Harvard study demonstrates that BlackLivesMatter Lacks a Factual Basis for Outrage

[Nynax]

Unlawful and violent resistance to the established order is only acceptable if you're an upper class white in the 18th century, apparently.

That would be because they didn't have any recourse... There was the King's Law, and you had no say. Thing's are rather different now? What's the point of even having representative government if it's just going to be okay to exercise "unlawful and violent resistance" whenever you aren't getting your way?

[Deleted]

We totes need another entry from Adam's diary though. Get on it, Gen-OT is waiting.

Nothing exciting has occurred...yet

[Jokerfiend]

And what reason have you to suppose that this Harvard study isn't based on 'data skewing'.

- - - Updated - - -



Fun Fact: Drug proliferation is a symptom.

No, drug proliferation isn't a symptom, it's a direct cause. If you want to argue that the government keeps the system to place to keep the black man down. That's is tin-foil hat territory.

[Paranoid Android]

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/a...hootings-myth/

The study itself is linked therein, the article is a commentary on said study.

There's also this more easily digestible article on a similar subject

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5...-aaron-bandler

Basically, compare the following stats with these to get the gist of the findings:

4% of Black homicide deaths were from police

For whites and Hispanics the number is 12%

Moreover...

40% of cop killers are black. meaning a police officer is more likely to be killed by a black man then the reverse.

And the article concludes:

"Despite the facts, the anti-police rhetoric of Black Lives Matter and their leftist sympathizers have resulted in what MacDonald calls the "Ferguson Effect," as murders have spiked by 17 percent among the 50 biggest cities in the U.S. as a result of cops being more reluctant to police neighborhoods out of fear of being labeled as racists. Additionally, there have been over twice as many cops victimized by fatal shootings in the first three months of 2016."

I believe this was a thread already. Title had NYT/New York Times. I cannot find that thread.

Yes the thread points out that blacks are killed less. The article you linked of course does not tell the whole story. The author, Roland G. Fryer, Jr., professor of economics at Harvard.

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.

The study did not say whether the most egregious examples — those at the heart of the nation’s debate on police shootings — are free of racial bias. Instead, it examined a larger pool of shootings, including nonfatal ones.

I could take more from article and cherry pick my view points and people could cherry pick their own view points to counter mine. Your thread is very biased in the editorial as if this was 100% the facts. Also what African Americans and Hispanics deal with "extreme" police force which escalates the relationship between police and say brown people. If you are more like to get thrown up against a wall or pulled over more. Yes, your view of police will be different.

[Deleted]

Let me debunk Harvard study instantly.

Yes there's more white people being shot, but that's not really hard when the white population outsizes the black population by 5,8 times.

Statistics and proper math also shows that you are 3 times more likely to get shot by cops if you are black than if you are white.

If you follow Harvard logic then a genocide would be overruled by the same terms simply because the dominating side lost more numbers but the losing party lost all their numbers. It doesn't work like that, and it has never worked like that. If you look at the race, you look at their population and put the numbers into perspective.

[Elegiac]

That would be because they didn't have any recourse... There was the King's Law, and you had no say. Thing's are rather different now? What's the point of even having representative government if it's just going to be okay to exercise "unlawful and violent resistance" whenever you aren't getting your way?

There's a considerable point to be made about how 'representative' the US government actually is.

That aside, what proof do you have that they didn't have any alternative besides violent and unlawful resistance? That is -your- opinion based on you believing the results to have been worth the costs, not a fact. Same thing applies to BLM protestors, they believe they have no alternative.

[Zcion999]

Or happen to be a) an atheist and b) homosexual.

When it comes to anything besides casual talk I generally find Southerners to be highly disagreeable.

When it comes to anything besides casual talk I generally find that blacks steal my stuff and deal drugs.

See what I did there ? Why is it that generalization is always bad when applied to some people and ok when applied to others. It's like there are some protected classes or something. They are always bad when trying to apply them to individuals btw. You seem to not know that part.

[Nynax]

I'm guessing that most people didn't actually bother to read the study. It does show that blacks are not more likely to be shot by cops, but it does show that they are more likely to be the targets of all other types of use of force. As much as people want to say that this study shows that racist policing doesn't exist, the data actually supports the theory that race plays a factor in how officers choose to use force. It just does not play a factor on their decision to shoot a suspect.

it's significant because the main cornerstone of current activism hinges on the idea that "cops are out their killing blacks everyday on a whim." Not "cops are frisking and arresting blacks more than whites, and sometimes it's violent" because honestly....the public already knew that and chose to ignore it (until now I guess).

[Machismo]

Let me debunk Harvard study instantly.

Yes there's more white people being shot, but that's not really hard when the white population outsizes the black population by 5,8 times.

Statistics and proper math also shows that you are 3 times more likely to get shot by cops if you are black than if you are white.

If you follow Harvard logic then a genocide would be overruled by the same terms simply because the dominating side lost more numbers but the losing party lost all their numbers. It doesn't work like that, and it has never worked like that. If you look at race, you look at their population and put the numbers into perspective.

You should actually try reading the study. They go into very great detail how they cam to their conclusions. Regardless of what side you are on, it is worth the read. They do their damndest to take a multitude of variables into account, including demographics, behavior, population ratios, as well as other factors.

[Elegiac]

No, drug proliferation isn't a symptom, it's a direct cause.

People in poverty tend to be significantly more susceptible to the lures of drugs and other intoxicating substances. So no, it's a symptom.

[Machismo]

it's significant because the main cornerstone of current activism hinges on the idea that "cops are out their killing blacks everyday on a whim." Not "cops are frisking and arresting blacks more than whites, and sometimes it's violent" because honestly....the public already knew that and chose to ignore it (until now I guess).

That is precisely why I do not support the BLM movement. It's a false narrative, even if some of the supporters have altruistic intentions.

Cops aren't just frisking blacks more often, they are also using force more often... just not shooting them more often.

[xuros]

Yea, mmo-champion hates facts, esp when it completely takes a dump on their liberal bullshit.

Just hand them some toilet paper and walk away.

[zenkai]

Why are people pissed at facts?

[Lorelei]

Would a solution (it would never happen) then be to do the reverse and see what happens? Essentially (from your example) frisk 10 blacks and 50 whites? Or just jump to 50/50?

I feel like this debate will never go away until some city decides to risk lives in order to run a social experiment like that.

The problem with that is that it would be unconstitutional. The police are only supposed to act on reasonable suspicion/probable cause (except for checkpoints, where they can do "random" searches). Moreover, if officers show an arrest pattern that doesn't fit the current data profile, they are accused of doing their jobs incorrectly, according to a few lawsuits from police officers. See: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.2710345

That officer ran into the problem I described earlier. Most of the people arrested for jumping turnstiles are black and Hispanic teens, so he allegedly was pressured to arrest more black and Hispanic teens, which generates data that most of the people arrested for jumping turnstiles are black and Hispanic teens, which generates pressure to arrest more black and Hispanic teens ....

[Nynax]

There's a considerable point to be made about how 'representative' the US government actually is.

That aside, what proof do you have that they didn't have any alternative besides violent and unlawful resistance? That is -your- opinion based on you believing the results to have been worth the costs, not a fact. Same thing applies to BLM protestors, they believe they have no alternative.

I honestly can't saw how I would have responded then because I didn't live then, that's just my history lesson answer! But I imagine I would have been anti-revolutionary war, because I'm generally always anti-war, because I understand that war is no joke and I prefer my friends and family alive.

But then that stems from my understanding of just how bad it can be outside of the US (Syria/Afghanistan/Sudan) and some things may be bad here, but not THAT bad. But back then people died from everything and life was inherently dangerous, so maybe I would have been? *shrugs*

[Jokerfiend]

People in poverty tend to be significantly more susceptible to the lures of drugs and other intoxicating substances. So no, it's a symptom.

No, it's a direct cause. Poverty and Drugs, is the circle. You cannot fix poverty, end of story. No matter what system will be in place, there will always be those with an over abundance. Greed is real, black, white, Asian, doesn't matter greed will be there.

But, the War on Drugs can be stopped, and would eliminate a good 20% of all crime in the US alone. Which would eliminate the necessity for poor blacks to have run ins with police.

[Elegiac]

No, it's a direct cause. Poverty and Drugs, is the circle. You cannot fix poverty, end of story. No matter what system will be in place, there will always be those with an over abundance. Greed is real, black, white, Asian, doesn't matter greed will be there.

"This house cannot be fireproof, ergo we should not bother minimizing the risk of fire."

But, the War on Drugs can be stopped, and would eliminate a good 20% of all crime in the US alone. Which would eliminate the necessity for poor blacks to have run ins with police.

Implying law enforcement doesn't have endemic issues.

[Machismo]

Why are people pissed at facts?

Honestly I don't think most people even want facts. While this study does show that officers are not more likely to shoot black people, it's doesn't exactly shine them in the greatest light. They are still more likely to use various types of force and frisk black people, they just aren't more likely to shoot black people. Anyone with an agenda will cherry pick what they want, and ignore the rest of the data.

[Zenotetsuken]

I make no secret of my dislike for the prevailing social outlook amongst white Americans.

And for the record, I'm white.

lol so, funny thing about me; I make no secret of my disgust for the prevailing social outlook amongst Liberals.

And for the record, I'm a Liberal.

- - - Updated - - -

Why are people pissed at facts?

Because facts get in the way of them pushing a narrative based agenda.

[Elegiac]

lol so, funny thing about me; I make no secret of my disgust for the prevailing social outlook amongst Liberals.

And for the record, I'm a Liberal.

Cool story. I'm not.