Hmmm, which opinion should I take more seriously on a matter of statistics? That of a professional statistician, or random internet person who disputes the professional statistician’s opinion? Such a dilemma…
No he hasn’t. He certainly hasn’t put them anywhere near the same league as actual peer reviewed studies.
You cannot put Pro-Publica’s observation in the same category as two peer reviewed studies. That’s like taking the tempurature in July then again in November and declaring Global warming up in the air because according to your readings the temperature of the earth is actually going down.
No its just wrong.
The math isn’t wrong any more than the temperature readings between July and November are wrong. But that doesn’t really put all the global warming studies in doubt.
Your desperation is showing. Its now becoming clear that you either don’t understand or don’t care to understand. You just want to live in a world where you can say that cops are disproportionately killing black people. Because if they weren’t then much of the BLM outrage would be fucking embarassing.
You might be too invested in the notion that cops are disproportionately killing black people.
So you got real cocky after Buck Godot made his first post and then when I pointed out that his assumptions were flawed, you got awfully quiet.
Then Buck came back and said that the flaws in the assumptions still left room for you to be correct and you got all cocky again.
Read his post again.
You are not dangerous because of your ideas. Your ideas are crap. What makes you dangerous is that people take your crap ideas seriously because they think you’re a nice guy with an open mind. When in reality you’re just polite.
Lets see what Buck thinks about comparing the pro-publica’s observation to actual studies.
I’m sorry I’m just so damn dangerous that you need to consistently mischaracterize what I post (“awfully quiet”? LOL). My danger is leading me to believe, based on your posts, that your command of math and statistics is just not very good.
It’s just too dangerous, apparently, for you to admit that perhaps a few conflicting studies based on very, very limited data isn’t enough to make a conclusion about such a fraught issue.
No this is pretty clear. There is not a lot of “conflict” here. You have an observation by pro-publica based on 1%-2% of the dataset on the one hand and you have two peer reviewed studies of ALL the data on the other hand. We can reach conclusions. They may be disproven later but we have sufficient information to draw conclusions.
You certainly seemed to think we had enough information to draw conclusions when all we had were the raw numbers showing black men getting shot at 3 times the rate of white men.
You are basically the guy that say that global warming is still just a theory because it got colder in the Fall. Your mind has never been open on anything having to do with race AFAICT.
Your mind reading fails again, but that’s probably because I’m just so damned dangerous. 
You were making some pretty strong statements about police killings for someone who hadn’t reached any conclusions about whether cops kill black men more than white men. I don’t think you need to be a mind reader to conclude that you had reached conclusions months if not years ago.
Apparently citing posts is too dangerous for you, so you’ll settle for vague and unsupported statements about me. IIRC, I’ve been quite consistent for a long time, that I have very strong and serious concerns about police violence (especially against people of color and in particular young black men), and think it would be appropriate to investigate further. But my memory may just be too damn dangerous for you…
In the latest episode of The Good Place–spoiler alert!–Chidi’s mind finally snaps. Instead of being a calm, soft-spoken voice of reason, he buys hundreds of dollars worth of canned chili and peeps and cooks them together and starts to eat and won’t stop.
iiandyiiii, and I say this with great affection, the more you write about being dangerous, the more I hear your posts in the voice of mind-snapped Chidi.
Damuri said something hilariously ridiculous. We get it :).
That’s odd, as I was starting to hear him as Dark Wing Duck.
They are overused but at the same time sometimes actual cases of racism/sexism are under-reported.
I can’t help it. I’m just too dangerous, even for my own good…
Sayin… Ever since I posted that, I’ve had the DWD theme song stuck in my head, and I haven’t even seen it in nearly 30 years.
Danger and a menace to society, you are!
You seemed to blame the perceived results collectively on police, blaming their organizational culture. Assigning blame seems inconsistent with simply investigating further.
When you posted the thread originally in 2014 I thought the conclusions were far fetched and still do. Using the ProPublica data as a cite is completely unpersuasive. Here is the cite:
Not sure what you’re disputing here. I still endorse this broad critique of police culture, and base it on a very broad set of evidence that goes far, far beyond any single report. As to the exact disparity in police killings by race, I’m skeptical of claims that there’s absolutely nothing to be concerned about and believe that deep investigation, including requiring departments to keep such data and report it, is warranted.
I feel like we’ve quite thoroughly lost the forest for the trees, which is a shame, because the individual trees of this one single study on a tiny number of police shootings seems pretty unimportant contrasted with the forest of institutional racism and accusations of racism potentially being overused as a weapon to silence people.
Seriously, this thread was interesting for a good long while, then you guys devolved into bizarre minutia and bickering over one silly little study that doesn’t actually matter. This seems rather silly.
Based on the studies presented that conflict with the ProPublica study, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to not be convinced that the disparity in shootings is as large as 21 times.
Dangerous idea, huh?
I’m saying the relative certainty that you held in the 2014 thread was misplaced.
If I was absolutely certain that the ProPublica study was the end-all be-all of police shooting disparity statistics, that would indeed have been misplaced. However, I believe I was just going on something like “this study appears to be the only one out there to have studied this particular issue, and it appears to be based on good math and analysis even though the data available is very limited, so let’s have a discussion about it under the assumption it’s good data”. If there were conflicting studies at the time, skimming the thread doesn’t reveal any of them.
And skimming that thread, I think we did indeed have a good discussion.