating an actual argument.
Except you're not, though. You're just posting a link. "making an argument" would be, you know, actually making all those critique points in this thread,
Quote:
"shit in one hand democracy in the other" is an argument? I STILL don't know WTF that was about.
Try it and see. It doesn't have to be your own shit. You could try a big handful of bullshit, for instance...
Quote:
Who said that again?
Peter Wood. More specifically, he said "Its pretense, [...], is that the Civil Rights Movement was hollow and that we continue to live in a nation the laws of which are pervasively racist."

Oh, I bet you're going to "quibble" that that's not exactly the same as "no white racism inherent in the US legal system" - knock yourself out.
Quote:
Just FYI history and actual laws on the books are not generally considered subjective anecdotes or storytelling.
People's experience of same, is.
Quote:
Brack Obama
Mark Zuckerberg
Hillary Clinton
Firstly, "general rule". Secondly -
  • Not allowed to fully succeed - by a Congress of mostly White Males, I might add
  • Zuckerberg is a White Male, what is that supposed to refute?
  • Is Clinton president? Stop making my arguments for me.
Quote:
See Jewish-Americans Generally
White
Quote:
See Asian-Americans generally
How many Asian congresspeople? How many Presidents?
Quote:
See African immigrants generally
Are you fucking kidding me?
Quote:
See Cuban-Americans generally
The White ones, like Cruz and Rubio...
Quote:
Because the argument of crit race theory isn't that white males have an advantage (which, I think most people could agree with). Its that white males have an almost unassailable advantage.
You saying that's not the case? And "But, Barack Obama..." is, under it all,the sum total of your "logical" reasoning for that?
Quote:
Because knew that white males had it easier long before crit race theory came along. What crit race theory adds to the mix is the notion that this advantage is almost insurmountable.
No, CRT is not that fatalistic. What CRT points out is that not only is the deck stacked, it's that way by design. And purposefully kept that way.
Quote:
Once again, that's called a revolution.
Errm, no. Learn about South African history before you attempt a gotchya at me about it, please. The faction that set Apartheid in place got into power through a democratic process.
Quote:
Pure ideal or not, democracy is what we have and its better than anything else we've come up with to date.
We've come up with better. They just weren't allowed to succeed by outside forces.
Quote:
And in fact I bet you probably are more in favor of the "pure ideal" of democracy rather than what we have now with the gerrymandering and the voter suppression and all that shit.
Well, I am even less in favour of false dichotomies compared to "pure ideal" democracy, so in a way you're probably right. Of course, it's possible to have a modern non-pure democracy without "all that shit", which would be even better. Still not my first choice, but of course you know that, since you know all about my political leanings and all.
  #206  
Old 10-17-2018, 02:25 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
So you don't find facts convincing because you think I'm racist? Or are you calling me racist because you want to ignore the peer reviewed studies that I am presenting to rebutt your pro-publica article?
Where did andy call you a racist? Did you report him? This is GD after all, can't have that sort of thing here. Quote where he did so, and hell, I'll report it for you.

Last edited by MrDibble; 10-17-2018 at 02:26 AM.
  #207  
Old 10-17-2018, 05:23 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Pro publica seems to have gone through the numbers and said, "hey, lets see if there is some sliver of the data set where we see really big disparities and call that a statistic and rile up the rubes into thinking that the number is indicative of something" They found 37 deaths out of thousands over three years and call it an epidemic of some sort. Its statistical noise.
This isn't how statistics work. Like it or not, there's a lot of science to statistics, and things like risk ratio and confidence level are based in good science. That's how we can extrapolate from polling and margins of error to the feelings of the whole country. It's no more "statistical noise" than a poll of ~800 people is. It's by no means a perfect and conclusive measure, but it's a piece of data that provides useful information.

Quote:
Like I said, based on pro-publica's methodology, cops kill asian teenagers at 3 times the rate they kill white kids.
Maybe this is true. I'd certainly be interested in looking further into it.
  #208  
Old 10-17-2018, 09:09 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...no it isn't. iiandyiiii has a reputation for being a "straight shooter." If he intended to call you racist he would have just called you racist. He didn't: he gave you a careful, specific and nuanced reply. What is plain to see is that you have chosen to interpret his reply in the worst possible of ways.
No. He has a reputation for being polite and cordial while putting up with impolite rude posters.

If he just called me a racist as he intended to, he would get modded or banned in great debates. Or did you not know that you weren't allowed to call people racist in great debates? Yeah, neither did I.
  #209  
Old 10-17-2018, 10:05 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
No. He has a reputation for being polite and cordial while putting up with impolite rude posters.

If he just called me a racist as he intended to, he would get modded or banned in great debates. Or did you not know that you weren't allowed to call people racist in great debates? Yeah, neither did I.
Another Doper prospective mind-reader, and like the rest, you're failing at it.
  #210  
Old 10-17-2018, 01:34 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Oh, and have you told her your views on CRT?
Yes in conversations about how CRT and law and economics intersect. One of the basic premises of law & economics is that in a system without transaction costs, society still ends up maximizing value so society is no better or worse off regardless of where the law places a burden. CRT intersects with law and econ by saying that society has historically placed that burden on the shoulders of women and minorities and contrary to law and econ's premise that all we have to do is sufficiently reduce transaction costs and the rest basically takes care of itself; the racial architecture in this country places a disproportionate amount of the burden of reaching optimal outcomes is placed on women and minorities. So while society might still maximizes value, the individual identity of who benefits from the maximization of value is not equitably distributed. There's a lot more to it but you get the flavor.

She does not really defend the use of CRT outside of legal scholarship. She certainly doesn't go as far as some people do to say that minorities are virtually precluded from success in this country.

Quote:
I wouldn't know, I don't follow her cases. But you admit she uses it for arguing what the law should be. How does that gel with CRT only gaining traction with losers?
Losers? I don't recall calling you a loser. Matsuda doesn't use it in cases, she uses it in law review articles and essays. She uses it in those sort of arguments. She uses it to explain how the apparently fair laws are distorted because they have been set up so the toast always lands buttered side up for some groups and buttered side down for others. And even if the laws were entirely fair, they administered by human lawyers and judges who have implicit biases.

Quote:
Give me the scientific definition of "Truth", then...
Off the top of my head, facts.

You cannot create stories and narratives and treat them like facts.

You cannot pluck out an anecdote and treat them like data.

Quote:
Dude, that's a (stupid) fucking marketing slogan. Not holy writ. Don't make the mistake of thinking it is.
Never said it was. Like I said, you are free to proselytize and you are effectively preaching Christianity in Kansas here. But I still think it is a worthwhile endeavor to fight ignorance.

Quote:
No, I'm just highlighting one implication of that fact.Social constructs are inherently subjective. You disagree?
No but the effects of racism are not.

Quote:
Are those not Nazis?
Yes but I can show you a picture of BLM and that wouldn't make this BLM land.

Quote:
I'd say the same for you
You would be wrong.

Quote:
As your refusal to carry out empirical studies shows.
Wait, when did I refuse to carry out empirical studies? Why the fuck should I when others have already done so?

Quote:
Oh, really? From this thread(not elsewhere on the Dope) you think you can identify my political views? What would those be, then, pray tell? In 5 words or less.
Really, that's your quibble? That I couldn't tell from only reading the 5 pages of this thread rather than the hundreds of other pages of your posts that make your political views pretty clear. Your beliefs are no secret, I do not distort them or misrepresent them. I believe you on the other hand have almost no idea what I believe. I suspect it is because you don't care what I believe, you only know that I am not toeing the ultra-liberal CRT orthodoxy that this site seems to require these days.

Quote:
Sure. Of course, it wouldn't look like the Civil Rights movement of King by the end. Probably end up a lot more like the ANC...
"Not to quibble" but you're going to anyway. And like all quibbles it's a distinction without real difference you choose to make.

Let me expand - the first sentence of your cite is:
The Revolutions of 1989 formed part of a revolutionary wave in the late 1980s and early 1990s that resulted in the end of communist rule in Central and Eastern Europe and beyond.
What do we find under the heading of "20th C" at that 1st link?
The Black Power movement and the Civil Rights Movement organized successful protests against government and private discrimination. Continuing unrest in African-American communities led to the multi-city riots during the "Long Hot Summer of 1967" and the various 1968 riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. In Trinidad the Black Power Revolution is successful.
Please, by all means continue to give cites that undercut your own arguments...
How does this undercut my argument? None of those are examples of minorities getting what they want from a tyrannical government through a civil rights movement like the one we had. In fact one of the quoted examples IS the civil rights movement that we had.

Quote:
Except you're not, though. You're just posting a link. "making an argument" would be, you know, actually making all those critique points in this thread,
OK CR is bullshit because it relies on subjective experience, anecdotes and storytelling. It plays upon emotion rather than reason.

Quote:
Try it and see. It doesn't have to be your own shit. You could try a big handful of bullshit, for instance...


Quote:
Peter Wood. More specifically, he said "Its pretense, [...], is that the Civil Rights Movement was hollow and that we continue to live in a nation the laws of which are pervasively racist."

Oh, I bet you're going to "quibble" that that's not exactly the same as "no white racism inherent in the US legal system" - knock yourself out.
WTF!?!?! You think there is negligible distance between "there is no white racism in the US legal system" and we do not "continue to live in a world that is a nation of laws that is pervasively racist"

That is in fact a common criticism of CRT. CRT would have you believe that racism is so bad in America that the American dream is an illusion.

Quote:
People's experience of same, is.
Firstly, "general rule". Secondly -
  • Not allowed to fully succeed - by a Congress of mostly White Males, I might add
  • Zuckerberg is a White Male, what is that supposed to refute?
Well, he's Jewish.
And what do you mean fully succeed?

Quote:
[*]Is Clinton president? Stop making my arguments for me.
She is successful by every reasonable measurement.
Nothing stopped her from becoming the "presumptive nominee of a major political party and frankly the favorite to win the general election.

Quote:
White
Do those Nazis/White Supremecists think Jews are white too? Whiteness is not something you can measure with a Pantene color swatch. Some Jews may have convinced themselves that they are white, the Nazis aren't convinced.

Quote:
How many Asian congresspeople?
About a dozen. A bit less than their percentage of the population if you only count citizens that are able to vote.

Quote:
How many Presidents?
How many Jewish presidents? I mean, they white, right? This is indicative of nothing.

Quote:
Are you fucking kidding me?
Nope

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_...rity:_Africans

Quote:
The White ones, like Cruz and Rubio...
No, just run of the mill Cubans in Miami. I mean unless your definition of success is becoming president or senator or something, I think most people consider the Cuban community to be reasonably well off. This is all just a list of model minorities. Model minorities are a prickly issue for CRT academics because its hard to explain why they aren't all living in abject poverty under the overwhelming racism in society.

Quote:
You saying that's not the case? And "But, Barack Obama..." is, under it all,the sum total of your "logical" reasoning for that?
It is one example that provides strong evidence against the notion.

If you said women can't fight on the front lines and then a woman earned a congressional medal of honor for singlehandedly punching every terrorist in the balls, it would make your statement much less tenable. So, while an Obama presidency doesn't prove that racism doesn't exist it does prove that it can be overcome.

Quote:
No, CRT is not that fatalistic. What CRT points out is that not only is the deck stacked, it's that way by design. And purposefully kept that way.
By who? Who is this conspiracy that is Purposely designing and maintaining this white supremacist society?

ISTM that CRT doesn't believe that society can be made fair and that we must have things like AA until we achieve fairness (which will be evidenced by the lack of a need for AA to achieve proportional representation at every socio economic level). It is ends driven and not intellectually honest or principled.

Quote:
Errm, no. Learn about South African history before you attempt a gotchya at me about it, please. The faction that set Apartheid in place got into power through a democratic process.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about America and the American Revolution. I didn't realize you were pontificating about the situation in America from fucking South Africa. So the end of Apartheid was not the result of a movement by a minority, was it?

Quote:
We've come up with better. They just weren't allowed to succeed by outside forces.
Like what? I'm sure it will be practical.
  #211  
Old 10-17-2018, 01:55 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This isn't how statistics work. Like it or not, there's a lot of science to statistics, and things like risk ratio and confidence level are based in good science. That's how we can extrapolate from polling and margins of error to the feelings of the whole country. It's no more "statistical noise" than a poll of ~800 people is. It's by no means a perfect and conclusive measure, but it's a piece of data that provides useful information.
It provides about as much useful "data" as the one shooting of an Asian boy does on police inclination to shoot Asian boys. The ONE statistician that they used for this backed away from the "study"

So I understand something about statistics. Do you?

What pro-publica did was engage in P-mining or data dredging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging

If you pick through a data set looking for a particular relationship long enough, you will find a statistically significant relationship somewhere. Statistical significance just tells us that there is a 95% chance that a result is not random. It doesn't tell you what might cause the non-randomness. That is what a study does. N The Pro-Publica "study" just throws the number out there with no context other than "look, cops killed a disproportionate of black people" with the implication that it is racism.

You ever play roulette and sometimes you see a long line of red or black numbers. If you just took that clump of red numbers you would might be able to reach the conclusion that red is more likely to be rolled than a black number. But its just noise.

Quote:
Maybe this is true. I'd certainly be interested in looking further into it.
Why? It's statistical noise
  #212  
Old 10-17-2018, 02:08 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
It provides about as much useful "data" as the one shooting of an Asian boy does on police inclination to shoot Asian boys. The ONE statistician that they used for this backed away from the "study"

So I understand something about statistics. Do you?

What pro-publica did was engage in P-mining or data dredging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging

If you pick through a data set looking for a particular relationship long enough, you will find a statistically significant relationship somewhere. Statistical significance just tells us that there is a 95% chance that a result is not random. It doesn't tell you what might cause the non-randomness. That is what a study does. N The Pro-Publica "study" just throws the number out there with no context other than "look, cops killed a disproportionate of black people" with the implication that it is racism.

You ever play roulette and sometimes you see a long line of red or black numbers. If you just took that clump of red numbers you would might be able to reach the conclusion that red is more likely to be rolled than a black number. But its just noise.

Why? It's statistical noise
They didn't data dredge. They were specifically looking for data about shootings of black and white people by police. And they presented that data. They're not saying, and I'm not saying, "this is conclusive evidence of racism". They're just saying "this is interesting and should be studied further", which is what I'm saying as well.

You appear to have made a conclusion based on other studies, and no other data presented can affect your conclusion. IMO, that's ridiculous and unscientific, but you're free to make such a conclusion if you wish.

As to whether such numbers are "noise" or not, further investigation might reveal this. We certainly don't have enough information to make such a conclusion at this point.

Your certainty is unconvincing to me.
  #213  
Old 10-17-2018, 04:00 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
She does not really defend the use of CRT outside of legal scholarship. She certainly doesn't go as far as some people do to say that minorities are virtually precluded from success in this country.
Have you ever asked her?
Quote:
Losers? I don't recall calling you a loser.
I'm not referring to myself. Reread post #186.
Quote:
She uses it in those sort of arguments.
You didn't specify "only losers at legal arguments" when you called CRT a cancer or a loser's tactic.
Quote:
Off the top of my head, facts.
Naah, sorry, facts and truth are not synonymous, and the fact/truth (synthetic/analytic) distinction has been the subject of endless debate. You don't get to declare that resolved for all of Science.
Quote:
You cannot create stories and narratives and treat them like facts.
No, you cannot pretend like narratives and stories of e.g. experiences of racism are complete fiction unrelated to real lived experience.
Quote:
You cannot pluck out an anecdote and treat them like data.
Anecdotes are data.

"The plural of anecdote is not data" is a terrible guideline in social sciences, and anyway, it's a horrible misquote of the original.
Quote:
Never said it was.
Naah, you just treat it that way.
Quote:
No but the effects of racism are not.
Really? You're blithely saying that on this board, where people will quite happily tell you things were better for everyone 50 years ago? You'd think if the effects of racism are so purely objective, there'd be so much doubting of its existence here?
Quote:
Yes but I can show you a picture of BLM and that wouldn't make this BLM land.
This would be a fair point ... if BLM had a President and Congress behind it, the way the Nazis continue to have.
Quote:
You would be wrong.
Not from the posts I'm reading...
Quote:

Wait, when did I refuse to carry out empirical studies?
I've repeatedly suggested on you refuse to carry out...
Quote:
Really, that's your quibble?
It's not a "quibble" - you're the one who brought up the self-evident-within-this-thread nature of my politics:
"I think any7one reading this thread does."[sic]
And don't think I didn't notice that you didn't even try to actually answer the question.
Quote:
How does this undercut my argument?
You're trying to draw an artificial distinction between Civil Rights and Revolutions, but your own cite's cite includes Civil Rights movements in the same class of movement as the Revolutions you cited. Proving the distinction is artificial.
Quote:
OK CR is bullshit because it relies on subjective experience, anecdotes and storytelling. It plays upon emotion rather than reason.
Like I said, we aren't robots, and there's nothing wrong with emotion.
Quote:
So much for empiricism, eh?
Quote:
You think there is negligible distance between "there is no white racism in the US legal system" and we do not "continue to live in a world that is a nation of laws that is pervasively racist"
Since neither of those is an accurate quote of what either I or Wood actually wrote, I don't have an opinion on the truth value of your statement.
Quote:
That is in fact a common criticism of CRT. CRT would have you believe that racism is so bad in America that the American dream is an illusion.
It's not?
Quote:
Well, he's Jewish.
...who would be White men
Quote:
And what do you mean fully succeed?
Not be held back by a gang of White Men.
Quote:
She is successful by every reasonable measurement.
She did not succeed at the biggest thing she set out to do. That's failure.
Quote:
Nothing stopped her from becoming the "presumptive nominee of a major political party and frankly the favorite to win the general election.
Do you also excessively celebrate the award of Junior League "Just For Participating" trophies?
Quote:
Do those Nazis/White Supremecists think Jews are white too? Whiteness is not something you can measure with a Pantene color swatch. Some Jews may have convinced themselves that they are white, the Nazis aren't convinced.
The nazis aren't the gatekeepers of whiteness, nor success. They just hang on its coat-tails.
Quote:
About a dozen. A bit less than their percentage of the population if you only count citizens that are able to vote.
...point made...
Quote:
How many Jewish presidents? I mean, they white, right?
How many Finns? How many Italians? You don't get to ask "why not this subgroup" when the point is about the group as a whole.
Quote:
This is indicative of nothing.
Of course it is.I'm aware of the success of African immigrants and the factors involved. The "are you fucking kidding me" was because you already had Barack Obama...consider it exasperation at your repeating yourself.
Quote:
I mean unless your definition of success is becoming president or senator or something
It's a good proxy measure for the issue under discussion. More so than, say, financial success, because that has more paths which could bypass the routes traditionally blocked or limited to non-White Men.
Quote:
, I think most people consider the Cuban community to be reasonably well off. This is all just a list of model minorities. Model minorities are a prickly issue for CRT academics because its hard to explain why they aren't all living in abject poverty under the overwhelming racism in society.
It's not prickly at all. They're a smaller, often much more self-selected sample, compared to the other minorities like African-Americans or Mexicans. And many of them do get to benefit from Whiteness as well.

The argument isn't that no minority would ever succeed. In fact, one could argue that it benefits Whiteness even more to have some smaller, less threatening minorities do just that.
Quote:
It is one example that provides strong evidence against the notion.

If you said women can't fight on the front lines and then a woman earned a congressional medal of honor for singlehandedly punching every terrorist in the balls, it would make your statement much less tenable. So, while an Obama presidency doesn't prove that racism doesn't exist it does prove that it can be overcome.
And if anyone made such a strawman argument, Barack Obama is the example that would put them in their place. Well done, you!
Quote:
By who? Who is this conspiracy that is Purposely designing and maintaining this white supremacist society?
More-or-less the top 1%. Note that "purposefully" doesn't mean "white supremacy" is the intended purpose. It's more like a side-effect of the actual purpose of maintaining the status quo, wealth and power for oneself and one's heirs.
Quote:
It is [...] not intellectually honest or principled.
Have you said that to Matsuda?
Quote:
Sorry, I thought you were talking about America and the American Revolution.
Why the hell would you think that? I specifically said "here", and I'm not American - I'm assuming you know this from reading "the hundreds of other pages of your posts "
Quote:
I didn't realize you were pontificating about the situation in America from fucking South Africa.
You think racism is a uniquely American problem?

And - "pontificating"? Is that an example of you arguing with logic and reason rather than emotion?
Quote:
So the end of Apartheid was not the result of a movement by a minority, was it?
Nope. But I wasn't talking about the end, I was talking about the beginning. Which should have been evident from me saying "50 years"
Quote:
Like what? I'm sure it will be practical.
In the way "pure democracy" is practical?
  #214  
Old 10-17-2018, 05:37 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
No.
...what do you mean "no?" You don't think its possible to have a reputation for being different things?

Quote:
He has a reputation for being polite and cordial while putting up with impolite rude posters.
He has indeed. An all around nice guy

Quote:
If he just called me a racist as he intended to, he would get modded or banned in great debates.
Does it make any sense that a guy who you consider to be "polite and cordial" would intentionally post in a manner that skirts the boundaries of the rules of this forum?

Quote:
Or did you not know that you weren't allowed to call people racist in great debates?
Yep.

Quote:
Yeah, neither did I.
No, its just you.
  #215  
Old 10-17-2018, 07:31 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
They didn't data dredge. They were specifically looking for data about shootings of black and white people by police. And they presented that data. They're not saying, and I'm not saying, "this is conclusive evidence of racism". They're just saying "this is interesting and should be studied further", which is what I'm saying as well.
Did they analyze the data or did they present a small subset of the dataset that presents a gross disparity when you look at only that small dataset? They are reaching a conclusion from about a 3 dozen killings out of 3000 over 3 years. They didn't go into wondering what the murder rate was for 15-19 year olds. Based on Pro-Publica's agenda, I suspect they went into this looking for large disparities because 3::1 isn't shocking enough. Especially when you have studies saying that there are all these factors that makes the disparity disappear. That is data dredging.

Quote:
You appear to have made a conclusion based on other studies, and no other data presented can affect your conclusion. IMO, that's ridiculous and unscientific, but you're free to make such a conclusion if you wish.
Because those other studies were ACTUAL STUDIES. My mind cannot be changed by bullshit statistical tricks and sleight of hand. And neither should yours. There is NO value to the pro-publica "study" None. All it does is a calculation. No analysis just "HEY LOOK BLACK KIDS GET KILLED 21 TIMES AS OFTEN AS WHITE KIDS. AREN'T YOU OUTRAGED!!!!! that is the sole purpose of that "study" Its not trying to uncover some truth. it is playing statistical games.


Quote:
As to whether such numbers are "noise" or not, further investigation might reveal this. We certainly don't have enough information to make such a conclusion at this point.
No further investigation necessary. We have enough information to make a pretty good guess that the Pro-Publica "study" is bullshit. This is not a "teach the controveersy sort of situation. This is like flipping a coin 100 times, picking out a series where you got 5 heads in a row and concluding that the coin only comes mostly heads.

Quote:
Your certainty is unconvincing to me.
Do you know any statisticians? Please. Go to them. Ask them about data dredging and then ask them if pulling a subset of 3 dozen out of 3 THOUSAND datapoints is generally good statistical science.

The actual peer reviewed studies (and ask your statistician friends if the pro-publica calculation qualifies as a study) say that cops do not shoot blacks more frequently than they shoot whites. Until you provide a peer reviewed study that legitimizes what pro-publica presents, you are comparing science with factoids.

You are effectively the guy who thinks vaccines cause autism because you know some kid that got autism, that thinks that global warming is a myth because the weather got cooler over the last few weeks, that thinks women always lie about rape because of Tawana Brawley and the Rolling Stone article.

Like I said, one the one hand two peer reviewed studies that contradict your point of view and one back of the napkin calculation that the statistician that did the calculation won't stand behind but at least it is consistent with what you believe. At least global warming deniers have actual scientists willing to stand behind the notion that global warming is a myth.
  #216  
Old 10-17-2018, 07:44 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Have you ever asked her?
I'm not referring to myself. Reread post #186.

You didn't specify "only losers at legal arguments" when you called CRT a cancer or a loser's tactic.


Naah, sorry, facts and truth are not synonymous, and the fact/truth (synthetic/analytic) distinction has been the subject of endless debate. You don't get to declare that resolved for all of Science.No, you cannot pretend like narratives and stories of e.g. experiences of racism are complete fiction unrelated to real lived experience.
Anecdotes are data.

"The plural of anecdote is not data" is a terrible guideline in social sciences, and anyway, it's a horrible misquote of the original.
Naah, you just treat it that way.
Really? You're blithely saying that on this board, where people will quite happily tell you things were better for everyone 50 years ago? You'd think if the effects of racism are so purely objective, there'd be so much doubting of its existence here?

This would be a fair point ... if BLM had a President and Congress behind it, the way the Nazis continue to have.
Not from the posts I'm reading...I've repeatedly suggested on you refuse to carry out...
It's not a "quibble" - you're the one who brought up the self-evident-within-this-thread nature of my politics:
"I think any7one reading this thread does."[sic]
And don't think I didn't notice that you didn't even try to actually answer the question.

You're trying to draw an artificial distinction between Civil Rights and Revolutions, but your own cite's cite includes Civil Rights movements in the same class of movement as the Revolutions you cited. Proving the distinction is artificial.

Like I said, we aren't robots, and there's nothing wrong with emotion.
So much for empiricism, eh?Since neither of those is an accurate quote of what either I or Wood actually wrote, I don't have an opinion on the truth value of your statement.It's not?...who would be White menNot be held back by a gang of White Men.She did not succeed at the biggest thing she set out to do. That's failure.Do you also excessively celebrate the award of Junior League "Just For Participating" trophies?The nazis aren't the gatekeepers of whiteness, nor success. They just hang on its coat-tails....point made...How many Finns? How many Italians? You don't get to ask "why not this subgroup" when the point is about the group as a whole.Of course it is.I'm aware of the success of African immigrants and the factors involved. The "are you fucking kidding me" was because you already had Barack Obama...consider it exasperation at your repeating yourself.
It's a good proxy measure for the issue under discussion. More so than, say, financial success, because that has more paths which could bypass the routes traditionally blocked or limited to non-White Men.It's not prickly at all. They're a smaller, often much more self-selected sample, compared to the other minorities like African-Americans or Mexicans. And many of them do get to benefit from Whiteness as well.

The argument isn't that no minority would ever succeed. In fact, one could argue that it benefits Whiteness even more to have some smaller, less threatening minorities do just that.

And if anyone made such a strawman argument, Barack Obama is the example that would put them in their place. Well done, you!

More-or-less the top 1%. Note that "purposefully" doesn't mean "white supremacy" is the intended purpose. It's more like a side-effect of the actual purpose of maintaining the status quo, wealth and power for oneself and one's heirs.

Have you said that to Matsuda?
Why the hell would you think that? I specifically said "here", and I'm not American - I'm assuming you know this from reading "the hundreds of other pages of your posts "You think racism is a uniquely American problem?

And - "pontificating"? Is that an example of you arguing with logic and reason rather than emotion?Nope. But I wasn't talking about the end, I was talking about the beginning. Which should have been evident from me saying "50 years"In the way "pure democracy" is practical?
I don't know her that well. I've met her at events and we have mutual acquaintances. Its mostly in the legal context.

Storytelling and anecdote is STILL storytelling and anecdote. I just want to be clear, you are eschewing logic and reason for anecdote. Have you read their writing? These legal scholars talk about their personal experiences and then extrapolate that onto society. This is how institutional racism came into existence. Mostly rich white guys used the perspective of their life experiences and extrapolated that experience into how society was sculpted and voila inadvertant white supremecist society. Logic and reason is the minority's friend, subjectivity is his enemy. Because all the subjective calls are not going to go your way over the long term.
  #217  
Old 10-17-2018, 07:47 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Did they analyze the data or did they present a small subset of the dataset that presents a gross disparity when you look at only that small dataset? They are reaching a conclusion from about a 3 dozen killings out of 3000 over 3 years. They didn't go into wondering what the murder rate was for 15-19 year olds. Based on Pro-Publica's agenda, I suspect they went into this looking for large disparities because 3::1 isn't shocking enough. Especially when you have studies saying that there are all these factors that makes the disparity disappear. That is data dredging.

Because those other studies were ACTUAL STUDIES. My mind cannot be changed by bullshit statistical tricks and sleight of hand. And neither should yours. There is NO value to the pro-publica "study" None. All it does is a calculation. No analysis just "HEY LOOK BLACK KIDS GET KILLED 21 TIMES AS OFTEN AS WHITE KIDS. AREN'T YOU OUTRAGED!!!!! that is the sole purpose of that "study" Its not trying to uncover some truth. it is playing statistical games.

No further investigation necessary. We have enough information to make a pretty good guess that the Pro-Publica "study" is bullshit. This is not a "teach the controveersy sort of situation. This is like flipping a coin 100 times, picking out a series where you got 5 heads in a row and concluding that the coin only comes mostly heads.

Do you know any statisticians? Please. Go to them. Ask them about data dredging and then ask them if pulling a subset of 3 dozen out of 3 THOUSAND datapoints is generally good statistical science.

The actual peer reviewed studies (and ask your statistician friends if the pro-publica calculation qualifies as a study) say that cops do not shoot blacks more frequently than they shoot whites. Until you provide a peer reviewed study that legitimizes what pro-publica presents, you are comparing science with factoids.

You are effectively the guy who thinks vaccines cause autism because you know some kid that got autism, that thinks that global warming is a myth because the weather got cooler over the last few weeks, that thinks women always lie about rape because of Tawana Brawley and the Rolling Stone article.

Like I said, one the one hand two peer reviewed studies that contradict your point of view and one back of the napkin calculation that the statistician that did the calculation won't stand behind but at least it is consistent with what you believe. At least global warming deniers have actual scientists willing to stand behind the notion that global warming is a myth.
Yeah, I don't believe you, I think your description of this study is incorrect (and entirely uncited), and I'm not interested in discussing this further with you at this point. Let me know when you're willing to look at data in an open-minded and unbiased way, and not dismiss something just because it conflicts with your preconceived notions.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-17-2018 at 07:49 PM.
  #218  
Old 10-17-2018, 07:57 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Yeah, I don't believe you, I think your description of this study is incorrect (and entirely uncited), and I'm not interested in discussing this further with you at this point. Let me know when you're willing to look at data in an open-minded and unbiased way, and not dismiss something just because it conflicts with your preconceived notions.
Forgot to mention that the professor that disavowed involvement with the ProPublica is not a statistician, but a criminologist. They go into more detail here: https://www.propublica.org/article/a...ly-force-story

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-17-2018 at 07:59 PM.
  #219  
Old 10-18-2018, 07:10 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Storytelling and anecdote is STILL storytelling and anecdote.
And also - data.
Quote:
I just want to be clear, you are eschewing logic and reason for anecdote.
False dichotomy - I use both. Because I'm not a robot.
Quote:
Logic and reason is the minority's friend, subjectivity is his enemy.
Naah, sorry - "logic and reason" is also how you get eugenics, "Social Darwinism", and related ills. "Logic and reason" is only as useful as its predicates, and subjectivity is a useful approach to human-human interactions.

Because humans are not robots.
Quote:
Because all the subjective calls are not going to go your way over the long term.
That's not exactly a new thing. But neither has the application of "reason and logic" been particularly favourable, historically. You just have to look at the scientific racists right here to see that. They think they're being completely reasonable and logical...

Last edited by MrDibble; 10-18-2018 at 07:10 AM.
  #220  
Old 10-18-2018, 10:57 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Yeah, I don't believe you, I think your description of this study is incorrect (and entirely uncited), and I'm not interested in discussing this further with you at this point. Let me know when you're willing to look at data in an open-minded and unbiased way, and not dismiss something just because it conflicts with your preconceived notions.
I am not dismissing anything. I have looked at the pro publica article. Its partisan bullshit. The information you provided is not data and its bullshit. Like I said, talk to your statistician friends and present them with the pro-publica article and ask them if taking 37 incidents out of a database of 3000 incidents is an example of data dredging/p hacking or if that is more likely to be a good "study". Ask them if it what pro-publica is a "study" when it provides no analysis and only provides numerical relationships between small series of data in a much larger dataset and just invites you to reach your own conclusions.

I get the feeling you won't believe anyone that doesn't drink your particular brand of kool aid. I don't think you are capable of believing anything that is inconsistent with your belief, as long as someone is willing to provide you with a shred of hope that you may still be right. So find a statistician (or scientist) and ask them about P Hacking and data dredging and then give them the pro-publica article and ask if this is good science.

Contrary to what the mods may think I was barely aware of Dibble's existence until they claimed we had some sort of rivalry, he kind of faded into the background noise of the liberal choir that can only survive in a liberal echo chamber like this one. I consider you to be the most dangerous poster on the board. You're smart, patient, affable, and make compelling emotion based arguments, and you go unchallenged when wrong. You appear to be open minded but you are not. You are pleasant to a fault in a "bless his heart" sort of way. People want to believe you even when you present horseshit like that pro-publica article.

I am not posting to convince you. I am posting so people don't think that you are presenting actual facts.
  #221  
Old 10-18-2018, 11:09 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
nm

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 10-18-2018 at 11:09 AM.
  #222  
Old 10-18-2018, 11:11 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Forgot to mention that the professor that disavowed involvement with the ProPublica is not a statistician, but a criminologist. They go into more detail here: https://www.propublica.org/article/a...ly-force-story
"ProPublica found evidence of a disparity in the risks faced by young black and white men. This does not prove that police officers target any age or racial group the data is far too limited to point to a cause for the disparity. We hoped that our analysis would spur further inquiry into why this disparity exists, which it has done, and we stand by it."

Those studies have been done. At least twice that I know of and that police do not kill blacks more frequently than whites after taking variables into account.

See Roland Fryer.

Age was taken into account.

Once again, we are talking about 37 police killings out of 3000.

If pro-publica wanted to do an ACTUAL study, nothing is stopping them but the raw data on a data series that represents about 1& of the data set is meaningless and best (and a deliberate lie at worst).
  #223  
Old 10-18-2018, 11:12 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,897
Hah. You think I'm a liberal?

If that was what you got from reading " hundreds of other pages" of my posts, you clearly have been reading " hundreds of other pages" by the wrong poster. I am not a liberal.

Last edited by MrDibble; 10-18-2018 at 11:15 AM.
  #224  
Old 10-18-2018, 11:15 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,249
Apparently I'm "the most dangerous poster on this board". Awesome!
  #225  
Old 10-18-2018, 11:18 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Apparently I'm "the most dangerous poster on this board". Awesome!
So jealous!
  #226  
Old 10-18-2018, 12:56 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
And also - data.
I think you are confusing emotions with data. There may even be information there but its not data.

Lets say that we wanted to determine whether Harvard is discriminating against Asians in the admissions process. Could we listen to the story of one Asian student that was denied by Harvard and call that data? Of course not. We would need a systematic attempt to collect relevant information that is collected in a way to weed out distortive factors and constructed to prove or disprove a hypothesis.

Some law professor talking about how lonely they felt as the only black male at Yale law school is not data. Its just a story, even though he gets to teach an entire law school lecture on those feelings, its still just a story.

Quote:
False dichotomy - I use both. Because I'm not a robot.
I'm not sure how a robot would be any worse at confusing anecdote (essentially emotion) from logic and reason.

Quote:
Naah, sorry - "logic and reason" is also how you get eugenics, "Social Darwinism", and related ills. "Logic and reason" is only as useful as its predicates, and subjectivity is a useful approach to human-human interactions.

Because humans are not robots.
Emotion and anecdote is how you get Willie Horton, racism, lynching.

Quote:
That's not exactly a new thing. But neither has the application of "reason and logic" been particularly favourable, historically. You just have to look at the scientific racists right here to see that. They think they're being completely reasonable and logical...
Just because they THINK they are being reasonable and logical doesn't mean they are. Every scientific racist I have ever heard ignores the effects of racism and cherry-pick's data. There are too many studies that document things like stereotype threat that you can't simply say "hey look rich black kids do worse on IQ tests than poor white kids so it couldn't be environmental and therefore its is a genetic difference in IQ, no need to look any further"
  #227  
Old 10-18-2018, 01:04 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
There may even be information there but its not data.
Are you even reading what you're writing?
Quote:
Could we listen to the story of one Asian student that was denied by Harvard and call that data?
No, I'd call it a datum.
Quote:
anecdote (essentially emotion)
I'm not being insulting here, honestly, but are you a second-language English speaker?
Quote:
Emotion and anecdote is how you get Willie Horton, racism, lynching.
"Logic and reason" is how you get gas chambers and Unit Unit 731.

Whee, this is fun. Ok, your turn for using argumentum ad passiones.
Quote:
Just because they THINK they are being reasonable and logical doesn't mean they are.
Yes, funny that. Almost ironic, really...
  #228  
Old 10-18-2018, 01:41 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Are you even reading what you're writing?
Yes. If we are doing an analysis of racism in the law and you tell me how you lonely you felt in law school. That is not data.

Quote:
No, I'd call it a datum.
That is meaningless in this conversation. Data as we are discussing it is a pool of information that we can use to test a hypothesis. A single point of data is useless. An emotional rendition of that data through storytelling is more entertaining but just as useless.

Quote:
I'm not being insulting here, honestly, but are you a second-language English speaker?
Third but I speak and read at native levels. I think the confusion you are sensing is the result of thinking that all information is data. While the saying that "the plural of anecdote is not data" is too simplistic its not entirely inaccurate either. A couple of anecdotes is not really enough information to draw any conclusions or develop any sort of policy.

Quote:
"Logic and reason" is how you get gas chambers and Unit Unit 731.

Whee, this is fun. Ok, your turn for using argumentum ad passiones.
You started it. Logic and reason did not get us gas chambers. The desire to exterminate people did. Whether they used gas chambers or firing squads, it was the desire to exterminate that did it unless you think the extermination of jews was logical and rational.

Unit 731 was inhumane.

We are talking about CRT. Is CRT using loosey goosey emotional arguments to stop genocide or human medical experimentation? Of course not.

Quote:
Yes, funny that. Almost ironic, really...
I can point to where they are not being logical. Can you point me to where I am not being logical?

The scientific racists are not being rebutted by arguments that logic and reason can be ignored. They are being rebutted by better logic and reason. You are rebutting logic and reason with anecdotes, feelings and emotions.

You have the scientific racists cherry-picking information, ignoring other variables, and using the raw unanalyzed data to reach their conclusions (sort of like how iiandyiiii is taking 37 deaths out of 3000 to imply that cops like killing young black males). Objective facts, logic and reason are almost always better for minorities and the politically weak than subjectivity. If subjectivity is working in your favor, you have to wonder how politically weak you are.
  #229  
Old 10-18-2018, 01:46 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
(sort of like how iiandyiiii is taking 37 deaths out of 3000 to imply that cops like killing young black males)
...apparently I'm such a danger to this board that you are forced to say incorrect things about me. Apologies for being so, so dangerous. I'd say you have nothing to fear, but like a poor friendly dog that got caught on the edge of nuclear fallout testing, I probably don't fully understand the extent of the danger I present to others.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-18-2018 at 01:47 PM.
  #230  
Old 10-18-2018, 02:30 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Yes. If we are doing an analysis of racism in the law and you tell me how you lonely you felt in law school. That is not data.
Of course your cartoon rendition of CRT is not the actual substance of it. And if the actual question is "Why are most judges white men", how PoCs feel about law school is very much relevant data.
Quote:
That is meaningless in this conversation.
Nope.
Quote:
Data as we are discussing it is a pool of information that we can use to test a hypothesis.
Sure.
Quote:
A single point of data is useless.
That's ... just not true.
A single datum can sometimes blow an entire thesis out of the water. If it's the right datum.
Quote:
Third but I speak and read at native levels.
Native American levels?
Quote:
I think the confusion you are sensing is the result of thinking that all information is data.
All information is data. It just wants the right processing.
Quote:
While the saying that "the plural of anecdote is not data" is too simplistic its not entirely inaccurate either.
It's an idiotic homily people who have never done a day of research like to use to pat themselves on their (virtual) backs.
Quote:
A couple of anecdotes is not really enough information to draw any conclusions or develop any sort of policy.
Good thing the narrative of racism isn't just a "couple of anecdotes", then...
Quote:
You started it.
Did I?
Quote:
Logic and reason did not get us gas chambers.
Oh, they very much did.
Quote:
The desire to exterminate people did.
No, that gets people shot in the woods. It takes "logic and reason" to get to gaschambers.
Quote:
unless you think the extermination of jews was logical and rational.
The Nazis certainly thought it was. Their thinking is laid quite plain. "Problem"->"Solution (Final)" is the language of "reason", not emotion.
Quote:
Unit 731 was inhumane.
And yet, to the people doing it, "logical and reasonable"
Quote:
We are talking about CRT.
Were we? I thought we were talking about how I'm a liberal and andy is a most dangerous man...
Quote:
Is CRT using loosey goosey emotional arguments to stop genocide or human medical experimentation? Of course not.
"loosey goosey"? Is that your empirical analysis?
Quote:
I can point to where they are not being logical. Can you point me to where I am not being logical?
There was that time you called an established academic school a "cancer"... that didn't seem very logical...
Quote:
The scientific racists are not being rebutted by arguments that logic and reason can be ignored. They are being rebutted by better logic and reason. You are rebutting logic and reason with anecdotes, feelings and emotions.
Where have I done that?
Quote:
Objective facts, logic and reason are almost always better for minorities and the politically weak than subjectivity.
Many minorities don't seem to agree with you...
Quote:
If subjectivity is working in your favor, you have to wonder how politically weak you are.
We already know how the deck is stacked, thanks .

Last edited by MrDibble; 10-18-2018 at 02:33 PM.
  #231  
Old 10-18-2018, 03:22 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot Buck Godot is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Do you know any statisticians? Please. Go to them. Ask them about data dredging and then ask them if pulling a subset of 3 dozen out of 3 THOUSAND datapoints is generally good statistical science.
Ask and the Dope will provide.

There is nothing inherently bad about taking a small subset of say 40 samples out of a larger set of 1200, if that smaller subset is the data of interest. All that you have to do is to treat it as though it was a study of 40 samples rather than a study of 1200. I understand your concern about data mining. When looking at the data you do need to account for the number of different subsets you looked at.

Since I haven't seen the data I can't be certain how it was organized and what different analyses they considered before settling on this one. Age is an obvious divisor to look at and it is possible that the sole hypothesis going in was to look specifically at the shootings of black youth (14-19 years) since anecdotally this is the group that appears to get the worst rap in the media. If that is the case than there is no need for p-value adjustement.

Otherwise you would have to consider whether they analyzed a number of different subgroups and only focussed on this group when they found that the other groups weren't significant. For example they could have fully data mined by looking at every possible lower cut-point and every possibly upper cut-point until they found the one that gave the best results. I doubt they did this for two reasons. First, subgroups a division into under 14 (pre-teen), 14-19 (teen) and, 19+ (adult) with possibly a few other older subgroups seems natural rather than data derived. Secondly if they did this I would expect them to report 19 and under, since the under 14 group also showed significant bias and including them would probably improve their statistics. What I actually think is probably most likely is that the data the got from the FBI was already divided into age groups that they analyzed directly. Worst case scenario you should multiply any p-value you come up with by the number of different groups they looked at (although you could then divided by 2 to create a false discover rate to account for the fact that both the under14 and 14-19 groups appeared significant.)

There could also be some concern about the independence of the shootings. Correlated data will act to increase the variance of any estimates although not change the point estimates directly, I suspect however that most of the shootings are independent, given the fact that I haven't hear any reports along the lines of Police slay 3 black teenagers in mass shootout, which would make national headlines.

So following Damuri Ajash back of the envelope calculation with a black/white ratio of with a black vs white relative risk of 31.17/1.47=21.2. According to the article, if blacks and whites were killed at equal rates, than there would be 185 additional deaths implying that N*21.2=N+185 so the number of white deaths was about 9. The ratio of blacks to whites aged 15-24 in the population is about 33.3/7.32 = 3.54, and so the number of black youths shot in the study was about 9*21.2/3.54 =54.


So the log odds ratio is equal to log(21.2)=3.05
The standard error of this is approximately sqrt(1/8+1/54) =.378
resulting in a 95% confidence interval of (2.31 - 3.79) corresponding to a relative risks of 10.1-44.3. (about the same as they report)
and a Z-score of 3.05/.378 = 8.07 and a (two sided) p-value of 7.1*10^-16

So while it is possible that the authors might of taken multiple looks at the data, I think it rather unlikely that that the number of looks were greater than the 7x10^13 that would be required to make their result insignificant due to multiple comparisons (or data drudging as you call it).

A better complaint is that they didn't take into account other covariates (different poverty rates between whites and blacks is the most obvious), this plus the issue of correlated data (which is very hard to account for) might lead me to hold off on fully endorsing the final number, but I find it difficult to believe that any alternative analysis would fully eliminate such a massive effect.

- Buck Godot Statistics PhD.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 10-18-2018 at 03:25 PM.
  #232  
Old 10-18-2018, 03:27 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,249
Wow, what a wonderfully dangerous post! Kudos, Buck Godot!
  #233  
Old 10-18-2018, 03:46 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
...apparently I'm such a danger to this board that you are forced to say incorrect things about me. Apologies for being so, so dangerous. I'd say you have nothing to fear, but like a poor friendly dog that got caught on the edge of nuclear fallout testing, I probably don't fully understand the extent of the danger I present to others.
The danger you present (IMO) is the same danger that all attractive packaging presents. It is easy to believe you. You're seem like a nice person who cares about people and you certainly sound reasonable and I suspect you are genuinely a nice person, the sort of person I would leave my children to if my wife and I were killed in a car accident. However this makes people believe you just because you believe what you are saying. Even if its wrong.

You are very sincere and earnest but your fuzzy thinking and emotion laden arguments lead you to the conclusions you wanted to reach before you started your inquiry, almost without fail. I mean geez, I like you and if it wasn't for the frustration I feel at someone being wrong on the internet, I'd probably just go along with you too and then we'd both be wrong.
  #234  
Old 10-18-2018, 04:02 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,897
"emotion laden arguments"? Arguing just to get to a desired conclusion? Being wrong on the internet?iiandyiiii?

I haven't seen that much projection since I last visited the IMAX...
  #235  
Old 10-18-2018, 04:06 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,249
And my danger is so great that apparently I've sucked in a professional statistician, poster Buck Godot. Wow, how dangerous can one poster be?
  #236  
Old 10-18-2018, 04:35 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Wow, how dangerous can one poster be?
...this dangerous.
  #237  
Old 10-18-2018, 08:40 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,801
I am anxiously awaiting any reply to the statistics PhD by Damuri Ajashi.


Nice job by the way, Buck Godot, even if I don't understand a lot of it.
  #238  
Old 10-18-2018, 08:51 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I am anxiously awaiting any reply to the statistics PhD by Damuri Ajashi.


Nice job by the way, Buck Godot, even if I don't understand a lot of it.
Here's a dangerous statement: it doesn't really matter what a random internet person thinks about the professional opinion of a statistician about a statistical question. So I'm not sure if you need to anxiously await it.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-18-2018 at 08:52 PM.
  #239  
Old 10-18-2018, 08:55 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Here's a dangerous statement: it doesn't really matter what a random internet person thinks about the professional opinion of a statistician about a statistical question. So I'm not sure if you need to anxiously await it.
Sorry. I'll limit my statements to those that are non-dangerous.

Hey, I like kittens!
  #240  
Old 10-18-2018, 10:55 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
Ask and the Dope will provide.

There is nothing inherently bad about taking a small subset of say 40 samples out of a larger set of 1200, if that smaller subset is the data of interest. All that you have to do is to treat it as though it was a study of 40 samples rather than a study of 1200. I understand your concern about data mining. When looking at the data you do need to account for the number of different subsets you looked at.

Since I haven't seen the data I can't be certain how it was organized and what different analyses they considered before settling on this one. Age is an obvious divisor to look at and it is possible that the sole hypothesis going in was to look specifically at the shootings of black youth (14-19 years) since anecdotally this is the group that appears to get the worst rap in the media.

If that is the case than there is no need for p-value adjustment.
It's broken down granularly by exact age at death. We should get your hands on the raw numbers but based on a more granular analysis by realclearpolicy, it appears that there are statistics kept much more granularly than 14-19.

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog...ings_1107.html

Quote:
Otherwise you would have to consider whether they analyzed a number of different subgroups and only focussed on this group when they found that the other groups weren't significant. For example they could have fully data mined by looking at every possible lower cut-point and every possibly upper cut-point until they found the one that gave the best results. I doubt they did this for two reasons. First, subgroups a division into under 14 (pre-teen), 14-19 (teen) and, 19+ (adult) with possibly a few other older subgroups seems natural rather than data derived. Secondly if they did this I would expect them to report 19 and under, since the under 14 group also showed significant bias and including them would probably improve their statistics.
There were only 2 murders in the under 14 age group in those three years. One black kid and one hispanic kid. (according to the footnotes in the pro-publica article). The numbers in the article go back to 1980.

Quote:
What I actually think is probably most likely is that the data the got from the FBI was already divided into age groups that they analyzed directly. Worst case scenario you should multiply any p-value you come up with by the number of different groups they looked at (although you could then divided by 2 to create a false discover rate to account for the fact that both the under14 and 14-19 groups appeared significant.)
And what if there are actually 80 age groups from 0-80?

Would it be fair for me to point out that cops kill old white men age 74-79 INFINITELY more frequently than black men age 74-79? Cops killed 6 white men in that age group and no black men. What is the statistical significance of that?

Quote:
There could also be some concern about the independence of the shootings. Correlated data will act to increase the variance of any estimates although not change the point estimates directly, I suspect however that most of the shootings are independent, given the fact that I haven't hear any reports along the lines of Police slay 3 black teenagers in mass shootout, which would make national headlines.
Yeah, I don't think that's a concern unless there are gangland type shootouts.

Quote:
So following Damuri Ajash back of the envelope calculation with a black/white ratio of with a black vs white relative risk of 31.17/1.47=21.2. According to the article, if blacks and whites were killed at equal rates, than there would be 185 additional deaths implying that N*21.2=N+185 so the number of white deaths was about 9. The ratio of blacks to whites aged 15-24 in the population is about 33.3/7.32 = 3.54, and so the number of black youths shot in the study was about 9*21.2/3.54 =54.
Ah OK I missed the fact that the 185 deaths were ADDITIONAL deaths.

Quote:
So the log odds ratio is equal to log(21.2)=3.05
The standard error of this is approximately sqrt(1/8+1/54) =.378
resulting in a 95% confidence interval of (2.31 - 3.79) corresponding to a relative risks of 10.1-44.3. (about the same as they report)
and a Z-score of 3.05/.378 = 8.07 and a (two sided) p-value of 7.1*10^-16
I'm not arguing the math. I'm arguing the logic of even applying the math.

Quote:
So while it is possible that the authors might of taken multiple looks at the data, I think it rather unlikely that that the number of looks were greater than the 7x10^13 that would be required to make their result insignificant due to multiple comparisons (or data drudging as you call it).
There are only ~3000 deaths to cherry pick. Are you saying that I have to run 70,000,000,000,000 simulations to figure out how to come up with skewed numbers? I literally just looked at the numbers for about 10 seconds to come up with the fact that white men between 74-79 are murdered by police infinitely more frequently than black men 74-79.

Quote:
A better complaint is that they didn't take into account other covariates (different poverty rates between whites and blacks is the most obvious), this plus the issue of correlated data (which is very hard to account for) might lead me to hold off on fully endorsing the final number, but I find it difficult to believe that any alternative analysis would fully eliminate such a massive effect.

- Buck Godot Statistics PhD.
Recent paper by Roland Fryer says almost exactly but with more variables.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/pu...lice-use-force
  #241  
Old 10-18-2018, 11:00 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Wow, what a wonderfully dangerous post! Kudos, Buck Godot!
His post is factual (with a bit of opinion). I see almost no appeals to emotion in his post.
  #242  
Old 10-19-2018, 10:26 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Sorry. I'll limit my statements to those that are non-dangerous.

Hey, I like kittens!
Don't worry, I don't think there is anything dangerous about you. Noone will be enticed to agree with you the way they might be with iiandyiiii. Noone else on this board has people standing up and saying "well, if manson1972 is getting mad at you, then you MUST be an asshole" This isn't a swipe at you (noone says that about someone that I get mad at either) it's merely my observation that iiandyiiii has a reputation for being noticably and remarkably affable, patient and pleasant. People mistake this for level-headedness rationality and logic when its really just a symptom of politeness. iiandyiiii is polite and sometimes wrong. He is no more open to ideas he doesn't like than you are but I bet a lot of posters think he is.
  #243  
Old 10-19-2018, 10:42 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Don't worry, I don't think there is anything dangerous about you. Noone will be enticed to agree with you the way they might be with iiandyiiii. Noone else on this board has people standing up and saying "well, if manson1972 is getting mad at you, then you MUST be an asshole" This isn't a swipe at you (noone says that about someone that I get mad at either) it's merely my observation that iiandyiiii has a reputation for being noticably and remarkably affable, patient and pleasant. People mistake this for level-headedness rationality and logic when its really just a symptom of politeness. iiandyiiii is polite and sometimes wrong. He is no more open to ideas he doesn't like than you are but I bet a lot of posters think he is.
Aw man

And I soooooo wanted to be a dangerous poster too! Dream killer!
  #244  
Old 10-19-2018, 12:16 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Aw man

And I soooooo wanted to be a dangerous poster too! Dream killer!
I think its something you're born with. Perhaps years of training with a zen yogi might get you there but its relative so if iiandyiiii started training with that same zen yogi, he would probably outstrip you fairly quickly. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I am double jointed and can whistle with perfect pitch.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 10-19-2018 at 12:16 PM.
  #245  
Old 10-19-2018, 12:21 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,249
A professional statistician came into this thread and said that ProPublica's analysis was actually pretty decent.

That's what I call dangerous.
  #246  
Old 10-19-2018, 01:02 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
A professional statistician came into this thread and said that ProPublica's analysis was actually pretty decent.

That's what I call dangerous.
Nothing dangerous about it. Facts are not dangerous because they usually get you to the right result.

There are about half a dozen "ifs" in his statement.

One of his bigger assumptions was that the ages were already clustered in the 14-19 category. They were not.

Perhaps he will return and address the fact that some of his assumptions were incorrect. He may end up at the same place or he may not.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 10-19-2018 at 01:03 PM.
  #247  
Old 10-19-2018, 01:10 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Nothing dangerous about it. Facts are not dangerous because they usually get you to the right result.

There are about half a dozen "ifs" in his statement.

One of his bigger assumptions was that the ages were already clustered in the 14-19 category. They were not.

Perhaps he will return and address the fact that some of his assumptions were incorrect. He may end up at the same place or he may not.
Perhaps you'll also admit that a reasonable person can look at the ProPublica report and honestly think it's decent data -- not conclusive by any means, but reasonable to consider when looking at the entire picture. And that your dismissal of the data was highly overstated.

Or would that be too dangerous for you?

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-19-2018 at 01:11 PM.
  #248  
Old 10-19-2018, 02:59 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Perhaps you'll also admit that a reasonable person can look at the ProPublica report and honestly think it's decent data -- not conclusive by any means, but reasonable to consider when looking at the entire picture. And that your dismissal of the data was highly overstated.

Or would that be too dangerous for you?
Perhaps I haven't spelled it out in enough detail.

in 2005, Pro-Publica came up with this highly sensational ratio of cops killing 14-19 year old black males 21 times more frequently than 14-19 year old white males. This received a lot of criticism at the time but at the time it was something that was worth looking into.

THEN several studies were conducted and they concluded that cops do not kill black men at higher rates than white men. That makes the Pro-Publica calculations no more than interesting factoids. Do you understand why a subsequent study that addresses the "issue" that you think the pro-publica article brings up, makes the pro-publica factoid irrelevant?

I would have probably dismissed the data back then for the same reason that all the critics of Pro-Publica dismissed it. I think its cherrypicking information for maximum sensational effect but I would have said that there might be something to it; especially because at the time I thought cops were in fact killing blacks more frequently than whites. My posts on this board at the time are consistent with this view. But after the Fryer study, the already weak evidence it provided evaporated. And with the change in facts, my view changed. Why hasn't yours?

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 10-19-2018 at 03:01 PM. Reason: grammar
  #249  
Old 10-19-2018, 03:46 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Perhaps I haven't spelled it out in enough detail.

in 2005, Pro-Publica came up with this highly sensational ratio of cops killing 14-19 year old black males 21 times more frequently than 14-19 year old white males. This received a lot of criticism at the time but at the time it was something that was worth looking into.

THEN several studies were conducted and they concluded that cops do not kill black men at higher rates than white men. That makes the Pro-Publica calculations no more than interesting factoids. Do you understand why a subsequent study that addresses the "issue" that you think the pro-publica article brings up, makes the pro-publica factoid irrelevant?

I would have probably dismissed the data back then for the same reason that all the critics of Pro-Publica dismissed it. I think its cherrypicking information for maximum sensational effect but I would have said that there might be something to it; especially because at the time I thought cops were in fact killing blacks more frequently than whites. My posts on this board at the time are consistent with this view. But after the Fryer study, the already weak evidence it provided evaporated. And with the change in facts, my view changed. Why hasn't yours?
It was 2014, not 2005.

The data is extremely deficient -- most police departments don't report on who they kill and their demographic data. These studies have to rely on the limited data that's out there -- and a couple of studies that conflict with another study, all based on a few limited sets of data, can't possibly be relied on to make anything close to a final conclusion on such a challenging issue. It's all potentially useful data, but it paints, at best, a very incomplete picture. No final conclusion can be made without much, much more data, and accompanying studies of that data.
  #250  
Old 10-22-2018, 08:33 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It was 2014, not 2005.
Sorry, I knew that. I meant to say 2014 (maybe 2015?) BLM wasn't even a ting in 2005. I don't know what happened.

Quote:
The data is extremely deficient -- most police departments don't report on who they kill and their demographic data. These studies have to rely on the limited data that's out there -- and a couple of studies that conflict with another study, all based on a few limited sets of data, can't possibly be relied on to make anything close to a final conclusion on such a challenging issue. It's all potentially useful data, but it paints, at best, a very incomplete picture. No final conclusion can be made without much, much more data, and accompanying studies of that data.
I see, so the thousands of cops killing in the database are insufficient to draw any conclusions but you think that we really ought to consider the pro-publia report that cops kill black men 21 times more frequently based on 54 killings?

You started this subthread with the statement that:

Quote:
I've referenced statistics that dispute your 3x number -- specifically, the Pro Publica report (linked multiple times -- I can find it again if someone needs it) that found that young black men were 21 times more likely to be shot by police than young white men,
There is no dispute about the 3X number. EVERYONE agrees that black men are killed by cops at 3X the rate of white men. Pro-Publica carved out a subset of the data where they found that cops killed black men at 21X the rate of white men. I could use the same technique to say that cops killed old white men infinitely more frequently than old black men. Or that they killed pre-pubscent Asian boys 3 times more frequently than pre-pubscent white boys.

There is no conflict between studies. There is a conflict between Pro-Publica's calculation based on a small set of cherry-picked numbers and 2 actual peer reviewed studies.

This is not a "teach the controversy" moment. This is a "hey wait a minute, maybe we ought to revisit the assumption that cops are killing black men like people have been telling us" moment.

How open are you to the notion that cops are NOT killing black men at higher rates than white men? I am pretty sure that I am open to the notion that cops are killing black men at higher rates because this is exactly what I believed before these studies came out. But, when the facts changed, I changed my mind. Why didn't you?

Why were you able to reach the conclusion that cops killed black me more frequently on imperfect information but now need so much more certainty before you will discard the conclusion that cops disproportionately kill blacks based on what you now consider flawed incomplete data?

Did you always consider the data flawed and unreliable or did it suddenly become flawed and unreliable when the pier reviewed studies were published?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017