|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Well, then you should go back and find the rebuttal, or ask someone who has the thing that lets you search threads better to do it.
|
"The study had too small of a sample size' is not a rebuttal, especially when the study is done by a Harvard economics professor with no clear motivation for releasing a biased study.
|
On July 13 2016 06:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
"The study had too small of a sample size' is not a rebuttal.
but its a systemic problem when 1% of the cops are bad
can't you see that
|
The rebuttal was much more detailed and explained why the sample size was not sufficient.
On July 13 2016 06:35 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 06:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
"The study had too small of a sample size' is not a rebuttal. but its a systemic problem when 1% of the cops are bad can't you see that
A consistent 5% error rate in convictions in the court system would be considered a systematic problem. A 2% error rate in manufacturing medical file folders is considered unacceptable as well.
|
Forgive me if I'm going to trust the Harvard economics professor over the alleged rebuttal that no one wants to source or explain.
I'm sitting here with a reputable source and I'm being told 'this source has been rebutted' but no one can source such a rebuttal or even bother to explain why it isn't reputable. I don't think you can even blame me for being skeptical when you're offering no source to dispute the statistics put forth in this study.
|
On July 13 2016 06:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Forgive me if I'm going to trust the Harvard economics professor over the alleged rebuttal that no one wants to source or explain.
no, I won't. The rebuttal was in this thread, within a few pages of when you had made your post, and was very thorough. If you ignore counterarguments that are provided in thread, and fail to check for counterarguments within 2-3 pages of when you last posted when you check in the next day, then I see no reason to give you any slack or credence.
In order to have a discussion, people need to read the counterarguments, letting someone ignore the counterarguments and stick to their point, leads to fruitless discussion.
We told you where the source was approximately, but it's a pain for us to find something that you should have noticed yourself.
We did offer the source, you just refuse to go look for it, and you somehow sloppily failed to see it, even though it was close enough to your post you should have seen it.
|
That is fine. It was refuted yesterday, but clearly you didn’t bother to read it. I guess we all just sit in our corners, hugging our evidence like a safety blanket.
|
I'm going to say it wasn't refuted and you're just ignoring data that contradicts the absurd narrative you want to believe.
|
On July 13 2016 06:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 05:58 OtherWorld wrote:On July 13 2016 05:46 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 05:44 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2016 05:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 05:39 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2016 05:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 05:18 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2016 05:13 Simberto wrote:On July 13 2016 04:53 OuchyDathurts wrote:
[quote]
And then he goes on to walk it back, talking about big government. I watched the debate.
Killing him would be, as a supposedly well respected doctor actually being honest. Saying "Vaccines don't cause autism. Donald needs to stop this BS fear mongering. They don't cause autism, get your kids vaccinated". But we all know that aint happening. I am really, really confused as to why this is something that people actually talk about. It just all seems so insane. Vaccinations are one of the greatest things to ever happen in human history. And there is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise. And still, there is apparently a large enough part of the US population that thinks that vaccinations actually hurt their kids that presidential candidates talk about it, and are not willing to piss those people off. It just seems so insane. Nothing makes any sense. If you try to get to the bottom of it, still nothing makes any sense. But apparently it has been going on long enough that these people are now a demographic. I am having real problems trying to imagine being so irrational. Do you just believe whatever the first guy you talk to tells you about an issue, and then never budge no matter what anyone else says? It is just something i just can't imagine as someone who grew up with a world view based on reason. it's mostly because of that one guy who did that study, which was later retracted, who was really pushing for the issue. That, and people often base conclusions from their own experience, ignoring the statistical realities; that's why people often have all sorts of superstitions. For some people, the events coincided in time, so they chose to assign blame that way, even though it's unsound. Most people aren't very logical. Almost like the idea that cops go out of their way to murder black people because of racism in spite of statistical realities that suggest otherwise? You're right most people aren't very logical. 'Emotional' is more fitting. most people aren't claiming that cops go out of their way to murder blacks cuz of racism; they're claiming that due to racism, some cops go too far, more than they do with whites, and that they aren't adequately punished when they do so. and that people are mostly emotional rather than logical is very well established by now certainly, agreed. They don't though. It's been statistically proven to be the opposite with regards to lethal use of force. no, it hasn't. someone posted quite a thorough rebuttal to the studies you cited, and the studies themselves included in their caveats things that nullified the claim you're making with them. and it has been proven that in some places the cops were seriously and systemically racist. And the studies ignored the fact that much of the data we have on the use of force by police in the US is incomplete. What we know though is that the formation of an American policeman includes 110 hours of gun training and only 8 hours of mediation/resolution of conflicts. As a European I can barely understand how such a thing can even exist. Its almost like US police departments see the gun and violence as conflict resolution.
To me it sounds like its not something unique to US police department, but americans in general, specially those who choose to defend their right to have a weapon for self defense. But again i wonder how much time they spend training CQC techniques oppossed to using a gun, because they seem to focus too much on the gun as a crutch to get compliance even on situations where there are no guns involved.
|
Holy shit is this painful to read from my phone. The study author himself cabined the findings with a few large caveats, most notably the self-selection bias inherent to data drawn from police departments that willingly share data in addition to the related problem of there being no national collection of policing data.
|
On July 13 2016 06:41 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I'm going to say it wasn't refuted and you're just ignoring data that contradicts the absurd narrative you want to believe.
than you are wrong. since several other people also remember the refutation. You're just being obstinate and refusing to do work.
Consider this point of view: I cannot know for certain whether you genuinely missed the rebuttal, or were aware of it and are trolling. Putting the onus on other people to continually keep track of, and re-prove, things that were already proven, isn't good. And the onus was on you to track the point. And approximate locations for it have been provided, and you refuse to do the work for it.
Also, the study itself had numerous cautionary notes, including this:
"First, all but one dataset was provided by a select
group of police departments. It is possible that these departments only supplied the data because
they are either enlightened or were not concerned about what the analysis would reveal. In essence,
this is equivalent to analyzing labor market discrimination on a set of firms willing to supply a
researcher with their Human Resources data! There may be important selection in who was willing
to share their data. The Police-Public contact survey partially sidesteps this issue by including
a nationally representative sample of civilians, but it does not contain data on officer-involved
shootings.
"
so, no, you're wrong, and you're being an obstinate ass, and arguing poorly, and degrading the thread. Learn to follow the thread and your posts properly.
You also OBVIOUSLY failed to look at the underlying study.
|
http://www.liquiddota.com/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4244#84868
On July 12 2016 05:06 The Bottle wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 03:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Why does it say there is no racial differences in the use of lethal force in the same article it acknowledges whites are 22% more likely to be shot than blacks?
All the statistics on non-lethal force have less than 21% differential for blacks being more likely to be subjected to non-lethal use of force and that constitutes a racial bias, but 22% more likely to be subject to lethal force as white isn't racial bias?
Is it purely going off the larger differential present in the data revolving around the civilian's takes on the encounters? Because the result was not statistically significant. I.e. they did a logistic regression to learn the coefficients to the "black" dummy variable for probability of lethal force and did, what I'm guessing (the paper didn't specify) was a likelihood ratio test or Wald test to determine whether said dummy variable causes a significant difference in the chi-squared p value of that test. Again, the paper didn't specify why the results were statistically insignificant (they really don't go into much detail on their statistical analysis) but I'm guessing that their sample of black subjects was just too small. (The overall sample was roughly 4 thousand, all from Houston, but I didn't see them specify anywhere what proportion of that sample was black.)
And this the comment about the sample size being to small. On top of the comments above.
|
On July 13 2016 06:44 farvacola wrote:
Holy shit is this painful to read from my phone. The study author himself cabined the findings with a few large caveats, most notably the self-selection bias inherent to data drawn from police departments that willingly share data in addition to the related problem of there being no national collection of policing data.
So in the absence of all the data, we have some data that points towards the conclusion that police are less likely to shoot blacks than they are to shoot whites in the same scenario.
Therefore, we ought to ignore what data we do have and conclude the opposite because the MSM reports stories that cops kill innocent blacks.
I'm actually irritated at how idiotic it is that I'm being mocked for taking problem with this being defined as 'study results refuted'
|
On July 13 2016 06:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Forgive me if I'm going to trust the Harvard economics professor over the alleged rebuttal that no one wants to source or explain.
I'm sitting here with a reputable source and I'm being told 'this source has been rebutted' but no one can source such a rebuttal or even bother to explain why it isn't reputable. I don't think you can even blame me for being skeptical when you're offering no source to dispute the statistics put forth in this study.
That's not correct.
You were given the directions where to find the source. You can't be arsed to look for it. That's fine. That doesn't make your statement "irrefutable" because nobody else is doing the work for you. Especially since apparently the argument that was refuted was coming from you in the first place.
Like, what the fuck.
|
You wouldn’t be mocked if you didn’t hang your hat on a studied that admits is based on limited information and then claim it proves that blacks being shot by cops is not a problem.
Don’t double down so hard and you won’t have this problem.
|
Lol, literally no one suggested that we ignore the findings, rather that they do not by any stretch "prove" that police do not disproportionately target or harm minorities.
I think your new nickname should be Mr. Golgotha 
|
a lot of the documents i've been reviewing for work explicitly say "The Statement of Limitations of this Report and its Access/Distribution is an integral part of the analysis, and should be read in conjunction therewith".
garbage in garbage out. templar emphasizes the harvard researcher, but not the harvard researcher's caveats about the quality of the dataset he's working with, lol. it's a pretty similar situation to the "but bernie wins all the online polls!" phenomenon.
|
On July 13 2016 06:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 06:44 farvacola wrote:
Holy shit is this painful to read from my phone. The study author himself cabined the findings with a few large caveats, most notably the self-selection bias inherent to data drawn from police departments that willingly share data in addition to the related problem of there being no national collection of policing data. So in the absence of all the data, we have some data that points towards the conclusion that police are less likely to shoot blacks than they are to shoot whites in the same scenario. Therefore, we ought to ignore what data we do have and conclude the opposite because the MSM reports stories that cops kill innocent blacks. I'm actually irritated at how idiotic it is that I'm being mocked for taking problem with this being defined as 'study results refuted'
Voluntary data on controversial statistics should already be treated with suspicion. It might be entirely correct in the big picture but it is dangerous to assume so.
|
Poll: If the election was held today, who would you vote for?Hillary (24) 73% Trump (9) 27% 33 total votes Your vote: If the election was held today, who would you vote for? (Vote): Trump
(Vote): Hillary
|
Is this the post people are talking about?
On July 12 2016 03:48 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 03:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.
But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.
“It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California.
The result contradicts the mental image of police shootings that many Americans hold in the wake of the killings (some captured on video) of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.; Laquan McDonald in Chicago; Tamir Rice in Cleveland; Walter Scott in South Carolina; Samuel DuBose in Cincinnati; Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La.; and Philando Castile in Minnesota. In officer-involved shootings in these 10 cities, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both of these results undercut the idea that the police wield lethal force with racial bias. And in the arena of “shoot” or “don’t shoot,” Mr. Fryer found that, in tense situations, officers in Houston were about 20 percent less likely to shoot suspects if the suspect were black. This estimate was not very precise, and firmer conclusions would require more data. But, in a variety of models that controlled for different factors and used different definitions of tense situations, Mr. Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot or there was no difference between blacks and whites. SourceI guess that solves the last dozen pages of debates surrounding these issues. Just make sure you dont forget these portions of the study as well Show nested quote +. Using data on NYC’s Stop and Frisk program, we demonstrate that on non-lethal uses of force – putting hands on civilians (which includes slapping or grabbing) or pushing individuals into a wall or onto the ground, there are large racial differences. In the raw data, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to have an interaction with police which involves any use of force. Accounting for baseline demographics such as age and gender, encounter characteristics such as whether individuals supplied identification or whether the interaction occurred in a high- or lowcrime
area, or civilian behaviors does little to alter the race coefficient. Adding precinct and year fixed effects, which estimates racial differences in police use of force by restricting to variation within a given police precinct in a given year reduces the black coefficient by 19.4 percent and the Hispanic coefficient by 26 percent, though both are still statistically larger than zero. Including more than 125 controls available in the data, the odds-ratio on black (resp. Hispanic) is 1.173 (resp.1.120).
Our results have several important caveats. First, all but one dataset was provided by a select group of police departments. It is possible that these departments only supplied the data because they are either enlightened or were not concerned about what the analysis would reveal. In essence, this is equivalent to analyzing labor market discrimination on a set of firms willing to supply a researcher with their Human Resources data! There may be important selection in who was willing to share their data. The Police-Public contact survey partially sidesteps this issue by including a nationally representative sample of civilians, but it does not contain data on officer-involved shootings.
On non-lethal uses of force, there are racial differences – sometimes quite large – in police use of force, even after accounting for a large set of controls designed to account for important contextual and behavioral factors at the time of the police-civilian interaction. Interestingly, as use of force increases from putting hands on a civilian to striking them with a baton, the overall probability of such an incident occurring decreases dramatically but the racial difference remains roughly constant. Even when officers report civilians have been compliant and no arrest was made, blacks are 21.3 (0.04) percent
more likely to endure some form of force. Yet, on the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we are unable to detect any racial differences in either the raw data or when accounting for controls.
On July 13 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 06:04 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 05:58 OtherWorld wrote:On July 13 2016 05:46 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 05:44 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2016 05:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 05:39 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2016 05:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 05:18 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2016 05:13 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
I am really, really confused as to why this is something that people actually talk about. It just all seems so insane. Vaccinations are one of the greatest things to ever happen in human history. And there is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.
And still, there is apparently a large enough part of the US population that thinks that vaccinations actually hurt their kids that presidential candidates talk about it, and are not willing to piss those people off. It just seems so insane. Nothing makes any sense. If you try to get to the bottom of it, still nothing makes any sense. But apparently it has been going on long enough that these people are now a demographic.
I am having real problems trying to imagine being so irrational. Do you just believe whatever the first guy you talk to tells you about an issue, and then never budge no matter what anyone else says? It is just something i just can't imagine as someone who grew up with a world view based on reason. it's mostly because of that one guy who did that study, which was later retracted, who was really pushing for the issue. That, and people often base conclusions from their own experience, ignoring the statistical realities; that's why people often have all sorts of superstitions. For some people, the events coincided in time, so they chose to assign blame that way, even though it's unsound. Most people aren't very logical. Almost like the idea that cops go out of their way to murder black people because of racism in spite of statistical realities that suggest otherwise? You're right most people aren't very logical. 'Emotional' is more fitting. most people aren't claiming that cops go out of their way to murder blacks cuz of racism; they're claiming that due to racism, some cops go too far, more than they do with whites, and that they aren't adequately punished when they do so. and that people are mostly emotional rather than logical is very well established by now certainly, agreed. They don't though. It's been statistically proven to be the opposite with regards to lethal use of force. no, it hasn't. someone posted quite a thorough rebuttal to the studies you cited, and the studies themselves included in their caveats things that nullified the claim you're making with them. and it has been proven that in some places the cops were seriously and systemically racist. And the studies ignored the fact that much of the data we have on the use of force by police in the US is incomplete. What we know though is that the formation of an American policeman includes 110 hours of gun training and only 8 hours of mediation/resolution of conflicts. As a European I can barely understand how such a thing can even exist. Its almost like US police departments see the gun and violence as conflict resolution. To me it sounds like its not something unique to US police department, but americans in general, specially those who choose to defend their right to have a weapon for self defense. But again i wonder how much time they spend training CQC techniques oppossed to using a gun, because they seem to focus too much on the gun as a crutch to get compliance even on situations where there are no guns involved.
They certainly don't spend enough time training CQC techniques. It also doesn't help that we have apparently zero physical fitness requirements. The amount of unbelievably obese police you see is cause for alarm. Do you really think a 325lb cop wants to get into a foot race or any feat of strength with a even remotely in shape individual? There's no excuse for allowing people to turn into Santa and stay on the force. Sorry, we have some requirements because your job requires possibly getting physical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
