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.
On July 14 2016 11:16 ticklishmusic wrote: why would you bother analyzing data that is complete shit? it's like using rotten meat to make dinner. garbage in garbage out.
Mostly because data that's better than "complete shit" is actively suppressed by the same interests that demand they see data before acting. Better shit data, than shit complaints about there not being data while ignoring why.
The problem is that *regardless of the accessibility of better information*, drawing and presenting conclusions from data which is inherently biased in a "desirable" direction to your argument is at best unhelpful and at worst actively harmful to your cause.
Again so we end up where black people are screaming at the tops of their lungs that it's real and it's happening, then someone saying "well we can't believe them without data", then someone says "here's the data", then they respond "well it's incomplete, we can't draw any conclusions", then they are presented with why we don't have the data, then they say, "well we can't draw conclusions without the data", as if they don't know why the data is incomplete.
No one should be able to comment on police shooting data unless they are willing to admit why the data we have is incomplete in the first place, otherwise it's a totally disingenuous discussion from step 1.
Should also remember that there will never be satisfactory official data. Police stations voluntarily give stats to the FBI and are always years behind.
On July 14 2016 11:23 zulu_nation8 wrote: this is the only thing I've seen:
On July 14 2016 11:01 ticklishmusic wrote: i mean he's not the one who posted the harvard study after it had been discussed for 10+ pages
i did a quick scrub on the dataset. it seems like an ambitious project, and i would even say its a worthy one. however the data quality is pretty shitty because the collection method has some problems even though there's a rudimentary protocol. it's also very incomplete. out of about 2100 entries, 800+ list ethnicity as unknown. heck, 250+ of them dont have a gender OR ethnicity listed. that means close to half the dataset is junk.
Do you think the researchers are rolling dice to guess the ethnicity of the 800+ then adding it to the dataset?
Do you think those 800+ who are missing crucial variables are non-discriminatory (in the statistical sense) cases?
Don't know, I'm trying to read the tables that factor in crime rates by race, then will decide.
They did a complete case (at least with regards to the ethnicity and armed status) analysis - just an FYI if you missed it
On July 14 2016 11:16 ticklishmusic wrote: why would you bother analyzing data that is complete shit? it's like using rotten meat to make dinner. garbage in garbage out.
Mostly because data that's better than "complete shit" is actively suppressed by the same interests that demand they see data before acting. Better shit data, than shit complaints about there not being data while ignoring why.
The problem is that *regardless of the accessibility of better information*, drawing and presenting conclusions from data which is inherently biased in a "desirable" direction to your argument is at best unhelpful and at worst actively harmful to your cause.
Again so we end up where black people are screaming at the tops of their lungs that it's real and it's happening, then someone saying "well we can't believe them without data", then someone says "here's the data", then they respond "well it's incomplete, we can't draw any conclusions", then they are presented with why we don't have the data, then they say, "well we can't draw conclusions without the data", as if they don't know why the data is incomplete.
No one should be able to comment on police shooting data unless they are willing to admit why the data we have is incomplete in the first place, otherwise it's a totally disingenuous discussion from step 1.
I'm not saying I disbelieve you without data. Nor that I believe you without data. I do not have sufficient information to make either conclusion, though my personal prejudice is that you probably have a point.
What I am saying is that drawing any conclusion from faulty data + Show Spoiler +
and particularly faulty data which is likely to be biased in your favour
other than "this is an interesting possibility, and I want better data to form a more confident conclusion" is an unpersuasive and (to some people) antagonising argument.
On July 14 2016 11:16 ticklishmusic wrote: why would you bother analyzing data that is complete shit? it's like using rotten meat to make dinner. garbage in garbage out.
Mostly because data that's better than "complete shit" is actively suppressed by the same interests that demand they see data before acting. Better shit data, than shit complaints about there not being data while ignoring why.
The problem is that *regardless of the accessibility of better information*, drawing and presenting conclusions from data which is inherently biased in a "desirable" direction to your argument is at best unhelpful and at worst actively harmful to your cause.
Again so we end up where black people are screaming at the tops of their lungs that it's real and it's happening, then someone saying "well we can't believe them without data", then someone says "here's the data", then they respond "well it's incomplete, we can't draw any conclusions", then they are presented with why we don't have the data, then they say, "well we can't draw conclusions without the data", as if they don't know why the data is incomplete.
No one should be able to comment on police shooting data unless they are willing to admit why the data we have is incomplete in the first place, otherwise it's a totally disingenuous discussion from step 1.
See my post above why you are wrong.
You don't understand what I'm saying. We don't need the data, it's like if you ask a child if they ate the candy and the child refuses to open their mouth to prove they didn't. Doesn't take a genius to realize they are either hiding their guilt or don't take the request seriously. Neither is an acceptable position for the police to have.
The sole reason we don't know as a matter of fact whether the disproportionate killing (I think we've agreed here that every other aspect of their work shows this bias) is real or not (and what may be it's cause) is because the police refuse to cooperate.
Discussing this as if the police in question aren't actively trying to prevent incriminating data from being made public is absurd. Really it's beyond absurd and actually offensive.
On July 14 2016 11:16 ticklishmusic wrote: why would you bother analyzing data that is complete shit? it's like using rotten meat to make dinner. garbage in garbage out.
Mostly because data that's better than "complete shit" is actively suppressed by the same interests that demand they see data before acting. Better shit data, than shit complaints about there not being data while ignoring why.
The problem is that *regardless of the accessibility of better information*, drawing and presenting conclusions from data which is inherently biased in a "desirable" direction to your argument is at best unhelpful and at worst actively harmful to your cause.
Again so we end up where black people are screaming at the tops of their lungs that it's real and it's happening, then someone saying "well we can't believe them without data", then someone says "here's the data", then they respond "well it's incomplete, we can't draw any conclusions", then they are presented with why we don't have the data, then they say, "well we can't draw conclusions without the data", as if they don't know why the data is incomplete.
No one should be able to comment on police shooting data unless they are willing to admit why the data we have is incomplete in the first place, otherwise it's a totally disingenuous discussion from step 1.
I'm not saying I disbelieve you without data. Nor that I believe you without data. I do not have sufficient information to make either conclusion, though my personal prejudice is that you probably have a point.
What I am saying is that drawing any conclusion from faulty data + Show Spoiler +
and particularly faulty data which is likely to be biased in your favour
other than "this is an interesting possibility, and I want better data to form a more confident conclusion" is an unpersuasive and (to some people) antagonising argument.
What I'm saying is that anyone who lives this doesn't need data and they are on the streets willing to be arrested to make sure people know it. The cops on the other hand are doing EVERYTHING in their power to prevent them from getting access to it.
It's not a matter of "Gee golly I wish there was some way to get better data" it's, "you want this data that proves you right , you're going to have to pry it from the police's cold dead hands".
If you can't acknowledge that, then you probably aren't adding anything of value to the conversation (that's general not specific to the post responded to).
And yes, before anyone else assumes this is some new thing, take a seat, do some research, then come back when you have a clue about the history of the discussion.
The sole reason we don't know as a matter of fact whether the disproportionate killing (I think we've agreed here that every other aspect of their work shows this bias) is real or not (and what may be it's cause) is because the police refuse to cooperate.
Discussing this as if the police in question aren't actively trying to prevent incriminating data from being made public is absurd. Really it's beyond absurd and actually offensive.
On July 14 2016 11:27 ticklishmusic wrote: if half the data points found like this are worthless then maybe the collection methodology needs to be revised. who knows what gremlins are lurking in shit-my-data-sucks land?
May I use this for my presentation on data-validation and why it is important?
On July 14 2016 11:32 zulu_nation8 wrote: Should also remember that there will never be satisfactory official data. Police stations voluntarily give stats to the FBI and are always years behind.
Lack of political will notwithstanding, it would not be difficult to force police departments to start collecting specific kinds of records nor is it unreasonable to consider transparency in police work a cause-worthy motivator. Getting good legislation passed is where the trouble sets in with implementing anything meaningful. Which begs the question; don't you think there's a viable inference to be drawn from the alignment of those who oppose police transparency/data collection? Granted, its not nearly as strong as something drawn from empirical research, but I definitely do not think that it is a coincidence that politicians who most adamantly deny that police culture has an issue are oftentimes the same ones arguing against information disclosure and transparency.
On July 14 2016 11:16 ticklishmusic wrote: why would you bother analyzing data that is complete shit? it's like using rotten meat to make dinner. garbage in garbage out.
Mostly because data that's better than "complete shit" is actively suppressed by the same interests that demand they see data before acting. Better shit data, than shit complaints about there not being data while ignoring why.
The problem is that *regardless of the accessibility of better information*, drawing and presenting conclusions from data which is inherently biased in a "desirable" direction to your argument is at best unhelpful and at worst actively harmful to your cause.
Again so we end up where black people are screaming at the tops of their lungs that it's real and it's happening, then someone saying "well we can't believe them without data", then someone says "here's the data", then they respond "well it's incomplete, we can't draw any conclusions", then they are presented with why we don't have the data, then they say, "well we can't draw conclusions without the data", as if they don't know why the data is incomplete.
No one should be able to comment on police shooting data unless they are willing to admit why the data we have is incomplete in the first place, otherwise it's a totally disingenuous discussion from step 1.
See my post above why you are wrong.
You don't understand what I'm saying. We don't need the data, it's like if you ask a child if they ate the candy and the child refuses to open their mouth to prove they didn't. Doesn't take a genius to realize they are either hiding their guilt or don't take the request seriously. Neither is an acceptable position for the police to have.
The sole reason we don't know as a matter of fact whether the disproportionate killing (I think we've agreed here that every other aspect of their work shows this bias) is real or not (and what may be it's cause) is because the police refuse to cooperate.
Discussing this as if the police in question aren't actively trying to prevent incriminating data from being made public is absurd. Really it's beyond absurd and actually offensive.
No. I even listed other reasons as to why the data currently available is insufficient (e.g. it's expensive to collect and maintain a database).
Whether or not the police is actively trying to prevent incriminating data from being made public was entirely irrelevant to the argument that was had on the previous page - and your misrepresentations are what is offensive here.
Even if the police is actively trying to prevent incriminating data from being made public (which they likely are) there is little reason to believe this would not be non-discriminatory (statistical sense). In fact, the evidence based on the "good" data we currently have seem to suggest there is no racial difference.
EDIT: @ticklish: Are you thinking multiple imputation? In all likelihood there is too much missing.
someone who is better versed in stats can speak to this better than me, but in some cases where your good old random sampling doesnt work well there are alternative data gathering methods that let you get accurate info. l
On July 14 2016 11:36 GreenHorizons wrote:... It's not a matter of "Gee golly I wish there was some way to get better data" it's, "you want this data that proves you right , you're going to have to pry it from the police's cold dead hands". ...
Probably true, but not directly relevant to the question of whether drawing conclusions from biased and flawed data is a) intellectually honest or b) useful to your cause (these are two separate issues).
... If you can't acknowledge that, then you probably aren't adding anything of value to the conversation (that's general not specific to the post responded to). ...
Well, it's certainly true that some people don't agree with your arguments or methods in all particulars.
Then again, if your methods of persuasion were sufficient to convince everybody to your cause who needed to be convinced, then we would not be having this conversation in the first place.
Not everybody who disagrees with you is on the "wrong side".
On July 14 2016 11:36 GreenHorizons wrote:... It's not a matter of "Gee golly I wish there was some way to get better data" it's, "you want this data that proves you right , you're going to have to pry it from the police's cold dead hands". ...
Probably true, but not directly relevant to the question of whether drawing conclusions from biased and flawed data is a) intellectually honest or b) useful to your cause (these are two separate issues).
... If you can't acknowledge that, then you probably aren't adding anything of value to the conversation (that's general not specific to the post responded to). ...
Well, it's certainly true that some people don't agree with your arguments or methods in all particulars.
Then again, if your methods of persuasion were sufficient to convince everybody to your cause who needed to be convinced, then we would not be having this conversation in the first place.
Not everybody who disagrees with you is on the "wrong side".
I'm saying the meta discussion on basic statistics comprehension is a distraction.
Everyone glossed right past the only interesting thing to come from the discussion:
Actual data is missing because the US is scared of databases, people are scared of taking responsibility (including the police), databases are costly (someone is going to have to pay), and a million other reasons - all of dubious character. To pretend it is missing so a quiet genocide on a minority can be carried out is outright nefarious.
Anyone else think that?
EDIT: I mean the "quiet genocide" stuff is unnecessary, but I expect as much.
On July 14 2016 11:36 GreenHorizons wrote:... It's not a matter of "Gee golly I wish there was some way to get better data" it's, "you want this data that proves you right , you're going to have to pry it from the police's cold dead hands". ...
Probably true, but not directly relevant to the question of whether drawing conclusions from biased and flawed data is a) intellectually honest or b) useful to your cause (these are two separate issues).
... If you can't acknowledge that, then you probably aren't adding anything of value to the conversation (that's general not specific to the post responded to). ...
Well, it's certainly true that some people don't agree with your arguments or methods in all particulars.
Then again, if your methods of persuasion were sufficient to convince everybody to your cause who needed to be convinced, then we would not be having this conversation in the first place.
Not everybody who disagrees with you is on the "wrong side".
I'm saying the meta discussion on basic statistics comprehension is a distraction.
Everyone glossed right past the only interesting thing to come from the discussion:
Actual data is missing because the US is scared of databases, people are scared of taking responsibility (including the police), databases are costly (someone is going to have to pay), and a million other reasons - all of dubious character. To pretend it is missing so a quiet genocide on a minority can be carried out is outright nefarious.
Anyone else think that?
EDIT: I mean the "quiet genocide" stuff is unnecessary, but I expect as much.
The meta discussion on basic statistics comprehension is sorely needed when people repeatedly link studies to back up their arguments without full comprehension of those studies.
I stand by what you quoted from me. I don't pretend I have listed all the reasons, but I'm certain that I'm closer to the truth than you who so far have suggested nothing else than it is so the police can get away with murder.
On July 14 2016 11:36 GreenHorizons wrote:... It's not a matter of "Gee golly I wish there was some way to get better data" it's, "you want this data that proves you right , you're going to have to pry it from the police's cold dead hands". ...
Probably true, but not directly relevant to the question of whether drawing conclusions from biased and flawed data is a) intellectually honest or b) useful to your cause (these are two separate issues).
... If you can't acknowledge that, then you probably aren't adding anything of value to the conversation (that's general not specific to the post responded to). ...
Well, it's certainly true that some people don't agree with your arguments or methods in all particulars.
Then again, if your methods of persuasion were sufficient to convince everybody to your cause who needed to be convinced, then we would not be having this conversation in the first place.
Not everybody who disagrees with you is on the "wrong side".
I'm saying the meta discussion on basic statistics comprehension is a distraction.
Everyone glossed right past the only interesting thing to come from the discussion:
Actual data is missing because the US is scared of databases, people are scared of taking responsibility (including the police), databases are costly (someone is going to have to pay), and a million other reasons - all of dubious character. To pretend it is missing so a quiet genocide on a minority can be carried out is outright nefarious.
Anyone else think that?
EDIT: I mean the "quiet genocide" stuff is unnecessary, but I expect as much.
The meta discussion on basic statistics comprehension is sorely needed when people repeatedly link studies to back up their arguments without full comprehension of those studies.
I stand by what you quoted from me. I don't pretend I have listed all the reasons, but I'm certain that I'm closer to the truth than you who so far have suggested nothing else than it is so the police can get away with murder.
It's not so the "police can get away with murder" though I'd add that to my "millions of reasons", it's basic human behavior, we just give them an insane amount of leeway, and too many turn a blind eye or actively enable them.
In addition to that, there's a historical social context from which they have always operated which adds a bit of a twist to the traditional behavior. Again, it's fine to skip a bunch of stuff, or it's fine to say "all you've suggested", but you can't do both.
There's a lot of reasons they do it, but you first need to get past the part of acknowledging that they are the impediment, and that there isn't an acceptable excuse among your list.
On July 14 2016 11:36 GreenHorizons wrote:... It's not a matter of "Gee golly I wish there was some way to get better data" it's, "you want this data that proves you right , you're going to have to pry it from the police's cold dead hands". ...
Probably true, but not directly relevant to the question of whether drawing conclusions from biased and flawed data is a) intellectually honest or b) useful to your cause (these are two separate issues).
... If you can't acknowledge that, then you probably aren't adding anything of value to the conversation (that's general not specific to the post responded to). ...
Well, it's certainly true that some people don't agree with your arguments or methods in all particulars.
Then again, if your methods of persuasion were sufficient to convince everybody to your cause who needed to be convinced, then we would not be having this conversation in the first place.
Not everybody who disagrees with you is on the "wrong side".
I'm saying the meta discussion on basic statistics comprehension is a distraction.
Everyone glossed right past the only interesting thing to come from the discussion:
Actual data is missing because the US is scared of databases, people are scared of taking responsibility (including the police), databases are costly (someone is going to have to pay), and a million other reasons - all of dubious character. To pretend it is missing so a quiet genocide on a minority can be carried out is outright nefarious.
Anyone else think that?
EDIT: I mean the "quiet genocide" stuff is unnecessary, but I expect as much.
The meta discussion on basic statistics comprehension is sorely needed when people repeatedly link studies to back up their arguments without full comprehension of those studies.
I stand by what you quoted from me. I don't pretend I have listed all the reasons, but I'm certain that I'm closer to the truth than you who so far have suggested nothing else than it is so the police can get away with murder.
It's not so the "police can get away with murder" though I'd add that to my "millions of reasons", it's basic human behavior, we just give them an insane amount of leeway, and too many turn a blind eye or actively enable them.
In addition to that, there's a historical social context from which they have always operated which adds a bit of a twist to the traditional behavior. Again, it's fine to skip a bunch of stuff, or it's fine to say "all you've suggested", but you can't do both.
There's a lot of reasons they do it, but you first need to get past the part of acknowledging that they are the impediment, and that there isn't an acceptable excuse among your list.
Hence the wording "all of dubious character" when describing the validity of the reasons - you are just looking for something to be offended by so you can do your usual spiel.
I'm from the country in the world with the most elaborate databases. I can with a clean conscience write "nation-wide" or "population-based" whenever I publish an epidemiological study. My entire PhD is founded upon those registries. You are not going to find me arguing against proper data-collection and creation of well-managed databases.
On July 14 2016 11:36 GreenHorizons wrote:... It's not a matter of "Gee golly I wish there was some way to get better data" it's, "you want this data that proves you right , you're going to have to pry it from the police's cold dead hands". ...
Probably true, but not directly relevant to the question of whether drawing conclusions from biased and flawed data is a) intellectually honest or b) useful to your cause (these are two separate issues).
... If you can't acknowledge that, then you probably aren't adding anything of value to the conversation (that's general not specific to the post responded to). ...
Well, it's certainly true that some people don't agree with your arguments or methods in all particulars.
Then again, if your methods of persuasion were sufficient to convince everybody to your cause who needed to be convinced, then we would not be having this conversation in the first place.
Not everybody who disagrees with you is on the "wrong side".
I'm saying the meta discussion on basic statistics comprehension is a distraction.
Everyone glossed right past the only interesting thing to come from the discussion:
Actual data is missing because the US is scared of databases, people are scared of taking responsibility (including the police), databases are costly (someone is going to have to pay), and a million other reasons - all of dubious character. To pretend it is missing so a quiet genocide on a minority can be carried out is outright nefarious.
Anyone else think that?
EDIT: I mean the "quiet genocide" stuff is unnecessary, but I expect as much.
The meta discussion on basic statistics comprehension is sorely needed when people repeatedly link studies to back up their arguments without full comprehension of those studies.
I stand by what you quoted from me. I don't pretend I have listed all the reasons, but I'm certain that I'm closer to the truth than you who so far have suggested nothing else than it is so the police can get away with murder.
It's not so the "police can get away with murder" though I'd add that to my "millions of reasons", it's basic human behavior, we just give them an insane amount of leeway, and too many turn a blind eye or actively enable them.
In addition to that, there's a historical social context from which they have always operated which adds a bit of a twist to the traditional behavior. Again, it's fine to skip a bunch of stuff, or it's fine to say "all you've suggested", but you can't do both.
There's a lot of reasons they do it, but you first need to get past the part of acknowledging that they are the impediment, and that there isn't an acceptable excuse among your list.
Hence the wording "all of dubious character" when describing the validity of the reasons - you are just looking for something to be offended by so you can do your usual spiel.
I'm from the country in the world with the most elaborate databases. I can with a clean conscience write "nation-wide" or "population-based" whenever I publish an epidemiological study. My entire PhD is founded upon those registries. You are not going to find me arguing against proper data-collection and creation of well-managed databases.
That part stuck out to me, I should have clarified what you meant. But you see perhaps why arguing over the precision of the stats we have is a distraction from why we can't get them.
Maybe I'm just being an ass though, maybe people are just discovering all of this. Once hashed out, we can actually move on to why we don't have the data that everyone is saying is missing from the data we do have.
I disagree that it is simply a distraction. To achieve better data you need to argue that the available data is insufficient (we now all agree it is insufficient - at least I think so).
Further, it is highly relevant to discuss the validity of the available data when it is being used to design narratives which might cause more harm than good. The available data does support that there are a lot of people getting shot by the police - which is really all that should be needed for a push for better data so that we might understand why and potentially find modifiable risk factors.
But it seems that we are on the more important part in agreement (the need for better data), so I'll leave it at this. Glad we found common ground.
So what I was worried about a few days ago is something that actually ended up happening - and this is why blocking highways is a bad thing
Parents with a sick baby were blocked on their way to a hospital in Memphis, TN because Black Lives Matter protesters shut down traffic on a bridge Monday night.
The Memphis Black Lives Matter rally shut down the I-40 bridge Sunday night with hundreds of protesters refusing to leave. Traffic could not go across, but paramedic Bobby Harrell with Crittenden EMS was determined to get to a child who was stuck on the bridge with his family.
“We received a call there was a child needing medical attention stuck in traffic up on the bridge and due to the protest going on the bridge the family was not able to get through traffic to get him to Le Bonheur,” Harrell said.
A photo shows parents handing the child off to paramedics on the bridge.
“The sheriff’s department had to escort us up the wrong way of the interstate to the child,” he said.
Harrell said after he had the very sick child in the ambulance, the driver had to go 25 minutes out of the way.
“We had to turn around and come back to West Memphis and cross over at MLK to get over to 55.”
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/h7GQpCX.png)
![[image loading]](http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ecf211e4b0ed744420c5b6/t/57211e971bbee0b4bdfbb46e/1461788332413/NotaboutCrime.jpeg?format=750w)
