That you think they go poof is shown by your insistence its “just an opinion piece” when it’s a list of studies, their findings, and links, by a scholar in the field. And yes, that “Blacks commit more crimes, thats why they come into contact with police” is a beloved right-wing talking point; There are studies that control for that and don’t find what right wingers say.Dismissing it as a right wing talking point is the problem here. As is your straw man that I think all the other studies cited go ‘poof’ because of the fact that blacks commit more violent crime. I don’t think you ‘need it’ from me. I am simply discussing the subject. No ill will on my end.
Theres also the issue of violent crimes and poverty. But all of that is moot, as is the other irrelevant stat brought up “Black on White crime is higher”. The stats are criminals of all races target whoever is close to them the vast majority of the time, so its over 80% for both White and Black criminals. What that has to do with systemic racist beats me. Just a thing right-wingers throw out there as a gotcha that doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny when the issue is systemic racism.Surely it depends on the crime?
Dismissing my comments as right wing doesn’t address my point and is awfully uncharitable. Nor does it go any way toward solving the issue of violent crime in black communities.Just a thing right-wingers throw out there as a gotcha that doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny when the issue is systemic racism.
What is your criticism? Are you saying the findings are faked by this scholar? Have the cited scholars complained or are you just concerned that their colleague has been secretly misrepresenting their public studies on a big newspaper for two years?And there are studies that do, I’m sure. I am criticizing the article you linked, not the linked studies as I don’t have time to go through them.
Please stop assuming my intentions.Or do you just want to make sure it’s not read because it makes people who claim systemic racism is a myth look foolish or uniformed?
Is that a requirement of the job?Tax evasion.
Unfortunately, it’s a bazillion times you’re pretending I called you a name and misrepresenting my criticism of your claims as well as my analogies. I hope you can stop this habit and respond to my posts here on out instead of this derailment.Unfortunately, Rubee, I’d like to note: i think it’s at least 3 times you’ve called me “laughable,” twice you said i sounded like a rich kid;
I asked, that’s not an assumption.Please stop assuming my intentions.
You asked a rhetorical question which was highly charged.I asked, that’s not an assumption.
Convenient. I’ll take it you obviously have no reason to think its misrepresentative of the studies besides “finding it slanted,” whatever the heck that means when referring to a list of all studies on a given issue with their findings both in favor and against a conclusion simply reported in summary and links to each of the actual studies given for each summary.I’m done discussing the article. I find it slanted.
So are you saying that a computer programming job could be considered criminal on the basis that they could be a hacker?No it’s just what that role could lead you to.
Just like programmer to hacker
I’m not impressed by the article. Sorry.Convenient. I’ll take it you obviously have no reason to think its misrepresentative of the studies besides “finding it slanted,” whatever the heck that means when referring to a list of all studies on a given issue with their findings both in favor and against a conclusion simply reported in summary and links to each of the actual studies given for each summary.