4 ms·

I think this is a pretty terrible litmus test for the "okayness" of a statement. There are plenty of reasons one word might make lots of sense in a statement, w

I think this is a pretty terrible litmus test for the "okayness" of a statement. There are plenty of reasons one word might make lots of sense in a statement, while another would absolutely not. For example: estimates of the prevalence of domestic violence perpetrated by police officers in the US range as high as 40%. This is an objectively true statement. Replacing 'police officers' with, say, 'kindergarten teachers' produces a statement which is NOT objectively true.

somedude895 2y ago
Non-whites are 3x more likely to commit violent crimes than whites [0] [0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2782848/#R49 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2782848/#R49 So now do you think it's okay to say "Blacks are known to be violent thugs" because it's "objectively true" according to some data? Just stop...
- tech_ken 2y ago
  Are you familar with the concept of "omitted variable bias"? This paper only takes it up once (AFAICT), but there's a pretty critical variable that they otherwise generally ignore: > Once socioeconomic status was considered, the results failed to indicate racial differences between the offending but not arrested drivers and the arrested drivers. As far as I've seen, there is not a similar explanatory factor with the statistic I've cited.
  - try_the_bass 2y ago
    You cherry-picked one sentence that supports your position out of an entire paper that repeatedly makes the case (with ample evidence!) that race is a meaningful factor in the rates of various types of crime (mostly violent crime). You also picked the one example that's referring to a non-violent crime (drunk driving), when the GP was specifically highlighting violent crime. The rest of the paper continues to make his point, and it's clearly been examined a large number of ways but a ton of highly-motivated people. The burden of putting forth a better explanation is much larger than "one sentence I picked out of a paper that reviews dozens of papers that contradict my explanation". I don't think this is an "omitted variable bias" thing. This is a "confirmation bias" thing on your part.
    - tech_ken 2y ago
      Every paper I have ever seen on the subject has concluded that controlling for SES explains racial variation in crime rates. This paper touched on it in one location but otherwise didn’t bring it up, so that’s the part I mentioned here. Feel free to check around and see what you can find, I’ve got better things to do on a Friday night.
      - try_the_bass 2y ago
        I really don't understand what that's supposed to explain, then. Your explanation doesn't change the overall data: some racial demographics are overrepresented in violent crime statistics. If controlling for socioeconomic status eliminates the racial variation, all that really says is that the demographics that are overrepresented in the violent crime statistics are the same demographics that are overrepresented among lower socioeconomic statuses. So... There's a correlation between lower socioeconomic status and violent crime? I don't think that's surprising. What it does not do is explain why those demographics are overrepresented in either category. I also am highly skeptical of "every paper", unless you're specifically going out of your way to only read the ones that confirm your bias.
        kelnos 2y ago
        I think you're missing the point. If, when we control for socioeconomic status, we find that there's little to no difference in crime rates between races, then what that means is that, while yes, we can factually say "black people commit more crimes than white people", we cannot say that it's intrinsic in "being black" to commit more crimes. That is what "$GROUP is a bunch of violent thugs" implies: that members of that group are intrinsically more likely to be violent and thuggish than other type of people, specifically because of the trait that $GROUP embodies. That statement does not hold true for black people, but I believe it does for police. It's important to understand the root causes of things. Black people commit more crimes, because black people are overrepresented when it comes to lower socioeconomic status, because of century-spanning systemic racism and the reduced opportunities that brings. Police tend to be more violent and thuggish because the profession selects for people who want to have (and inevitably abuse) power over others, and because it's systemically set up as an institution to enable that behavior and not hold members accountable for it. I would hope from those two descriptions it's reasonable to say that one group's failings come from a sympathetic cause that is often out of their control, and the other group's failings are intentional and by design.

somedude895 2y ago

Non-whites are 3x more likely to commit violent crimes than whites [0] [0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2782848/#R49 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2782848/#R49 So now do you think it's okay to say "Blacks are known to be violent thugs" because it's "objectively true" according to some data? Just stop...

tech_ken 2y ago
Are you familar with the concept of "omitted variable bias"? This paper only takes it up once (AFAICT), but there's a pretty critical variable that they otherwise generally ignore: > Once socioeconomic status was considered, the results failed to indicate racial differences between the offending but not arrested drivers and the arrested drivers. As far as I've seen, there is not a similar explanatory factor with the statistic I've cited.
- try_the_bass 2y ago
  You cherry-picked one sentence that supports your position out of an entire paper that repeatedly makes the case (with ample evidence!) that race is a meaningful factor in the rates of various types of crime (mostly violent crime). You also picked the one example that's referring to a non-violent crime (drunk driving), when the GP was specifically highlighting violent crime. The rest of the paper continues to make his point, and it's clearly been examined a large number of ways but a ton of highly-motivated people. The burden of putting forth a better explanation is much larger than "one sentence I picked out of a paper that reviews dozens of papers that contradict my explanation". I don't think this is an "omitted variable bias" thing. This is a "confirmation bias" thing on your part.
  - tech_ken 2y ago
    Every paper I have ever seen on the subject has concluded that controlling for SES explains racial variation in crime rates. This paper touched on it in one location but otherwise didn’t bring it up, so that’s the part I mentioned here. Feel free to check around and see what you can find, I’ve got better things to do on a Friday night.
    - try_the_bass 2y ago
      I really don't understand what that's supposed to explain, then. Your explanation doesn't change the overall data: some racial demographics are overrepresented in violent crime statistics. If controlling for socioeconomic status eliminates the racial variation, all that really says is that the demographics that are overrepresented in the violent crime statistics are the same demographics that are overrepresented among lower socioeconomic statuses. So... There's a correlation between lower socioeconomic status and violent crime? I don't think that's surprising. What it does not do is explain why those demographics are overrepresented in either category. I also am highly skeptical of "every paper", unless you're specifically going out of your way to only read the ones that confirm your bias.
      - kelnos 2y ago
        I think you're missing the point. If, when we control for socioeconomic status, we find that there's little to no difference in crime rates between races, then what that means is that, while yes, we can factually say "black people commit more crimes than white people", we cannot say that it's intrinsic in "being black" to commit more crimes. That is what "$GROUP is a bunch of violent thugs" implies: that members of that group are intrinsically more likely to be violent and thuggish than other type of people, specifically because of the trait that $GROUP embodies. That statement does not hold true for black people, but I believe it does for police. It's important to understand the root causes of things. Black people commit more crimes, because black people are overrepresented when it comes to lower socioeconomic status, because of century-spanning systemic racism and the reduced opportunities that brings. Police tend to be more violent and thuggish because the profession selects for people who want to have (and inevitably abuse) power over others, and because it's systemically set up as an institution to enable that behavior and not hold members accountable for it. I would hope from those two descriptions it's reasonable to say that one group's failings come from a sympathetic cause that is often out of their control, and the other group's failings are intentional and by design.