Riiight. You do understand that I’m a Democrat? And not one of those people who says he’s a Democrat, but ends up voting for Republicans for national office. I *always *vote for, contribute to, and volunteer for, Democrats. (However, I was for Hillary and not Bernie.)
Let’s note also that your response about white kids getting it easier than minorities is surely true in the aggregate, but a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with whether suspending kids from school less will keep them out of prison later, a very dubious proposition.
“What should have been obvious: black people are inherently more criminal.”
I strongly recommend making that your signature for the next litle while. See how well it goes over.
Seriously, if you can’t see how insanely racist that statement is, or how absurdly premature that conclusion is, then you really should give David Duke a call, he might be able to help you work on your dog whistle technique.
That has absolutely nothing to do or to protect you from stupid fake information that you are getting, as I pointed out, from dubious sources.
I could also had made a point that even claiming to be a democrat is not a safety feature to preventing one into falling for prejudice as you showed in the point you made. The point here is to show how corrosive Murray and others are to your being.
Bullshit. Learn to read. The comparison here is between black boys who get suspended many times from school, and black boys who do not. There is no black/white comparison involved! Jesus.
Bullshit to you, you implied others when you mentioned " Stop suspending teenage black boys so much" That can not be said unless other teenage boys that are not black exist in that example of yours. And that is the case. Just so you know.
Really, are you trying to pretend that your example had no basis on a real issue that came because for the same incidents other kids are not punished the same, and that it is more complicated than what the race colored glasses you are using are telling you?
I’m not litigating the issue of whether black kids are punished more harshly then white kids (which I’m sure depends on the school and is probably the most egregious in public schools in the Deep South with a majority white enrollment). The point is that the serious policy proposal was made that suspending these kids less will have a causative effect of making it less likely that they will go to prison later. If the ones ultimately going to prison are being railroaded (and that certainly happens, again especially in the Deep South), then how on Earth would refusing to suspend them in high school keep them from getting railroaded a few years later? It makes no sense whatsoever.
My apologies, maybe you understand how I might get that from the context of what you were responding to, as GIGO rightfully points out.
But even then, it’s still a baseless conclusion, one that is not “obvious” by any stretch of the imagination. As has been pointed out, there’s a huge racial component in suspensions. A great many of them are not for things that indicate criminality in any meaningful way. Despite that, the correlation exists.
I appreciate the apology and in retrospect I can somewhat understand the confusion. But what mechanism of action would be involved to introduce a causation arrow of this type? The point is not just generally whether black kids are unfairly getting suspended too much, it’s a specific claim that suspending them too much is causing them to end up in prison later rather than those being co-correlates of something else.
The point was that since doing so with white kids for the same incidents makes it less likely for them to do worse things it follows that doing the same and fair thing with black kids will affect them the same.
You are also missing what is going on at the same time, the criminalization of student discipline.
But if we know that racism plays a non-trivial part in suspensions, and we know that suspensions correlate with prison time, why in god’s name would we assume that the co-correlation is inherent criminality? That doesn’t make any sense. It makes even less sense when you note that racism also plays a big part in arrests and sentencing.
Oh dear. You are quoting the exact mindless pablum I was complaining about, that so badly conflates correlation with causation. This is exactly why I had to laugh at the claim that spurious correlation was the domain of the far right.
I would bet you anything that the same kind of “quantitative analysis” would “prove” that selling people ice cream just *increases *the rate of heat stroke. Ban ice cream, and heat stroke rates should plummet! Oy.
Did they randomize into test and control groups, and then suspend some kids and not suspend others, then follow them to see who drops out of school? Obviously not. So what this actually means is that if you look at the record of a high school dropout, they are twice as likely as a non-dropout to have a suspension on their record (although there’s still a 68 percent chance they will not). It would be shocking if this were *not *the case.
Ai yi yi, the innumeracy is rampant.
C’mon, guys: I know some of you, even some of the ones most bitterly opposing me throughout this thread, know better than this. Don’t stay silent just because this nonsense is coming from your “side”.
ETA:
I’ll ask again: what’s your plausible mechanism for causation here?
In any case, you can speculate about why it might be causative, but Ockham’s Razor cuts the other way. It’s not plausible that kids, of whatever race, who are headed on a trajectory toward dropping out, would be no more likely than non-dropouts to do stuff along the way that gets them suspended. Even if your speculation has merit as one factor, it’s not of the magnitude they are stating as a precise ratio. That you can take to the bank.
This tangent all started because of an assertion that correlation was the province of the far right. Now you’re defending correlation mapped to causation in a highly speculative way, because you approve of the conclusion? This is so far from a sober, rigorous approach.
Let me try one more angle to illustrate how questionable this is. It’s no doubt also true that getting Fs is highly correlated with later dropping out. So hey: you’re the new principal and make a new policy that henceforth no Fs will be awarded. The result? Either the dropout rate won’t change, or your diplomas will become toilet paper.
SlackerInc, you’ve expressed the belief that you have pride in your pale skin, light eyes, and Northern European heritage, and that pale skinned, light eyed Northern Europeans (and Asians) have superior genes, on average, for high intelligence.
It’s not credible that those two beliefs are not linked. You are human, after all. Lots of people really believe that some groups are inherently genetically superior in intelligence to other groups… almost all of them happen to believe that they personally are a member of one of those high intelligence groups. Do you think that’s a coincidence?
