Are the US Police Racist? What do the data say?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Jon Stewart 14 Jul 2020

Well, if you listen to Sam Harris, or our own Coel Hellier, then apparently the data say that no, the US police are not racist.

Sam Harris:

youtube.com/watch?v=vmgxtcbc4iU&

This guy's response to Sam Harris is well worth a listen. He picks through the whole of Harris' podcast, but if you want to get into the meat of it, start here:

youtube.com/watch?v=_A1cmqbI31M&t=5355

I would like to think that this can put to bed the idea that "the left" are irrational and emotional, while those who resist policies to improve equality are calm, rational and see the facts clearly. That idea is complete bullshit - see for yourself.

16
Alyson30 14 Jul 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Already quoted this but it references to a series of studies.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z

Post edited at 22:43
3
 Offwidth 16 Jul 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Thanks very much for that Jon.  A bit slow to start but one of the best demolitions of the poor science behind the leading public critics of BLM relayed stats that I've seen and linked properly to the literature. The Sam Harris blog is his usual crap and I don't think you need to listen to it to understand the points the criminologist Peter Hanink makes. Shame Coel is no longer around to face this.

Those claiming black shootings are exactly what you would expect from the reported crime rates of blacks in the US are making clear methodological errors as they fail to take into account what constitutes crime is what gets recorded as such by the police (racially biassed according to the literature) and is in the context that pretty much all black kids 'get the talk' and police should  be being more careful, given the furore in recent years. There is also good coverage of the big elephant in the room: about black deaths due to non lethal force (ie how Floyd could possibly end up being killed by a policeman, when cuffed, in public and on camera, over nearly 9 minutes, in a time of BLM disputes)

Post edited at 06:33
2
scott culyer 16 Jul 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

ironic gross generalisation. 'the police' is actually made up of individual people. each one of those people have there own beliefs and attitudes. if just one of those people is not racist then no, 'the police' are not racist.

16
 Timmd 16 Jul 2020
In reply to scott culyer: I suppose that's obvious, and it's the results on black and Hispanic and Asian people (and white) of the policing in general which is being talked about. 

Post edited at 20:12
 Stichtplate 16 Jul 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

The thing I dislike about this stuff is the blanket generalisations. The police aren't any more racist than any other profession, you may as well say "accountants are racist", some certainly are most, not so much.

I'd still like someone to explain BLM's UK context in light of the fact that a white person in police custody is 25% less likely to survive the experience than a black person.

2
 Andy Hardy 16 Jul 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

There's a bit of a flaw in the argument there, if you are black, and need an accountant but find that they happen to be racist, you would be free to take your business elsewhere. Can't do that with the police!

5
 Stichtplate 16 Jul 2020
In reply to Andy Hardy:

You’ve not understood my argument 

1
Rigid Raider 16 Jul 2020
In reply to scott culyer:

My brother who lives in Michigan often sends me long soul-searching emails pondering America and its citizens. He has strong views on how Americans are only a few generations away from arriving as refugees and taking land by force. He reckons your average Police officer is descended from Aryan or Scandinavian stock and inclined to fascism; he thinks many would have been members of the Hitler Youth in another world.

 thomasadixon 16 Jul 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

As far as I heard there was a big appeal to authority (from a social scientist!  Ha.), a slur on Sam Harris’ character, and a lot of verbiage.  He also did the facts aren’t facts spiel - the stats say something?  Well obviously the stats aren’t real, they are themselves biased.

What did he say that was worth listening to?

3
 Offwidth 17 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

So you attack the man, state a slur that he was very careful to ensure wasn't there (he only ever responded to specific things Sam said). He never denied the stats at any stage, he discussed the methodological problems of treating crime stats in the way Sam does and points out other stats in other literature that say things that Sam ignores... especially deaths from non lethal force which is way more pertinent in considering what happened to Floyd.

 Offwidth 17 Jul 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

What is your argument though? Having an institutionally racist department is nothing to do with every officer in it being racist, a majority might not be, its about systematic failures in the department to deal with racism.

The problems in the Minnesota police do appear to be systemic and there are good reasons why that is (see the link below) and given Republicans control the state senate and are digging their heels in on the face of clear evidence of this, it won't be changing until they lose that control.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/05/minneapolis-police-union-bo...

1
OP Jon Stewart 17 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

Listening is not your strong point. Had you listened, you would be able to back up what you say. 

> As far as I heard there was a big appeal to authority. 

Where? Stating that someone is not familiar with the literature on an area of study is not an appeal to authority. 

> a slur on Sam Harris’ character,

Where? 

> He also did the facts aren’t facts spiel - the stats say something?  Well obviously the stats aren’t real, they are themselves biased.

He said sam cherry picked.

2
 Andy Hardy 17 Jul 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

I think you were essentially saying "don't tar all cops with the racist brush". Fair enough, as far as it goes, but the police have a monopoly on law enforcement, so they are much more worthy of scrutiny w.r.t. racism than a single company of accountants. I'm not saying the police are racist (systemically or individually) just that since we are all equal under the law, we cannot allow ourselves to be complacent

 thomasadixon 17 Jul 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Where? Stating that someone is not familiar with the literature on an area of study is not an appeal to authority. 

It certainly is.  He repeats over and over that he’s a criminologist, and he rubbishes some professor’s (can’t recall the name) stats because he’s an economist.  Accomplished, etc, but not in the field and so wrong.  Not that the stats are wrong, but that in the context of history he must be wrong.

> Where? 

He does the I’m not saying you’re racist but you’re racist thing - if only you were Latin, like me, you wouldn’t be suffering so much unconscious bias and could see the truth.  It’s towards the end.  I suppose that could be seen as not a slur - but only if you see it as an argument that people who are white are all unable to see the truth by nature (so it’s not SH’s fault).

> He said sam cherry picked.

He referenced stats from the 70s and said that proves Sam wrong, which makes no sense, Sam’s talking about now.  The implication that he cherry picked is that he was seeking the result - which is another slur.

What did he say that you thought was interesting?

 tom r 17 Jul 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

That's a good article, the statistic, "Based on information from more than two million 911 calls in two US cities, he concluded that white officers dispatched to Black neighbourhoods fired their guns five times as often as Black officers dispatched for similar calls to the same neighbourhoods" is pretty damming to show racism in the police.

Much more so than individual cases. Without knowing the police officer well I don't know how you can tell if some action was due to racism. 

Post edited at 10:34
3
 Offwidth 17 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

He criticised the economist because he had no peer reviewed criminology articles and the referencing from the criminology subject area were well below normal standards.

OP Jon Stewart 17 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> It certainly is.  He repeats over and over that he’s a criminologist, and he rubbishes some professor’s (can’t recall the name) stats because he’s an economist.  Accomplished, etc, but not in the field and so wrong.  Not that the stats are wrong, but that in the context of history he must be wrong.

He's appealing to the literature, not to authority.

An appeal to authority is to say "because person x said it, it is true". That's not verifiable. The criminology literature is published, it can be checked. Go and read some reviews if you doubt him, it's all out there. He's inviting you to check the literature, not making a claim that cannot be verified.

> He does the I’m not saying you’re racist but you’re racist thing

He` makes the point racist trends in society occur without the need for conscious, deliberate racism. How do you think results like this come about?

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/study-finds-alarming-discrimination-again...

Those HR people weren't all racists, were they? There was unconscious bias at play. How else do you explain the result?

> He referenced stats from the 70s and said that proves Sam wrong, which makes no sense, Sam’s talking about now.  The implication that he cherry picked is that he was seeking the result - which is another slur.

It's not a slur. It's a criticism.

> What did he say that you thought was interesting?

One memorable point was SH's claim that someone was sacked after their wife said "all lives matter". In fact, they'd resigned after their wife had said that the protesters should be shot like cattle. 

Do you think Sam was giving a calm, dispassionate description of the facts?

I thought the point that you don't deal with a problem by pretending it doesn't exist was bang on.

Harris' analysis is crap for other reasons not covered. He works on the basis that the information the protesters have about racism in the police is limited to the stories of shootings, and he's wrong. I think the major factor that drives the protesters is their own experience with the police, and events like Floyd are only triggers.

The way SH argued was extremely devious. First he sets out to say "I am calm and dispassionate and factual" and then proceeds to spend a chunk of the podcast trying to get us to empathise (that means emotionally) with the police. And he spends absolutely no time talking about all the experiences of all the people who've suffered low-level unrecorded racism at the hands of the police, which I believe is that actual reality of what drives the protests.

Post edited at 11:32
 thomasadixon 17 Jul 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> He's appealing to the literature, not to authority.

That’s an appeal to authority, and I disagree in any case, he’s holding himself up as an authority.

> An appeal to authority is to say "because person x said it, it is true". That's not verifiable. The criminology literature is published, it can be checked. Go and read some reviews if you doubt him, it's all out there. He's inviting you to check the literature, not making a claim that cannot be verified.

Its a vague claim, I’m not checking all the literature - I also doubt the relevance of historical literature when trying to find out what the situation is today.  History doesn’t tell us what is now, it tells us what was.

> He` makes the point racist trends in society occur without the need for conscious, deliberate racism. How do you think results like this come about?

His point was that Sam Harris is biased because he’s white.

> Those HR people weren't all racists, were they? There was unconscious bias at play. How else do you explain the result?

Maybe they were.  What’s the relevance?

> It's not a slur. It's a criticism.

It’s a slur if he’s saying it was deliberate, which he appears to be, since SH says he’s trying to look at data dispassionately.  Like I said, the alternative is that he’s saying SH is wrong because he’s white and as such is necessarily biased.

> One memorable point was SH's claim that someone was sacked after their wife said "all lives matter". In fact, they'd resigned after their wife had said that the protesters should be shot like cattle.

Okay.  So in that case, assuming that’s true, he got a fact wrong.

> Do you think Sam was giving a calm, dispassionate description of the facts?

I think what he was doing was arguing that is what we ought to do first, rather than relying on assumptions.  He also details some facts, but that’s only part of what is a long talk.

> I thought the point that you don't deal with a problem by pretending it doesn't exist was bang on.

The assumption there is that the problem is x, SH’s point is that this assumption may be incorrect.

> Harris' analysis is crap for other reasons not covered. He works on the basis that the information the protesters have about racism in the police is limited to the stories of shootings, and he's wrong. I think the major factor that drives the protesters is their own experience with the police, and events like Floyd are only triggers.

How does that work for say the Bristol protest, where the vast majority of people were white?  How does that work when the argument is that black people - in general - are treated differently.  That necessarily can’t be based on personal experience.

3
 Offwidth 17 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

So I guess you have missed the fact that  most of those criminologists who largely agree with each other and with him are white.

 thomasadixon 17 Jul 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

Nope, didn’t miss that.  Relevance?

2
OP Jon Stewart 17 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> That’s an appeal to authority, and I disagree in any case, he’s holding himself up as an authority.

Wrong. An appeal to verifiable research is an appeal to verifiable research.

> Its a vague claim, I’m not checking all the literature

It's your choice. You can either take his word "I'm a criminologist and I know the literature, take my word for it", or you can check. There is no weakness in his argument because you don't want to check. You can if you want.

> His point was that Sam Harris is biased because he’s white.

When did he say that?

> Maybe they were.  What’s the relevance?

You disputed the idea that racist outcomes can come about without conscious racism. You're wrong, and the study shows that in the case of HR - it's a far better explanation than the recruiters being conscious racists.  Bias doesn't require conscious racism - Hanink is correct.

> It’s a slur if he’s saying it was deliberate, which he appears to be, since SH says he’s trying to look at data dispassionately. 

It's a criticism, not a slur. SH says he’s trying to look at data dispassionately, and he probably thinks he is. He's just bad at it, because he's out of his depth, he doesn't understand the issue and he's got an axe to grind. 

> Like I said, the alternative is that he’s saying SH is wrong because he’s white and as such is necessarily biased.

That's complete shit and you made it up. If it isn't, you will be able to give the timestamp in the video where this implication is made. I await with baited breath.

> Okay.  So in that case, assuming that’s true, he got a fact wrong.

Which undermines his case that he's in possession of the facts and BLM supporters are not.

> The assumption there is that the problem is x, SH’s point is that this assumption may be incorrect.

And his evidence for that claim is weak because his analysis is poor and biased. You've got to remember that Sam Harris has been vilified as "alt-right" by many anti-racists (which is laughable) and he has a massive axe to grind against them. To the point where he positions himself along side total pillocks like Jordan Peterson as part of the ludicrously entitled "IDW".

> How does that work for say the Bristol protest, where the vast majority of people were white?  How does that work when the argument is that black people - in general - are treated differently.  That necessarily can’t be based on personal experience.

I'm talking about what I think is the reason for the BLM protests SH and Hanink were discussing. I think there are different issues at stake in the UK - I don't think black kids in the UK are taught by their parents how to avoid getting shot by the police.

Post edited at 13:10
2
 Cobra_Head 17 Jul 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Regardless of the statistics, black people distrust and fear of the police, especially in America is a major factor.

The fact "bad cops" are supported by their unions and often reinstated many times is something that wouldn't happen in "normal" jobs, so Stickplate's Accounts line doesn't really fly.

When you here stories like the black bloke that needs his daughter to come jogging with him so he doesn't get shot, then whatever the statistics say there's something badly wrong.

 thomasadixon 17 Jul 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Wrong. An appeal to verifiable research is an appeal to verifiable research.

Clearly we have different definitions of what “authority” is.  Appealing to legal texts, rather than masking arguments, is an appeal to authority.  The same is true in any subject imo.

> It's your choice. You can either take his word "I'm a criminologist and I know the literature, take my word for it", or you can check. There is no weakness in his argument because you don't want to check. You can if you want.

Or I can say that the appeal to authority lacks substance and as such can be ignored...which I will.

> When did he say that?

I cba to find you a time stamp, when he talks about unconscious bias.

> You disputed the idea that racist outcomes can come about without conscious racism. You're wrong, and the study shows that in the case of HR - it's a far better explanation than the recruiters being conscious racists.  Bias doesn't require conscious racism - Hanink is correct.

Nope, I didn’t.  I said that this was Hanink’s argument as to why Harris was wrong.  It’s non specific to the situation and so not very interesting.

> It's a criticism, not a slur. SH says he’s trying to look at data dispassionately, and he probably thinks he is. He's just bad at it, because he's out of his depth, he doesn't understand the issue and he's got an axe to grind.

So show that, rather than arguing that due to his whiteness he’s intrinsically biased.p

> That's complete shit and you made it up. If it isn't, you will be able to give the timestamp in the video where this implication is made. I await with baited breath.

Its a logical inference.  If he’s biased then it’s either deliberate or unconscious, it has to be one or the other.

> Which undermines his case that he's in possession of the facts and BLM supporters are not.

He could just have got a particular fact wrong.  Getting a fact wrong does undermine your case, of course, but getting one fact wrong in a list of facts is an error that can be ignored.

> And his evidence for that claim is weak because his analysis is poor and biased. You've got to remember that Sam Harris has been vilified as "alt-right" by many anti-racists (which is laughable) and he has a massive axe to grind against them. To the point where he positions himself along side total pillocks like Jordan Peterson as part of the ludicrously entitled "IDW".

You’re now making the same kind of argument as your speaker, not that what he says is wrong, rather that he’s biased and so shouldn’t be listened to.

> I'm talking about what I think is the reason for the BLM protests SH and Hanink were discussing. I think there are different issues at stake in the UK - I don't think black kids in the UK are taught by their parents how to avoid getting shot by the police.

That doesn’t answer the second point.  How can the view be from personal experience?

3
OP Jon Stewart 17 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Nope, I didn’t.  I said that this was Hanink’s argument as to why Harris was wrong.  It’s non specific to the situation and so not very interesting.

> So show that, rather than arguing that due to his whiteness he’s intrinsically biased.

The due to whiteness is made up by you. It's not worth responding to.

> Its a logical inference.  If he’s biased then it’s either deliberate or unconscious, it has to be one or the other.

I think Sam thinks he's being fair, but a more intelligent understanding shows him to be biased. 

> You’re now making the same kind of argument as your speaker, not that what he says is wrong, rather that he’s biased and so shouldn’t be listened to.

He should be listened to. I did listen to him. He should also be criticised.

Do you think he should be criticised?

> That doesn’t answer the second point.  How can the view be from personal experience?

You've lost me. I'm talking about what drives the US BLM protests - the personal experience of black people in the US.

 thomasadixon 17 Jul 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> The due to whiteness is made up by you. It's not worth responding to.

He says he’s Latin so doesn’t share this unconscious bias, seems pretty clear to me.

> I think Sam thinks he's being fair, but a more intelligent understanding shows him to be biased. 

Okay, can’t see why I should agree though.

> He should be listened to. I did listen to him. He should also be criticised.

You were talking about him having an axe to grind, that’s not talking about what he said that’s about why you think he shouldn’t be trusted.

> Do you think he should be criticised?

I don’t think he shouldn’t be, but whether the criticism is well founded is another question.

> You've lost me. I'm talking about what drives the US BLM protests - the personal experience of black people in the US.

Some black people.  Not all have similar experience, and none experience what others experience.  How can any one black person experience black people as a group being treated differently?  It cannot be from personal experience, logically.

Post edited at 13:55
3
OP Jon Stewart 17 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> He says he’s Latin so doesn’t share this unconscious bias, seems pretty clear to me.

"due to his whiteness he’s intrinsically biased" - back it up with a timestamp.

> You were talking about him having an axe to grind, that’s not talking about what he said that’s about why you think he shouldn’t be trusted.

You're confused. Sam could have an axe to grind and still be right. But him having an axe to grind explains his behaviour. To clarify, I don't think Sam is a racist and he's attacking BLM for that reason. I think he hates the anti-racist movement because those people have screwed him over, and he's right, they have!

> I don’t think he shouldn’t be, but whether the criticism is well founded is another question.

Exactly - if we could, it would be interesting to survey knowledgeable people in the field of policing to see what they thought of the arguments and counter-arguments about whether policing in the US is racially biased.

> Some black people.  Not all have similar experience, and none experience what others experience.  How can any one black person experience black people as a group being treated differently?  It cannot be from personal experience, logically.

I don't understand, sorry.

Post edited at 14:10
2
 thomasadixon 17 Jul 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> "due to his whiteness he’s intrinsically biased" - back it up with a timestamp.

I paraphrased, I did not hide that.  Maybe 2 hrs in (ish) is the section.

> You're confused. Sam could have an axe to grind and still be right. But him having an axe to grind explains his behaviour. To clarify, I don't think Sam is a racist and he's attacking BLM for that reason. I think he hates the anti-racist movement because those people have screwed him over, and he's right, they have!

Cant see how I’m confused, you’re attacking him, not what he said.  It could explain his behaviour, or it could be irrelevant.

> Exactly - if we could, it would be interesting to survey knowledgeable people in the field of policing to see what they thought of the arguments and counter-arguments about whether policing in the US is racially biased.

Maybe. 

> I don't understand, sorry.

I cannot have personal knowledge of the way white people are treated, I can only have personal knowledge of the way I’m treated.  To get to how white people are treated in general I have to listen to other people’s experiences.  Same would apply if I were black.

2
OP Jon Stewart 17 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I paraphrased, I did not hide that.  Maybe 2 hrs in (ish

> Cant see how I’m confused, you’re attacking him, not what he said.  It could explain his behaviour, or it could be irrelevant.

I criticised what he said, and I commented on what I think influenced why he said it. You have no line of attack here.

> I cannot have personal knowledge of the way white people are treated, I can only have personal knowledge of the way I’m treated.  To get to how white people are treated in general I have to listen to other people’s experiences.  Same would apply if I were black.

If it is common for black people to experience low-level racism from the police, then that will lead to widespread anger and distrust, and a perception that policing is racially biased. In turn, an event like Floyd will trigger protests.

Are you saying there is a logical error here?

Post edited at 14:54
1
 thomasadixon 17 Jul 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I criticised what he said, and I commented on what I think influenced why he said it. You have no line of attack here.

You said his argument was “poor and biased”.  Criticism, sure, but its not substantive.  I didn’t see any space between that criticism and the assertion of bias.

> If it is common for black people to experience low-level racism from the police, then that will lead to widespread anger and distrust, and a perception that policing is racially biased. In turn, an event like Floyd  the will trigger protests.

> Are you saying there is a logical error here? 

The complaint is not about individual personal experiences, it’s the idea that overall black people are badly treated due to their race.  An individual might be upset about their own experience but that’s not why the protests are happening.  They’re happening because of a belief not formed from personal experience.

4
Alyson30 18 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

>  An individual might be upset about their own experience but that’s not why the protests are happening.  They’re happening because of a belief not formed from personal experience.

According to survey data, 76% of blacks in the US report personal experience of discrimination. 13% of them report it to be happening on a regular basis.

42% of them report being unfairly stopped by police.

Either the majority of blacks are liars, or you don’t know what you are talking about.

I wonder which it is.

Post edited at 11:48
6
 thomasadixon 18 Jul 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> According to survey data, 76% of blacks in the US report personal experience of discrimination. 13% of them report it to be happening on a regular basis.

> 42% of them report being unfairly stopped by police.

So 58% aren’t basing their view on personal experience, and in reality that’s 100% anyway since as said it’s a general view.  The argument that as it’s based on personal experience it should be believed is illogical.

3
 thomasadixon 18 Jul 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> 42% of them report being unfairly stopped by police.

So 58% aren’t basing their view on personal experience, and in reality that’s 100% anyway since as said it’s a general view.  The argument that as it’s based on personal experience it should be believed is illogical.

OP Jon Stewart 18 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> So 58% aren’t basing their view on personal experience, and in reality that’s 100% anyway since as said it’s a general view.  The argument that as it’s based on personal experience it should be believed is illogical.

Viscous drivel that dismisses the experiences of black people. It makes me sick.

5
 Niall_H 18 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> So 58% aren’t basing their view on personal experience

No, that means that 58% of black people did not report being unfairly stopped.  Unfairly treated?  Overly violently  treated?  Having been with a friend who was unfairly stopped?  Those don't turn up in that stat, which you're stretching beyond its reported scope, but are still personal experience

1
 Timmd 18 Jul 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I'd still like someone to explain BLM's UK context in light of the fact that a white person in police custody is 25% less likely to survive the experience than a black person.

I suppose the deaths in police custody are only one facet where the general public has interactions with the police, and things like stop and search and likelihood of arrest are parts of the broader picture, too.

I'm unaware of the boarder picture BTW....

Post edited at 19:39
2
 DaveHK 18 Jul 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I clicked on this thinking it was a Lemming thread. The title certainly sounds like a Lemming thread.  

OP Jon Stewart 18 Jul 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Viscous drivel that dismisses the experiences of black people. It makes me sick.

I actually meant to write "vicious" - but I quite like the idea of "viscous drivel", although it's a bit mild for how shit I found the comment.

4
 DenzelLN 18 Jul 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

When and why did Coel get cancelled? 

OP Jon Stewart 18 Jul 2020
In reply to DenzelLN:

I thought he might just be away but it appears he's not allowed to post at the mo. I think we're not meant to discuss this, but obviously I'm curious. While I think he consistently posts complete crap, when I was unbelievably rude to him he was never rude back - which I always found amusing. It was like having a robust punching bag - satisfying, but without the adrenaline of sparring.

7
 DenzelLN 18 Jul 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I quite enjoy his posting tbh. Yes, i have noticed your rudeness, are you like that in the real world or just online?

OP Jon Stewart 18 Jul 2020
In reply to DenzelLN:

> I quite enjoy his posting tbh. Yes, i have noticed your rudeness, are you like that in the real world or just online?

In real life I don't hang out with people who I think ruin our society, so I've no reason to be rude.

6
 DenzelLN 18 Jul 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> In real life I don't hang out with people who I think ruin our society

Oh good, neither do i. Likely we will never meet. Do carry on...

 Timmd 18 Jul 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I thought he might just be away but it appears he's not allowed to post at the mo. I think we're not meant to discuss this, but obviously I'm curious. While I think he consistently posts complete crap, when I was unbelievably rude to him he was never rude back - which I always found amusing. It was like having a robust punching bag - satisfying, but without the adrenaline of sparring.

'That's not very nice'. 

Alyson30 18 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> So 58% aren’t basing their view on personal experience, and in reality that’s 100% anyway since as said it’s a general view.  The argument that as it’s based on personal experience it should be believed is illogical.

What is illogical is to suggest that being unfairly stopped by police is the only possible experience of discrimination, which would be a necessary assumption to make to come up with this number.

> The argument that as it’s based on personal experience it should be believed is illogical.

So basically your assumption is that black people are lying on survey when they are asked whether they have themselves experienced discrimination.

Wow , that's some next level burying-head-in-the-sand skill you have !


 

Post edited at 23:02
2
OP Jon Stewart 18 Jul 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> So basically your assumption is that black people are lying on survey when they are asked whether they have themselves experienced discrimination.

Lying, genuinely mistaken, or perhaps just not worth listening to?

1
Alyson30 19 Jul 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Lying, genuinely mistaken, or perhaps just not worth listening to?

How could 76% of black peoples be lying or genuinely mistaken about their OWN experience ?

The argument is so absurd.

Post edited at 00:28
 thomasadixon 19 Jul 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Viscous drivel that dismisses the experiences of black people. It makes me sick.

Anger, insults, and making up what I think again.  I’ve not dismissed or denied any individual’s views/experiences.  You make yourself sick.

What I’ve said, and I really don’t get why this is hard to understand, or in any way nasty, is that the view that police are racist/act racist is not based just on personal experience.  It logically can’t be.  It’s a claim based on numerous experiences by numerous people.  The view that black people are stopped unfairly more often isn’t, for any individual, based on personal experience.  Many of those individuals won’t have had relevant experience (see Rom’s figures) and even if they have them having that experience doesn’t mean others have.  They can’t know whether others have without conversation, or really, because there are so many people, data.

Post edited at 02:58
4
Alyson30 19 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Anger, insults, and making up what I think again.  I’ve not dismissed or denied any individual’s views/experiences.  You make yourself sick.

Look at that dishonest back-pedalling.

Quote: “The argument that as it’s based on personal experience it should be believed is illogical.”

You argument is clearly that they should not be believed.

> What I’ve said, and I really don’t get why this is hard to understand, or in any way nasty, is that the view that police are racist/act racist is not based just on personal experience.  It logically can’t be.  

Look again at the dishonesty here. The survey didn’t ask “do you think the police is racist” it asks people “have you been unfairly stopped by the police”.
 

> It’s a claim based on numerous experiences by numerous people.  The view that black people are stopped unfairly more often isn’t, for any individual, based on personal experience.  

 

Obvious syllogism.

Can you please stop resorting to syllogisms and non-sequiturs ? It really is an obvious tactic.

Post edited at 10:07
3
Alyson30 19 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> and even if they have them having that experience doesn’t mean others have.  They can’t know whether others have without conversation, or really, because there are so many people, data.

But that is the whole point of asking thousands of people about their personal experience, not their opinion. Provided people don’t lie massively about their own personally experience, it will give you a good idea of what the true extent of the problem is.

You determination to dismiss and bury any kind of sensibly acquired data behind a wall of dishonest syllogism and absurd reasoning is troubling to say the least.

1
 Offwidth 19 Jul 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

I don't think so, it's what nearly everyone does, who has an interest outside the expertise of a subject area. We form a narrative that's hard to shift. Harris is different as he makes dishonest claims as an expert and must know he is spinning against real data. Even experts get it wrong en masse sometimes and a monopolistic academic authodoxy can form. If it can happen in physics, for the aether, it's obvious scepticism in social science is very important. Sadly we have the opposite where a significant proportion of social science research results are not repeatable. Yet it is consistently repeatable results in criminology that Harris is arguing against using known faulty methodology.

Post edited at 14:10
2
 Paul Sagar 25 Jul 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I know I'm very late to the party on this one but....

...I thought the Hanink response actually pretty poor. As well as taking forever and a day to say anything, he's remarkably uncharitable in his (often wood-for-trees missing) hyper pedantry. A lot of the things he says are things that Harris *would clearly agree with*, and yet he presents it as though Harris denies them. This is very uncharitable, at the very least. There's also the things like e.g. saying 'well we're having a conversation aren't we so who is being silenced?' when Harris's point is that actually you cannot safely say some thing in the present climate without risking being cancelled (be it about BLM or not), and this is very worrying and not good for democracy let alone (social) scientific aspirations to know the truth. This problem is not as bad as Harris's overly-paranoid (he spends too much time on Twitter) perspective makes out, but it IS a problem. Hanink then sticks Harris with the "facts don't care about your feelings" line - which not something Harris ever says, and is associated with t*wats like Ben Shapiro - with the effect of lumping Harris in with unpleasant people on the right he is not fellow-travelling with. So this is not in fact as much of a fair or good-faith rejoinder as Hanink starts out by claiming it is.

On the substantive points about the stats, Hanink does make a look of good points about how the data, and reading that data, is more complex than Harris often makes out. But Harris real point is that it is not true - as some have suggested - that there is an epidemic of black men being murdered by police in America. Now, it may still be the case that blacks suffer disproportionately more violence than whites in America (spoiler: they do) - but things may be less clear-cut than some of the rhetoric that surrounded the June protests. What Hanink's insistence on 'academic humility and conservatism' as regards stats and data doesn't seem to also realise is that if we should indeed by humble and conservative when it comes to these things, then what falls is not just Harris's reading of the data, but also the popular narrative that there is an epidemic of police murdering of blacks in America. The data is more complex than that story - so Harris may have indeed had a point after all. But this gets lost in the micro-analysis and the uncharitable and unfair reading Hanink gives.

As it happens, I actually think Harris was wrong to put out that podcast (which I listened to when first released). This is because even if its true that the data isn't as clear cut in terms of black deaths in the hands of police officers that was not the time to cry and whine about statistics. The fact is, death at the hands of police is only one aspect of a vast problem of structural racism in America. Blacks (and other minorities, such as Latinos) are massively disadvantaged in American society, and many metrics. The BLM protests in June were sparked by the death of George Floyd, and they in part were based in anger about other deaths of other blacks at the hands of police, but clearly the anger and rage was more generally a response to the appalling inequalities that blacks in America clearly do face, and nobody who is living in the real world can or should deny this to be so. Thus I don't care if the stats on police murder are maybe not as bad as the protestors sometimes claimed. American policing does need reform, regardless, but so also does the whole of American society. If these BLM protests helped move things towards such reform - then they were a damn good thing (and I'm hopeful they may prove to have done precisely this). Spending 2 hours nit-picking stats over one aspect of structural racism was really not helpful, and really not what Harris should have been doing at that point. The reason he did do it is because he's so obsessed with woke politics and being silenced in the culture wars that he entirely mis-read the situation and what was genuinely important in that moment. Hanink doesn't help by just going down that rabbit hole, but burrowing in a different direction when down there.

Post edited at 15:41
2
 Offwidth 25 Jul 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

This is not a purely academic debate, Hanink is speaking to a bigger audience and setting the record straight. Harris's analysis is flawed and is being misused in public pronouncements by the right (who, if we are comparing with any BLM exaggeration, easily exceed the left in exaggeration terms... as an example the idea Biden is controlled by the radical left is just ridiculous). Harris is using key evidence from an obscure paper out of the mainstream criminology peer reviewed subject area, which is very poor practice. Hanink is also clear it's a distraction from the key factor that police non lethal force leading to a death of a black man is an issue of race and the pertinent one for this death (let alone in the public way this occurred, and in the context and history of BLM, where you might expect way better behaviour from serving police when on film in public).  It seems to me you are guilty of a bit picking rabbit hole,  rather than Hanink.

1
 Paul Sagar 25 Jul 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

Meh, a plague on both their houses, in this case. I'll admit I didn't listen to anything like all of the Hanink reply - the bits I dipped in to I found somewhat off-putting and irritating for the above reasons. But fair enough that I may have missed the better bits. (But in which case, for christ sake edit down and don't put up a *two and a half hour monologue*, man!)

1
 Offwidth 25 Jul 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

Are you serious ...you post that as an academic without even having the politeness of listening to it?  It was nothing like 2.5 hours as Jon rightly gave a shortened link.

2

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...