And Evergreen students and their parents are too stupid to see thru it. Makes sense.
Regards,
Shodan
As a drive-by, that’s like a C-. As a thoughtful, considered post that recognizes the entire point of smear campaigns?
Doesn’t even rate.
No, I don’t. People can look at the anemic sample size and reach the conclusion that the sample size is too small to be able to say that 21::1 is a valid statistic. It might very well be the result of a violent turf war in Chicago or couple of violent drug/gang encounters in LA. The only ACTUAL study done has said the exact opposite of what you are saying. The only ACTUAL study done has said that cops don’t shoot blacks at higher rates than white after adjusting for reasonable variables. What pro publica did was take a few very small subset of numbers and extrapolated something about society as a whole.
Based on this methodology, I could say that cops kill asians age 14-19 three times as frequently as they shoot whites.
Its bad math. The numbers are small and you are cherrypicking the data to reach those statistics. The fact remains that cops shoot blacks generally 3 times ore frequently than whites generally. P Hacking has been pretty prominent in the news recently and this sort of cherrypicking is a close relative. You get a big data set and look for anomalies that help prove your point.
I don’t think I said any of this.
I said that you drove people on the fence to the other side of the fence. It is your fault that Trump won. Congratulations. Trump thanks you.
I remember when John McCain was the worst person in the world according to Democrats. I chimed in too because I really wanted Obama to win and every little thing McCain did was amplified and magnified until he we reached maximum outrage. Then Mitt Romney was the worst person in the world. I still remember how Romney was an unfit POTUS because his dog shit himself in a car roof rack.
Its just poliitics. Both sides actually do it.
Yes exactly. Just like both sides in a war vilify their enemy, both sides vilify the other side, at least these days. It wasn’t always this way.
Hmmm, yeah, I think I might have meant that for another post. Its a non sequitor.
Are you sure it wasn’t because the seminal SCOTUS case that declared Voter ID constitutional was published in 2008?
First, I’m not a conservative except by the grossly distorted yardstick of this board. Second, its not plain speaking to refer to something in the most offensive way possible. Its not honest to refer to the instinctive defensiveness whites feel when discussing racism as white fragility. Its not particularly descriptive or helpful.
Because of course Democrats never engage in deceptive misinformation campaigns. :rolleyes: Democrats lie just as easily as Republicans if it suits their purposes.
But I agree that Republicans are better at propoganda.
Because its true. It doesn’t happen every time but there is a vilification of white people and as 75% of the voting population, they are starting to notice.
Crit race theory terms like “white fragility” do more harm than good. You can convey the thoughts and ideas in a way that are easier to understand and digest if you pick less offensive words. Or you can keep electing Donald Trump. I’m sure he is grateful for your efforts.
If you’re not a statistician, then your opinion on this is pretty meaningless to me – believe it or not, statistics is a real discipline, and statisticians can determine from sample sizes and such whether a piece of data is large enough to be statistically likely to be valid or not, and in my understanding (again, I am not a statistician, but it doesn’t appear you are either), this analysis by ProPublica meets those requirements.
Mine and a significant portion of the voting public.
Logic and reason are not the most important in YOUR toolbox because you have found that you can win arguments with accusations of racism and bigotry. Critical race theory is horse shit and only gains traction because it allows people who would lose arguments on the merits to win by accusing others of racism and bigotry.
Logic and reason are efforts to define THE objective truth. Not your truth or my truth, etc. THE truth. If that’s not really interesting to you, you might be on the wrong website.
The axioms of logic and reason were laid out over a thousand years ago in an effort to discern the truth. Critical race theory has little concern for the truth, only a subjective storytelling.
:rolleyes:
You’re right, you don’t ignore logic. You only ignore it when it is inconvenient and leads to conclusions that are contrary to your political goals.
So you think a march on Selma could have stopped the Holocaust? Which tyrannies were open to change as a result of civil rights movements like the one we had?
Its a lot to repeat. So let me just link it.
And that’s the more disciplined face of crit race theory that you find in law schools. The stuff you see coming from the other social sciences is absolute horse shit.
That’s bullshit. Whiteness is not a cornerstone of reason or logic. You can argue about whiteness without relying on anecdote and storytelling but it doesn’t get you to the promised land of being able to say that all the troubles that minorities face today is the direct result of an invisible form of straight white male supremacy and this social urge is so powerful that as a general rule only straight white males can succeed in this society.
You don’t need crit race theory to tell us that life is easier for straight white males.
You really think that’s what happened?
Once again. WTF are you talking about? Is this what you consider argument because if so then I see why crit race theory appeals to you.
Well at least you aren’t disagreeing with the math. But apparently it doesn’t matter to you that the sample size went from 1200 to a few dozen.
Why does it matter what I am, I have a degree in economics and I am familiar with economics and statistics even though I am not an economist or statistician. Just as I don’t have to be a mathemetician to know that pi is the ratio between a circle’s circumference and its diameter; I don’t need to be a statistician to know that 37 deaths over 3 years is not enough to declare a racist epidemic as severe as you describe. Pro Publica is feeding you factoids to rile you up.
The only actual peer reviewed study published by a Harvard economist in a prominent journal says that cops don’t really shoot blacks significantly more than whites. The differences to the extent they exist can be chalked up to statistical noise.
The one statistician that supported the pro publica statement has withdrawn his support. It is effectively P Hacking the data.
Police shoot and kill ~1000 people each year. You are saying that based on ~12 shooting in each of 3 years you can conclude something?
I’m not saying that the peer reviewed study is irrefutable but pro publica is a news organization. They are good at uncovering and reporting news. It is indeed an interesting factoid that in the population of 60+ kids 15-19 shot by police from 2015-2017, 37 of them were black. But this is a factoid because it is a cherry picked fact that distorts the truth. This factoid is not enough to reach the conclusion that cops shoot black kids at 21 times the rate that they shoot white kids.
Why is it that you think that a news article is the equivalent of a peer reviewed study?
I’m not fully convinced of anything by either study – two studies, with different results, demand further investigation. All of your numbers here are uncited (and I found your earlier math explanation highly confusing), so I’m responding as if they are accurate for the purposes of this discussion, though I certainly would not vouch for them without further explanation. In my understanding, the ProPublica Risk Ratio calculation is valid and provides a reasonable level of confidence – 95% that the real ratio is somewhere between 10 and 40, based on a solid exercise in statistical analysis.
I don’t offer the ProPublica report as “You are WRONG!”, but rather “here is conflicting data”. And this data is not easy to come by – most shootings aren’t recorded in this manner and made available to analyze.
My overall opinion on law enforcement treatment of black people is based on many, many pieces of data – the most prominent of which is the polling that shows that 50% of black people report personal mistreatment by law enforcement.
“A significant portion of the voting public” also voted for Donald Trump. Being “a significant portion of the voting public” doesn’t preclude being dumber than a box of hammers and just plain bone-ignorant about the world.
If that’s all it took to win arguments, I’d never lose them. I win arguments with racists and bigots because racists and bigots are fundamentally dumb.
You realise you’re accusing people like Bell, Matsuda and Crenshaw of being unable to debate?
Critical race theory allows people to speak with the underlying racist assumptions of our entire social framework exposed to the best disinfectant first. That’s its strength, not its weakness, much as you would have it otherwise.
There is no objective truth.
Fortunately, you don’t get to decide what this website is and isn’t exclusively about.
Or choose for me how I get to debate race.
The axiom of whiteness which underpins social discourse is not as old as that.
Since race has no scientific validity, it’s entirely subjective too. So subjectivity is an entirely appropriate approach.
:smack::dubious::rolleyes::(:smack::eek:
But no real, reasoned, logical response, I see…
I never ignore logic. I just never mistake myself for a Vulcan or a robot.
And you have no frigging idea what my political goals might be.
Do you know the difference between a single event and a movement?
Visited Eastern Europe lately?
Repeating it doesn’t actually make the argument. Especially when the critiques include such absolute absurdities as there being no white racism inherent in the US legal system.
It’s a cornerstone of how most people discuss race, though.
You really can’t.
Yet this is self-evidently the case.
And if this is so, why is this so?
Yes, “throwing a tantrum” is exactly what the Whites here did when the British quit governing.
It’s a statement about the negligible value if the pure idea of democracy (which is what you seem to prize) vs the lived experience of that democracy for many PoCs. I realised just saying this might be too much of a subjective thing for you, so I turned it into a concrete empirical exercise for you. I figured you would be eager to put the much-ballyhooed faculty of reasoning to work on something undeniably real, not an airy-fairy subjective account.
But it looks like you only prize reason in the abstract, when you think it lets you win internet arguments. You appear unwilling to apply it to anything real.
The footnote in the linked article indicates that they took the small sample size into account, and still came up with a range of 10% to 40% for the risk ratio, with a 95% confidence level:
So, while it may not be statistically valid to claim black teens are exactly 21 times as likely to be killed by police as white teens, it is statistically valid to say that black teens are anywhere from 10 to 40 times as likely to be killed by police as white teens.
And this remains total nonsense. People largely voted for Trump because they wanted to vote for Trump or because they believed the firehose of bullshit the right have been spraying at Clinton for two decades, not because Hillary was mean to them. Oh, some people whined about being called “deplorables” but those people were never going to vote for Hillary. This idea that if only the Democrats had been a bit nicer Trump would have lost is ludicrous.
I’m sure that’s how you remember it. Of course, I remember a lot of Democrats saying positive things about McCain, at least until he saddled himself with a grossly unqualified running mate. And even then, he wasn’t considered “the worst person in the world” - that’s entirely your hyperbole. And while Romney was a rich, entitled asshole who insulted half the population (which did drive some undecided people to vote for Obama), deeply embarrassed himself abroad and, yes, bragged about animal cruelty, that didn’t make him the “worst person in the world” either. Again, that’s your hyperbole.
Heck, I don’t even think Trump is the “worst person in the world”. He’s certainly a terrible person by all sorts of metrics and I’m guessing in the end he’ll give Buchanan a run for his money in the “worst president” rankings but there are far worse people in the world, including several of the people Trump has openly expressed admiration for.
Way to completely ignore my point.
That gave them to the power to do it. That’s not what drove Republican voters to push for implementation of voter ID under the assumption that the only way Democrats - and particularly a black guy - win elections is by cheating.
No, but you expend every effort to build liberal strawmen so you can knock them down and you have shown no qualms about repeating right-wing memes and propaganda.
Oh, but that’s the whole point of that argument - have you not been paying attention? It’s dragged out to excuse assholes being assholes, often by the assholes themselves. And anyone offended by the “plain speaking” is a “snowflake”. It gets used as an excuse quite a lot.
It’s both honest and accurate, as your own description of these people reflects.
This is like saying “Democrats break the speed limit, Republicans break the speed limit through elementary school playgrounds - they’re exactly the same!”. It is an argument deliberately designed to handwave away the significant differences of degree, frequency and impact.
No, it really isn’t.
No, there really isn’t. There’s a vilification of whiny assholes, and a tendency of whiny assholes to ascribe that vilification to their race rather than the fact that they’re whiny assholes, but that doesn’t make it true. It’s the same way homophobes claim that when people call them out for their homophobia they’re really being persecuted for their faith - it’s just deflection.
Which “less offensive words” do you suggest will magically stop fragile white people from voting for Trump?
Oh, and by the way:
If that’s an accusation you want to level, you might want to re-read your own posts. Because this whole “The Democrats are picking on white people” thing is exactly the type of argument you’re claiming to be against.
Really?
because you seemed pretty convinced when you cited the pro-publica article.
What pro-publica did was not a study. Its not really a study any more than what I did in that post with the math was a study. They engaged in simple division and multiplication, not a study.
Where do you get the “a solid exercise of statistical analysis”? The one statistician they were relying on recanted.
Pro Publica didn’t use any new data.
So on the one hand, you have an actual study by an award winning Harvard economist. And another study by Michigan State university. Both peer reviewed and analytical. And on the other hand you have an exercise in simple arithmetic that pro-publica calls a study. Yeah, both sides are equal here.
And both studies show that you are correct that police engage in more harassment against blacks than whites. But they don’t kill them disproportionately. Not saying that everything is peachy keen as long as cops aren’t killing blacks but the discrimination we see in law enforcement is not quite as fatal as you have been led to believe.
Got it, you’re not interested in conflicting data, only in finding various rhetorical ways to justify dismissing it. And I’m not interested in a bunch of uncited dismissals. No need to discuss this further.
How many arguments have you won with racists? Have you changed even one racist mind in your life? Probably not. But unless you are saying that all Trump supporters are racists and bigots there are in fact people whose minds can be changed and shouting them down with accusations of racism isn’t going to do it.
No, I think they can debate just fine. I know Mari Matsuda 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.
No that’s not what crit race theory does. Here is the wiki link for our viewers at home. Critical race theory - Wikipedia
Science and facts beg to differ.
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).
I think you are misinterpreting the notion that race is a social construct.
So you think that you photo proves that America is Naziland? Really?
It seems like you do.
I think I have some idea what your political goals are (or at least your political views). I think any7one reading this thread does.
OK fine. Do you think the civil rights movement could have stopped the Holocaust?
I take your point, and not to quibble but those were widely regarded as revolutions not civil rights movements. Revolutions of 1989 - Wikipedia I doubt it would have worked for small beleaguered minorities protesting for their rights.
It does when I am repeating an actual argument.
“shit in one hand democracy in the other” is an argument? I STILL don’t know WTF that was about.
Who said that again?
Just FYI history and actual laws on the books are not generally considered subjective anecdotes or storytelling.
Brack Obama
Mark Zuckerberg
Hillary Clinton
See Jewish-Americans Generally
See Asian-Americans generally
See African immigrants generally
See Cuban-Americans generally
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.
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.
Once again, that’s called a revolution. In a democracy, that doesn’t happen a whole lot, its one of the best features of democracies. But you are succeeding in alienating a lot of voters in a democracy, where people vote for stuff.
Pure ideal or not, democracy is what we have and its better than anything else we’ve come up with to date. I happen to think that making me king would be fucking fantastic but you would probably disagree. So…democracy is what we have.
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.
Didn’t the statistician withdraw his support?
What you are saying is very defeatist. You are basically saying that there is nothing you did wrong or could have done differently to change the outcome of the last election. That if you had to do it all over again, you would have done it the same and you would have lost yet again.
Effectively, you are saying that Trump was inevitable because this is America. You did not encourage anyone to the polls for trump or discourage anyone from going to the polls for Hillary.
There was literally a segment on a TV show called “worst person in the world” McCain was on it. The politics of destruction had been around for a while by 2008.
Like I said in previous threads, by the time Trump came around, we had practically run out of horrible things to say because we had used them all up on people like McCain and Romney. Saying this stuff about Trump lost some of its efficacy because we had overused these superlatives. Kind of like how we overuse accusations of racism and bigotry.
Oh I see what’s going on. You think I am saying that YOU called McCain the worst person in the world.
I got your point. I just thought your point was useless and injected something useful in response.
You said they did it because of Obama. I’m saying they would have done it way before Obama if they could have gotten away with it and it was the SCOTUS case that gave them the room to do it.
Examples?
And what right wing memes are you talking about?
I thought I had been paying attention and plain speaking usually refers to situations where ignorant people say ignorant things that they THINK are the truth but they aren’t true. This is a case where educated people are saying true things and saying it in the way that is most likely to give offense.
I don’t think white fragility is accurate or descriptive at all. I think if you asked a bunch of collge stuents what it means they will not have a very good idea based on the term itself. If I called it “white discomfort talking about racism” everyone would know wtf I was talking about.
OK s you give an example of deceptive republican misinformation and I will give an example of deceptive Democratic misinformation and we will see who runs out first. The notion that your liars are any less deceptive than the other guy’s liars is a form of self deception.
Yes it is.
And of course this is where I say “yes there is”
What you have is not data, its a factoid. Its a journalistic article conveying a trivial item of information claiming to be data.
Once again.
On the one hand: Two peer reviewed studies say that cops do not kill blacks more frequently than whites.
On the other hand: Pro publica does some back of the napkin math to conclude cops kill blacks (between the ages of X and Y) 21 times more frequently than whites and calls it a study that has a 95% degree of confidence that the actual number is 10 times to 40 times, and then the statistician withdraws his support of the “study”
So obviously there is conflicting data, amirite?
This is how the right perpetuates the global warming debate…with conflicting “data”
Or the left perpetuates the GMO debate
Or the whackadoodles perpetuate the vaccine debate
Considering what you’ve said before about black culture, BLM, and many other related issues, I don’t find your opinion on this remotely convincing.
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?
:rolleyes:
For viewers at home I believe iiandyiiii is getting rejecting peer reviewed studies because he feels that I am racist to place any of the responsibility for the plight of blacks in America on blacks. (this fits in nicely with the subject of this thread) And the studies that I put forward as evidence should be ignored because I said something that he thinks is racist.
The thing that thinks makes him think I am racist is that I say that some significant part of the failure of black society to succeed in America is black culture. I don’t say that racism doesn’t exist or that its not a big deal. I think he was particularly offended by my use of the phrase “toxic culture” and I no longer use the term because I can say what I want to say without using a term that causes undue offense.
I also called BLM a violent organization. But this was back when we BLM events were still ending in violence or rioting. That’s not really happening any more.
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.
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.
And not surprisingly, you’re misstating my views on some other things, a discussion of which would probably belong in another thread.