Fine, I'll bite. Here's the retraction statement, which I read in full. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014148117 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2

Fine, I'll bite. Here's the retraction statement, which I read in full. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014148117 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014148117 Some key quotes (emphasis added via italics) > Despite this correction, our work has continued to be cited as providing support for the idea that there are no racial biases in fatal shootings, or policing in general. To be clear, our work does not speak to these issues and should not be used to support such statements. We take full responsibility for not being careful enough with the inferences made in our original report, as this directly led to the misunderstanding of our research. > While our data and statistical approach were appropriate for investigating whether officer characteristics are related to the race of civilians fatally shot by police, they are inadequate to address racial disparities in the probability of being shot. Given these issues and the continued use of our work in the public debate on this topic, we have decided to retract the article. Here's a random hit I found on Google in less than 30 seconds: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/annual-report-shows-systemic-racism-continues-to-bring-down-black-peoples-quality-of-life https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/annual-report-shows-syst.... Note that this is PBS, not CNN or MSNBC or other "liberal" media sources. Here's two recent-ish studies from Harvard, which were also published: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/population-development/2019/11/07/studies-find-evidence-of-systemic-racial-discrimination-across-multiple-domains-in-the-united-states/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/population-development/2019/11/... Care to refute these, or do you just only believe data you've (mis-?)interpreted to match your existing world view? It seems to me that, at a minimum, your assertion that "systemic racism doesn't exist" is a controversial one in conflict with the retraction statement above from that papers' authors, and by the general public at large. I also find it interesting that you've moved the goal post from "doesn't exist" to "doesn't exist anymore", and seem to have found one study to support your claim, which has been retracted and -- by the authors' own admission, is insufficient evidence for the claim you're asserting from their study. I really don't agree with your assessment or disingenuous interpretation of the data on this issue. If you have any sort of scientific reason to convince me otherwise beyond "political correctness bad. you gotta read between the lines!", I'm all ears.