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.
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.
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? :dubious:
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.
…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.
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.
Once again - it’s not the racists I expect will change. It’s the subsequent generations.
Oh, and have you told her your views on CRT?
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?
From your own cite:
I’m sorry, what about what I said disagrees with that?
Give me the scientific definition of “Truth”, then…
Dude, that’s a (stupid) fucking marketing slogan. Not holy writ. Don’t make the mistake of thinking it is.
No, I’m just highlighting one implication of that fact.Social constructs are inherently subjective. You disagree?
Are those not Nazis?
I’d say the same for you.
As your refusal to carry out empirical studies shows.
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.
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…
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,
Try it and see. It doesn’t have to be your own shit. You could try a big handful of bullshit, for instance…
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.
People’s experience of same, is.
Firstly, “general rule”. Secondly -
[ul]
[li]Not allowed to fully succeed - by a Congress of mostly White Males, I might add[/li][li]Zuckerberg is a White Male, what is that supposed to refute?[/li][li]Is Clinton president? Stop making my arguments for me.[/li][/ul]
White
How many Asian congresspeople? How many Presidents?
Are you fucking kidding me?
The White ones, like Cruz and Rubio…
You saying that’s not the case? And “But, Barack Obama…” is, under it all,the sum total of your “logical” reasoning for that?
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.
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.
We’ve come up with better. They just weren’t allowed to succeed by outside forces.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe this is true. I’d certainly be interested in looking further into it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No but the effects of racism are not.
Yes but I can show you a picture of BLM and that wouldn’t make this BLM land.
You would be wrong.
Wait, when did I refuse to carry out empirical studies? Why the fuck should I when others have already done so?
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.
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.
OK CR is bullshit because it relies on subjective experience, anecdotes and storytelling. It plays upon emotion rather than reason.
:rolleyes:
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 -
[ul]
[li]Not allowed to fully succeed - by a Congress of mostly White Males, I might add[/li][li]Zuckerberg is a White Male, what is that supposed to refute?[/ul][/li][/quote]
Well, he’s Jewish.
And what do you mean fully succeed?
[quote]
[li]Is Clinton president? Stop making my arguments for me.[/li][/quote]
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.
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.
About a dozen. A bit less than their percentage of the population if you only count citizens that are able to vote.
How many Jewish presidents? I mean, they white, right? This is indicative of nothing.
Nope
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
:rolleyes: 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 men
Not 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”
…what do you mean “no?” You don’t think its possible to have a reputation for being different things?
He has indeed. An all around nice guy
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?
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.
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.
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.
False dichotomy - I use both. Because I’m not a robot.
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.
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…
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.
