Even more than that, they eat their own if they happen to produce any studies that conflict with the established ideological narrative. Prime example: Roland Fryer. Roland Fryer is a liberal, African American economist at Harvard- and for publishing this study, his name was smeared and character besmirched by people at his own university, not to mention political and media pundits: https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/publications/empirical-analysis-racial-differences-police-use-force
TLDR version: Fryer’s intensive and granular CONTROLLED research shows no bias regarding race in officer-involved shootings of suspects. This obviously directly contradicts the narrative “police are racist and hunt black men for kicks” that progressives use to prop up the claim that the US is systemically racist concerning police use of deadly force. If anything, the study shows that whites may actually be slightly more likely to be shot and killed by police vs. their black counterpart citizens.
One thing progressives suck at (aside from the obvious things like making sense) is finding viable, unassailable data that supports claims of racism. Furthermore, studies are often done to refute claims that progressives make. Wilfred Reilly, another black scholar is particularly adept in this field. To address the claim of systemic racism in hiring practices which was first brought to prominence and public knowledge in 2003, Reilly conducted his own study: https://www.commentary.org/articles/wilfred-reilly/race-in-america-good-news/ TLDR version, the study found that there was bias in typically lower class or clearly ethnic sounding names of black applicants, but no bias in black applicants with more conventional names. To further bolster the claim, he conducted the same experiment with white names. Names like “Bubba” (white) and names like “Jamal” (black) received the same level of no call back bias. This means that the bias leans much more toward being class-based rather than race-based.
Both Reilly and Fryer for this type of in-depth, social science data analysis were denounced across the board as supporting white supremacy and written off as “Uncle Toms”. Clearly ad hominem attacks meant to distract from the very compelling study findings.
What does this mean for the average person? It means you plan on combatting the race cult brain poison, you have to do your homework, stand your ground, reinforce the data and ignore everything except merit-based arguments that specifically address the data and evidence. That’s the only way this shit will ever abate, and the only way it can be fought.
I think it has already been pointed out that the largest determining factor in getting shot by the police or not is class. However, in the US at least 'Black' codes for 'lower class' which isn't a whole lot different from getting shot because Black. An approach to solving the problem, if it is a problem, might be to see if police methods for suppressing certain undesirable behaviors might be modified in the direction of being less violent; but that would be rational.
In this case, I was assuming that 'nothing fundamental will change.' This is what America's voters seem to have chosen in regard to the police and many other matters. The subculture of which you speak (I assume) is not a simple thing, and most cultures are difficult to change top-down, especially because those who carry them are deeply attached to particulars of their content. However, if we just want the police to be less lethal, and recognizing that we are not omniscient and omnipotent, and conscious of our limitations, there are ways of going about lethality reduction which will not much affect anyone's culture very deeply -- not even that of the police.
I am glad you put 'Left' in quotation marks. There is no effective Left, and the ineffective Left has no public policies worthy of the name.
The pure Left would be anarchists, I suppose. Serious, non-self-contradictory anarchists would have no public policies, would they? The cardinal principles of the Left are peace, freedom, equality, autonomy, and all that stuff. These were absorbed by people we would now call liberals, who desired anarchy above and slavery below, and synthesized liberalism from classical slavery and feudalism accordingly. This meant their downward-facing police had to be pretty hard. However, even so, when people have to be shot for stealing a candy bar or strangled for selling onesie cigarettes, their behavior could now probably have some of the rough edges painted over or sanded off, so to speak. That would be a leftish move, yet fully in accord with bourgeois liberal capitalism as long as it wasn't taken _too_far_.
Roland Fryer was not "smeared and character besmirched by people at his own university [or] political and media pundits" for his ultimately very flawed and dubious piece of scholarship.
Rather, his research and analysis were found to be highly flawed and subsequently debunked by two subsequent studies, one of which was conducted by fellow Harvard scholars. Fryer was also guilty of mischaracterizing the analysis in his study to the media:
"Fryer’s analysis is highly flawed, however. It suffers from major theoretical and methodological errors, and he has communicated the results to news media in a way that is misleading. While there have long been problems with the quality of police shootings data, there is still plenty of evidence to support a pattern of systematic, racially discriminatory use of force against black people in the United States."
And then you cite one obscure "Commentary" opinion piece by an obscure academic, Wilfred Reilly, of Kentucky State University, which is NOT a study and consists of no formal scholarly research, and disingenuously (stupidly, more likely) pass it off as "in-depth, social science data analysis."
Here is your summary of Reilly's "study:"
"To further bolster the claim, he [Reilly] conducted the same experiment with white names. Names like “Bubba” (white) and names like “Jamal” (black) received the same level of no call back bias. This means that the bias leans much more toward being class-based rather than race-based." Groundbreaking stuff there.
And then go on to claim that both Reilly and Fryer were "denounced across the board as supporting white supremacy and written off as “Uncle Toms”.
Now, I've searched the web high and far for these scurrilous attacks you speak of (and curiously do not bother to cite here) and found...nothing.
"Clearly ad hominem attacks meant to distract from the very compelling study findings," you chin-rubbingly assert, no doubt simultaneously hitching up your pants with thumbs and forefingers, accompanied by furrowed brows and a nodding head. If you're able to locate these "ad hominem attacks," as I could not, I'd surely be interested in reviewing them.
"What does this mean for the average person" you then ask? Not a goddamn thing, I'd say.
Your idea and my idea of "average person" must be different. For future reference, let's just say by "average person" I mean someone that hasn't made a career out of racializing everything under the sun, and believes that "objective truth" is a thing.
First, can you link me those studies that you refer to? I'm more than happy to read them and amend my statement if it's warranted. This may be putting the cart before the horse, but whether or not you like Fryer's conclusions, he does an awful lot of controls for his studies and has what one might refer to as a shit ton of samples, and so many varying sample sizes as to make the root sources of his data seem almost unquestionable.
For the sake of argument, let's say his study is flawed. In what way is it flawed? In what ways do the other studies you reference directly contradict with his findings? Do you even know? I somehow doubt it.
Second, not only was Fryer denounced, but I find it a little more than suspect that his police bias study was published in June of 2019 and in July of 2019 he was suspended for two years because he was accused of sexual harassment- accusations of which go all the way back to 2006. Now, I too have scoured the internet for what Fryer was actually accused of, and why it took 13 years for women to come forward, and why only a month after him publishing his study was the right time for these victims to come forward.
Third, I don't have the time, patience or inclination to carry your fucking water for you. You search. You find them. I can find plenty of Harvard faculty denouncing Fryer for his "white supremacist" study starting in roughly August '19 until about the fall of '20- the same time that his study was being scrutinized by both progressives and used by the right to bolster the notion that the police aren't the only problem. If you're saying my claims aren't true, then the burden of proof rests on the denier.
Otherwise you're just some woke moron just saying things, denying "objective truth" because that's the only way you can get your point across . Evidence matters. Data matters. Produce some if you want to be taken seriously. Just because you have a vocabulary doesn't mean that everything you type can or should be taken seriously. Settle down "Aunt Martha". Do you not know these things are being said and have been published in numerous articles like these below (note that "Uncle Tom" is even in the title of the article- how many of these would I need to provide to change your mind?). Also notice that like you, the person writing this article doesn't bother going into specifics of why she's drawing the conclusions she is- she just expects (just like you) that people are going to assume that something nefarious is going on because it simply disagrees the the established sociopolitical narrative.
Here's the one where he was suspended "mysteriously" a month after his report was published at various sources online and began being consumed by and used by right leaning organizations to battle the "defund the police" movement:
But I guess the timing can just be written off as a coincidence, right? It's hilarious how the first two searches I did I was able to find these things easily that you proclaim didn't happen and don't exist. Quite frankly, I'm embarrassed that I even felt compelled to respond to your drivel-laden, nonsensical *shits pants in rage* reply that's utterly devoid of merit or anything evidential to back up your claims. He was denounced heavily and for months. Reilly was as well. If you'd ever read Reilly, you'd know that he often writes about the responses that he gets from his work from people in his own university and widely outside- social media, political pundits, other writers that write on the other side of the political divide about the same topics, you name it.
Are you unaware- strike that. Nevermind. You clearly are. Thanks for inspiring me waste fifteen minutes of my day though. Do you have anything to share like the studies that were done- I mean like the actual studies so that I can peruse the data, or is just proclaiming something with indignation and disgust that an opinion with evidence that's counter to your own woke ideology dare be uttered for public reading?
That question is rhetorical. I don't care. If you'd like another response, give me a link to the two studies that you say exist so I can see the methodology used and the number of sources and how the data was parsed so I can see if they pass the smell test. Either than or you can continue to shit your pants in rage at strangers on the internet. So much for no evidence of "scurrilous attacks". A cursory web search was all it took to find that. I could do a deep dive and make it beyond reproach, but people like you aren't satisfied with any amount of data, so it isn't incumbent upon me to try.
Gee, I wonder why dear Aunt Martha has no witty retort to any of your responses. She/he (who knows? Brave new world out there) seems to be rather well written for being completely wrong and not really wanting to engage in anything other than bad faith assertions that can easily be stricken lame with quick web searches.
What has Chris Rufo or James Lindsay said that is factually, academically or empirically incorrect? Or do you just say it is and won't bother to offer any substantial evidence because you don't like what they say?
No, I don't like what they say. At all. And in the world where I come from, sentient humans form opinions and marshall judgments based on what others "say," believing that what people "say" is communicating to whomever is listening that it's also what they "think" and what they "believe," and consequently serves as an accurate barometer of how they "act" in the process of going about their business in the world, whatever that business may be.
And I don't know what kind of community you call home, but in my extended milieu if you went around challenging the opinions and statements expressed by others that you found disagreeable or otherwise objectionable, by demanding from them receipts of statements that are "factually, academically or empirically incorrect," you'd be laughed out of the room or unhesitatingly told to go fuck yourself. And rightfully so.
From what I've recorded and compiled of the annotated Rufo and Lindsay catalogue to date, I not only feel emboldened to dismiss them both as low-grade, back alley grifters devoid of any measurable character traits of note, in all probability possessing a package of morals that rivaling that of a carnival barker shod in two-tone shoes, wholly indifferent to the concept of ethics, the both of them fully attuned to and comfortably at home in a world where shameless self-aggrandizement is not only rewarded, but perpetually encouraged. Low and mean, if Rufo and Lindsay were junk yard dogs you'd be inclined, more than anything when in their company, to beat them with very large sticks.
On the other hand, it can't be denied that they both reflect a somewhat charming---if shameless--- insouciance, a carelessness of character that is the hallmark of a long celebrated and thoroughly American archetype---that of the freelance charlatan for hire, ever attuned to the next main chance: unapologetic, unconcerned, and unrepentant when confronted with his rapacious desires. Both of them fully at home and content...on the right.
"Victim Narrative?" So we're talking about the whiny right, is that right---right now? Hearing an American righty accusing any other cohort or constituency in the explored and mapped galaxy of trafficing in "victim narratives" is an invitation to simultaneously check your wallet and ward off the impending vertigo.
Recent research has shown that a few hours a day of focused origami work therapeutically ameliorates almost all forms of political "projection." Recommended.
Even more than that, they eat their own if they happen to produce any studies that conflict with the established ideological narrative. Prime example: Roland Fryer. Roland Fryer is a liberal, African American economist at Harvard- and for publishing this study, his name was smeared and character besmirched by people at his own university, not to mention political and media pundits: https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/publications/empirical-analysis-racial-differences-police-use-force
TLDR version: Fryer’s intensive and granular CONTROLLED research shows no bias regarding race in officer-involved shootings of suspects. This obviously directly contradicts the narrative “police are racist and hunt black men for kicks” that progressives use to prop up the claim that the US is systemically racist concerning police use of deadly force. If anything, the study shows that whites may actually be slightly more likely to be shot and killed by police vs. their black counterpart citizens.
One thing progressives suck at (aside from the obvious things like making sense) is finding viable, unassailable data that supports claims of racism. Furthermore, studies are often done to refute claims that progressives make. Wilfred Reilly, another black scholar is particularly adept in this field. To address the claim of systemic racism in hiring practices which was first brought to prominence and public knowledge in 2003, Reilly conducted his own study: https://www.commentary.org/articles/wilfred-reilly/race-in-america-good-news/ TLDR version, the study found that there was bias in typically lower class or clearly ethnic sounding names of black applicants, but no bias in black applicants with more conventional names. To further bolster the claim, he conducted the same experiment with white names. Names like “Bubba” (white) and names like “Jamal” (black) received the same level of no call back bias. This means that the bias leans much more toward being class-based rather than race-based.
Both Reilly and Fryer for this type of in-depth, social science data analysis were denounced across the board as supporting white supremacy and written off as “Uncle Toms”. Clearly ad hominem attacks meant to distract from the very compelling study findings.
What does this mean for the average person? It means you plan on combatting the race cult brain poison, you have to do your homework, stand your ground, reinforce the data and ignore everything except merit-based arguments that specifically address the data and evidence. That’s the only way this shit will ever abate, and the only way it can be fought.
I think it has already been pointed out that the largest determining factor in getting shot by the police or not is class. However, in the US at least 'Black' codes for 'lower class' which isn't a whole lot different from getting shot because Black. An approach to solving the problem, if it is a problem, might be to see if police methods for suppressing certain undesirable behaviors might be modified in the direction of being less violent; but that would be rational.
In this case, I was assuming that 'nothing fundamental will change.' This is what America's voters seem to have chosen in regard to the police and many other matters. The subculture of which you speak (I assume) is not a simple thing, and most cultures are difficult to change top-down, especially because those who carry them are deeply attached to particulars of their content. However, if we just want the police to be less lethal, and recognizing that we are not omniscient and omnipotent, and conscious of our limitations, there are ways of going about lethality reduction which will not much affect anyone's culture very deeply -- not even that of the police.
I am glad you put 'Left' in quotation marks. There is no effective Left, and the ineffective Left has no public policies worthy of the name.
The pure Left would be anarchists, I suppose. Serious, non-self-contradictory anarchists would have no public policies, would they? The cardinal principles of the Left are peace, freedom, equality, autonomy, and all that stuff. These were absorbed by people we would now call liberals, who desired anarchy above and slavery below, and synthesized liberalism from classical slavery and feudalism accordingly. This meant their downward-facing police had to be pretty hard. However, even so, when people have to be shot for stealing a candy bar or strangled for selling onesie cigarettes, their behavior could now probably have some of the rough edges painted over or sanded off, so to speak. That would be a leftish move, yet fully in accord with bourgeois liberal capitalism as long as it wasn't taken _too_far_.
If you wish.
Roland Fryer was not "smeared and character besmirched by people at his own university [or] political and media pundits" for his ultimately very flawed and dubious piece of scholarship.
Rather, his research and analysis were found to be highly flawed and subsequently debunked by two subsequent studies, one of which was conducted by fellow Harvard scholars. Fryer was also guilty of mischaracterizing the analysis in his study to the media:
"Fryer’s analysis is highly flawed, however. It suffers from major theoretical and methodological errors, and he has communicated the results to news media in a way that is misleading. While there have long been problems with the quality of police shootings data, there is still plenty of evidence to support a pattern of systematic, racially discriminatory use of force against black people in the United States."
https://scholar.harvard.edu/jfeldman/blog/roland-fryer-wrong-there-racial-bias-shootings-police
And then you cite one obscure "Commentary" opinion piece by an obscure academic, Wilfred Reilly, of Kentucky State University, which is NOT a study and consists of no formal scholarly research, and disingenuously (stupidly, more likely) pass it off as "in-depth, social science data analysis."
Here is your summary of Reilly's "study:"
"To further bolster the claim, he [Reilly] conducted the same experiment with white names. Names like “Bubba” (white) and names like “Jamal” (black) received the same level of no call back bias. This means that the bias leans much more toward being class-based rather than race-based." Groundbreaking stuff there.
And then go on to claim that both Reilly and Fryer were "denounced across the board as supporting white supremacy and written off as “Uncle Toms”.
Now, I've searched the web high and far for these scurrilous attacks you speak of (and curiously do not bother to cite here) and found...nothing.
"Clearly ad hominem attacks meant to distract from the very compelling study findings," you chin-rubbingly assert, no doubt simultaneously hitching up your pants with thumbs and forefingers, accompanied by furrowed brows and a nodding head. If you're able to locate these "ad hominem attacks," as I could not, I'd surely be interested in reviewing them.
"What does this mean for the average person" you then ask? Not a goddamn thing, I'd say.
Your idea and my idea of "average person" must be different. For future reference, let's just say by "average person" I mean someone that hasn't made a career out of racializing everything under the sun, and believes that "objective truth" is a thing.
First, can you link me those studies that you refer to? I'm more than happy to read them and amend my statement if it's warranted. This may be putting the cart before the horse, but whether or not you like Fryer's conclusions, he does an awful lot of controls for his studies and has what one might refer to as a shit ton of samples, and so many varying sample sizes as to make the root sources of his data seem almost unquestionable.
For the sake of argument, let's say his study is flawed. In what way is it flawed? In what ways do the other studies you reference directly contradict with his findings? Do you even know? I somehow doubt it.
Second, not only was Fryer denounced, but I find it a little more than suspect that his police bias study was published in June of 2019 and in July of 2019 he was suspended for two years because he was accused of sexual harassment- accusations of which go all the way back to 2006. Now, I too have scoured the internet for what Fryer was actually accused of, and why it took 13 years for women to come forward, and why only a month after him publishing his study was the right time for these victims to come forward.
Third, I don't have the time, patience or inclination to carry your fucking water for you. You search. You find them. I can find plenty of Harvard faculty denouncing Fryer for his "white supremacist" study starting in roughly August '19 until about the fall of '20- the same time that his study was being scrutinized by both progressives and used by the right to bolster the notion that the police aren't the only problem. If you're saying my claims aren't true, then the burden of proof rests on the denier.
Otherwise you're just some woke moron just saying things, denying "objective truth" because that's the only way you can get your point across . Evidence matters. Data matters. Produce some if you want to be taken seriously. Just because you have a vocabulary doesn't mean that everything you type can or should be taken seriously. Settle down "Aunt Martha". Do you not know these things are being said and have been published in numerous articles like these below (note that "Uncle Tom" is even in the title of the article- how many of these would I need to provide to change your mind?). Also notice that like you, the person writing this article doesn't bother going into specifics of why she's drawing the conclusions she is- she just expects (just like you) that people are going to assume that something nefarious is going on because it simply disagrees the the established sociopolitical narrative.
https://blackagendareport.com/freedom-rider-when-uncle-tom-falls
Here's the one where he was suspended "mysteriously" a month after his report was published at various sources online and began being consumed by and used by right leaning organizations to battle the "defund the police" movement:
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2019/07/harvard-sanctions-economist-roland-fryer
But I guess the timing can just be written off as a coincidence, right? It's hilarious how the first two searches I did I was able to find these things easily that you proclaim didn't happen and don't exist. Quite frankly, I'm embarrassed that I even felt compelled to respond to your drivel-laden, nonsensical *shits pants in rage* reply that's utterly devoid of merit or anything evidential to back up your claims. He was denounced heavily and for months. Reilly was as well. If you'd ever read Reilly, you'd know that he often writes about the responses that he gets from his work from people in his own university and widely outside- social media, political pundits, other writers that write on the other side of the political divide about the same topics, you name it.
Are you unaware- strike that. Nevermind. You clearly are. Thanks for inspiring me waste fifteen minutes of my day though. Do you have anything to share like the studies that were done- I mean like the actual studies so that I can peruse the data, or is just proclaiming something with indignation and disgust that an opinion with evidence that's counter to your own woke ideology dare be uttered for public reading?
That question is rhetorical. I don't care. If you'd like another response, give me a link to the two studies that you say exist so I can see the methodology used and the number of sources and how the data was parsed so I can see if they pass the smell test. Either than or you can continue to shit your pants in rage at strangers on the internet. So much for no evidence of "scurrilous attacks". A cursory web search was all it took to find that. I could do a deep dive and make it beyond reproach, but people like you aren't satisfied with any amount of data, so it isn't incumbent upon me to try.
Gee, I wonder why dear Aunt Martha has no witty retort to any of your responses. She/he (who knows? Brave new world out there) seems to be rather well written for being completely wrong and not really wanting to engage in anything other than bad faith assertions that can easily be stricken lame with quick web searches.
Correction: "grievance-grifter-industrial complex: see Rufo, Christopher; Lindsay, James.
What has Chris Rufo or James Lindsay said that is factually, academically or empirically incorrect? Or do you just say it is and won't bother to offer any substantial evidence because you don't like what they say?
No, I don't like what they say. At all. And in the world where I come from, sentient humans form opinions and marshall judgments based on what others "say," believing that what people "say" is communicating to whomever is listening that it's also what they "think" and what they "believe," and consequently serves as an accurate barometer of how they "act" in the process of going about their business in the world, whatever that business may be.
And I don't know what kind of community you call home, but in my extended milieu if you went around challenging the opinions and statements expressed by others that you found disagreeable or otherwise objectionable, by demanding from them receipts of statements that are "factually, academically or empirically incorrect," you'd be laughed out of the room or unhesitatingly told to go fuck yourself. And rightfully so.
From what I've recorded and compiled of the annotated Rufo and Lindsay catalogue to date, I not only feel emboldened to dismiss them both as low-grade, back alley grifters devoid of any measurable character traits of note, in all probability possessing a package of morals that rivaling that of a carnival barker shod in two-tone shoes, wholly indifferent to the concept of ethics, the both of them fully attuned to and comfortably at home in a world where shameless self-aggrandizement is not only rewarded, but perpetually encouraged. Low and mean, if Rufo and Lindsay were junk yard dogs you'd be inclined, more than anything when in their company, to beat them with very large sticks.
On the other hand, it can't be denied that they both reflect a somewhat charming---if shameless--- insouciance, a carelessness of character that is the hallmark of a long celebrated and thoroughly American archetype---that of the freelance charlatan for hire, ever attuned to the next main chance: unapologetic, unconcerned, and unrepentant when confronted with his rapacious desires. Both of them fully at home and content...on the right.
Ahahahaha
"Victim Narrative?" So we're talking about the whiny right, is that right---right now? Hearing an American righty accusing any other cohort or constituency in the explored and mapped galaxy of trafficing in "victim narratives" is an invitation to simultaneously check your wallet and ward off the impending vertigo.
Recent research has shown that a few hours a day of focused origami work therapeutically ameliorates almost all forms of political "projection." Recommended.