Reuters fires high IQ employee for calling cap on BLM

The data is flawed due to the fact that black people are roughly 13% of the population vs white people who make up 60%. If the 457 number you indicated includes Hispanics (which the US census combines whites and Hispanics) then the numbers are even more diluted. Simply put, your data is bad and you should feel bad.

 

I wonder what’s the statistics for those that weren’t justified.

 

Yo are we back in grade school where we don't understand the concept of ratios and proportions?

Jus a quick refresh "/" and "÷" are known as fraction and division symbols. The operator divides things. That's lesson 1. We will continue later.

 

A lot of his writing is underpinned by a research paper by Roland Fryer. I also admit his prose is unabashedly upper white middle class. That shouldn't dismiss his analysis, but it does highlight a gap in experience/perspective, and how he's using his data. Despite him blaming his own class for perpetuating what he feels are falsehoods, that outsider effect is prob what other people are rejecting against. If he had at least One good (and extremely patient) Black Friend to go over it, he prob wouldn't post that in his company forum with as much conviction.

https://slate.com/technology/2016/0...ing-wasnt-peer-reviewed-does-that-matter.html

Some critics of the Times’ journalism compared the lavish coverage of Fryer’s unpublished study to that of a paper on police shootings by a researcher named Cody Ross. The latter paper found that, at the population level, the chance of an unarmed black person being killed by police is much higher than the chance an unarmed white person will be killed by a cop. Fryer’s and Ross’ findings are not really at odds, since they’re asking somewhat different questions. Fryer, like Ross, found that blacks are more likely to be shot than whites. Fryer, though, looked at details of individual encounters, to control for how threatening each of those encounters was. When he controlled for those details, the bias went away, or even reversed.
​

So there actually are different papers looking at similar things and ending up with different conclusions.

The NYT article also highlights something interesting. According to it, racism among police generally trend in proportion to society. That paper also confirms there are more non-lethal instances of abuse against blacks. It doesn't research how police choose those encounters (profiling and bias). It only goes into the ones that already happen.

If I was among a targeted group, I can imagine being fed up with being profiled with the police and being more combative or resistant on a bad day. It just means that if I got pulled three times more over than a different looking dude driving a similar car, the first two encounters might be non threatening but maybe I drew poorly the third encounter. Or maybe I wasn't feeling great, and had a bone to pick with the system.

You might say, "well you should've been more respectful", except that isn't a race thing. People of all color have shown all levels of disrespect. One of his studies claimed women were more disrespectful in police encounters. But if you happen to be black, you're more likely to be groped, beat up, or "handled roughly."

That's probably some of the factor that went into Sandra Bland's suicide, and I'm assuming it really was a suicide. Some moments when you can't take the oppression, you snap, they snap, and outsiders snap their cameras.

The other issue that the writer is tone deaf on is the immense economic and systemic inequality of the system. Poor people do more crimes, duh. Whether the police enforces our de facto segregation or is a casualty of it isn't going to be resolved over his crusade with correcting "BLM's message" rather the impetus for the rise of social justice groups like BLM is something larger.

The matter of bias in these shootings is all a red herring.

Similarly you can also whine all day over the smash and grabs, except it's really a matter of haves and have-nots. You clutch your pearls if you have property(s) or stable income. They grab your pearls when they don't. To you it's a write off as long as the asset bubble is making you richer and outpricing other people from homes, colleges, or retirements.

I guess that writer had to start somewhere to soothe his OCD against falsy BLM, but at least know the situation before you take away a Jenga block.

 

For what's worth, the full article does go into several paragraphs about the relationship between the police statistics and demographic percentages of the population.

 

The problem here is "the facts" are nothing more than symptoms of causality of the past two centuries in this county. Racists like yourself reverse the order of causality and treat those symptoms as causes. An example would be single parent households. That is a symptom, not a cause. Another example would be labeling the 1000% wealth gap between the median white household and the median black household as a symptom of "black culture" when in reality the "culture" people like you refer to are a symptom of what happens that that demographic over the past two centuries.

So with racists, they have platitudes for solutions that are utterly meaningless such as "be better parents". That is such a worthless statement when discussing solutions to systemic wealth gap issues that often results in disparities in things like crime stats.

 

Looks like our preeminent BLM fan has returned from the underground bunker.

 

Hispanics aren't fairing much better in terms of wealth inequality. Makes sense. A larger portion of that ethnicity came to the US as laborers rather than selectively chosen migrants with h1b visas or student visas like a large brunt of asian immigrants which also shows. The majority of the current Asian pop in the US came during the 80s and after from a selection filter from those type of visas mentioned along with chain migration that brought immediate family members that come from those educated more wealthier families. My parents are Bangladeshi immigrants. I can safely say that 99.99% of Bangladeshi citizens have a 0% chance of migrating to the US. My parents were born from privilege in Bangladesh attending top private grade schools there and therefore got oppurtunities in American universities. Let the poorest from China or South Asia or Japan migrate here in mass and see what happens to their statistics. .

Also there wasn't a systemic multicentury dehumizatiion of them in this country from straight up slavery to redlining. White people were always more tolerant of Asians moving into their neighborhoods and therefore redlining has never been a systemic issue for those demographics.

 

@Senator. You responded to posts after this (and @fchowd0311 ’s on the same issue), but continue to ignore this basic and gaping hole in your 1st grade level original post.

Maybe you know yours is illusory data and a false point, but you thought people are too dumb to understand ratios. If so, you are an idiot.

Or maybe you yourself don’t understand elementary school math, in which case you are an idiot and your momma shoulda put you in kumon.

I am having a hard time coming to a conclusion other than the fact that you are an idiot.

 

Regarding Asian immigrants, first, it is a poor choice to lump them together as a single cohort, as they come to America under different circumstances, some due to war, others just to look for a better opportunity, others somewhere in between, and then they arrive with different levels of wealth, resources and support. And those differences can lead to major differences in results and achievement, but examining them as a broad group, one trait that they largely share is they are exceptional relative to the people from their homelands. They are exceptional in toughness, exceptional in resolve, possibly intellect, definitely in focus. Many came over for education, or with wealth or support, as noted by @fchowd0311 and explained well.

People who possess those traits will outperform their general population at home by a wide margin. If you have read any studies about the success of Asian immigrants, you’d know this.

So, if you want to compare the performance of these immigrants to Black Americans, compare them to a cohort of exceptionally tough, resolved, focused and intelligent Black Americans, the top 1 percent of one percent, to determine if there is a gap between their achievements in life despite racism.

If you want an intellectually dishonest and fatally flawed comparison, compare these Asian immigrants to the broad population of black Americans. Do what you do.

 

So angry and bitter.

You constantly push a race narrative skewed against black people, so all of this is rich and amusing. I'd be surprised if you talk to people outside your race on an equal footing without sounding needy or pushy.

It's unreal how you spun all of that from what I wrote, but I honestly don't expect much from you.

Try to have a nice weekend?

 

Hispanics and Asians aren’t the same as African Americans. Africans aren’t the same as African Americans.

The only group similar to African Americans are natives, which are mixed in with Hispanics, but not all Hispanics are native, and some of those who do have native also have varying levels of European ancestry mixed into their family history, which brings wealth and culture that potentially wasn’t negatively influenced by oppression.

Hispanics are very much a super mixed bag, the more native, the more similarities to African Americans, the less native obviously the more they are similar to being European Americans, and them some are flat out European Americans.

 

I thought you were banned.

what’s your solution here

 

What's a white neighborhood?

 

The author counters this point with:

If there are more unarmed whites than blacks shot by police each year, what is the basis for the claim that blacks are being targeted by police with lethal force? The idea is that because blacks are 13% of the population, while whites are 76% of the population, if police were not targeting blacks with lethal force, whites would be shot by police at a rate 5-6 times the rate that blacks are shot. In other words, we have to “benchmark” the higher number of shootings of whites to their larger population in order to have a fair comparison. While these disproportionate numbers certainly point to some kind of problem, is the problem police bias?

To start approaching an answer to that question, we must consider the issue of benchmarks in more detail. Police are not supposed to distribute lethal force randomly throughout the population in order to ensure equal application to each racial group. Instead, police are supposed to use lethal force only in response to threats of serious violence during encounters with criminal suspects. Thus, if lethal force were applied by police without any bias whatsoever, we would expect the number of applications of lethal force for each racial group to be proportional to the number of high risk encounters members of each racial group have with police officers, and not with the population overall. The correct benchmark for measuring bias in police use of lethal force is the number of high risk encounters for each group, and not the population of each group.
…
​

Getting fired after complaint to HR about harassment sounds pretty bad. Any response from Reuters?