Race-Biased Police Violence

Ironically enough, I can’t look at amren.com at work because it’s flagged as racist and blocked by the webfliter.

If you’re going to object to any article written by a black person because they might be biased, consistency demands that you object to articles written by avowed racists because they might be biased.

That was my point Carleas. The thing of it is though, I understand and recognize the bias. The idea that you can list a bunch of “studies” and overload the topic with “information” so the opposition is lost in the quagmire of sifting through it all, is transparent, and typical. Of course, this is also convenient because it is used to shift the onus, and because no matter how carefully someone sifts through the “material”, there is so much there that all one has to do is make a one-liner retort, kind of like this whole thread, and to the lay person it may appear that you have a stronger argument. The problem is that this whole discussion is controlled by you. You’ve framed everything right from the start, and when the conversation started shifting in a direction away from your ideal, you felt it necessary to post just to “re-frame” the discussion. This is how for me personally, I know when someone is trying to sell me something against my best interest. The conversation always has to start and stay within the frame that the left sets. When it goes outside the lines, the left always has to rein it in. Interesting how you want everybody to acknowledge your studies and “truth”, but all you do is say “racist” and BOOM, no more opposing study.

Very disingenuous debate, no?

Lucky you.
Better to block you than to surveillance you in silence and later accuse you of thought-crime if and when it’s convenient for somebody.

Are you referring to “The Color Of Crime, 2016” by Edwin S. Rubenstein? Most of his pieces explain why he’s not happy with illegal immigration, but I can’t find anything where he admits to being a racist. He hasn’t done any studies which feature whites vs. blacks or whites vs. any specific race. His comparisons include all the major races.

On race and drug arrests, viewer discretion is advised, do not let your employer log your access to this content.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fkZUrT7t4o[/youtube]

No. I literally can’t go to your source because it’s blocked for being racist, based on standards I didn’t set and can’t control. I can look at the Wikipedia page for the magazine, and there I can see both how they’ve been characterized by mainstream media sources, and what I take to be an accurately quoted self-description. I take from all of this that “biased” is an accurate description.

But I’m not trying to reject the source for that reason. What I’m trying to do is point out that WendyDarling isn’t applying a fair standard to the evidence before her. When she looks at studies that undermine her position, the mere race of the author is enough to completely reject all of the study’s findings. But when presented with a study that supports her position, the fact that it’s a magazine article produced by an organization with an explicit agenda of finding consistent race-based differences in all measurable human attributes isn’t seen as at all disqualifying. That lack of neutrality is a problem.

When I dump a bunch of studies, it’s because WendyDarling is using ad hoc justifications for rejecting conclusions she doesn’t like. She’s using standards she didn’t have until she was confronted with a study that met her expressed standards. I dumped studies because they reach the same conclusions using different methods, and they undermine her focus on the minutiae of one study. I don’t doubt that she could find some detail in each of those studies that she could claim as a reason to reject its findings, but I expect those details to be ad hoc and to be things in study design she’s never been concerned about until she had a study she needed a reason to reject. Again, there’s a lack of neutrality, and study dumping is just a way of making clearer that her real problem with the study is that she doesn’t like the conclusion.

This isn’t reframing anything. WendyDarling asked me to create this thread to discuss studies showing that black people face bias from the police, and that’s what we’re still doing. The only time I brought up “racist” is when WendyDarling suddenly introduced the standard that no study from a black person would count, and I only brought it up for the limited purpose of saying that an article promulgated by a clearly motivated organization should be rejected too if she were applying a fair standard. It’s “BOOM, no more opposing study” under WendyDarling’s own standard of what counts as a valid study.

I appreciate your participation in this thread, but if you’re going to participate, then participate in this thread, not every strawman of a conversation with a liberal you’ve seen described on Stormfront. I’m not calling WendyDarling a racist, I’m not calling white people racist, I’m not even calling the police racist. I’m saying, black people face an undue burden from police, and studies that look at real world data and apply reasonable analytical methods back up that claim.

/rant

I think it’s funny how race is important when it comes to anything positive, but as soon as negative race differences come up suddenly race doesn’t matter and it is “racist” to point to those differences.

Different races commit violent crimes at different proportions as an average of each race. But apparently it’s racist to even point that out. See, race is irrelevant when the differences are negative ones, but when it comes to positive aspects then it’s just fine to bring up real differences between races.

Also, if liberals really cared about black communities they would be talking about black on black violence, and not about “white cops on black” violence. But hey. I don’t think helping anyone (but themselves) was ever actually the goal.

No, it isn’t. If there is racial bias in sentencing, it would also be reflected in prior sentences.

The piece that’s missing is always taking responsibility for oneself. You want to be a “black community” when it works to your benefit but not when it reveals negatives. That’s just moralism. Not interesting.

Reality doesn’t care for uninteresting things.

UrGod, there is something you may be forgetting. In all black schools, there is an invisible, mystical force called “whitey” which prevents black students from being functional students.

Prove it. First time offenders study with racist white black dichotomy, bring it. Omitting significant items doesn’t make your case stand unchallenged, hence…me. :evilfun: :laughing:

So you’re not saying it’s racist, but you take it as “biased”, but haven’t read it… How is this not disingenuous?

Versus the abundance of neutrality of your sources? You appear to be holding a double standard. Just for clarity because I think I’m the third person to try and explain this to you, the problem lies in the fact that your studies are founded on a set up dichotomy (often false depending on the study). The only study that includes races other than black and white is the one you are “not” calling racist.

So you read minds, too?

This was followed by you making a bunch of assumptions about Wendy, you know, on your terms. Your frame. You were saying?

So, you’re not saying the study is racist, but you say it’s “biased”, but you haven’t read it. People have to lay out all of their standards to you before you bring out your studies so that you can determine whether their standard is valid. But you aren’t reframing anything, except you want to take a step back so we don’t lose sight of your point, and you know what Wendy’s thoughts and experiences are. You aren’t calling white people racist, but you have divined somehow that the study is, and by extension I am in some way affiliated with Stormfront (really, Carleas? Do I even need to point out the puerility of this? It was my first hit in Google. Blame google.). So stop hiding behind your “work’s firewall” and find the study elsewhere and have a look at it. It is obvious you haven’t, by your own admission. So tell me, just what opposing studies HAVE you read? And if you are going to say “well there aren’t any, all the studies support my position” then you are also admitting that you have never read an opposing position to yours. So how aren’t YOU the “biased” (but “not” racist, right?) one?

Oh yeah… BOOM.

Black widow.

Make you beg for it
Plead for it

OK… if the statement “there is racial bias in sentencing” is true, then all sentence lengths are potentially racially biased. So whatever racial bias exists will on average be reflected in a defendant’s past sentences. If we control for past sentencing length, we’ll be controlling for racial bias to the extent it’s present in past sentences. So if past sentence length influences future sentence length, that means that past racial bias influences future sentence length. So we shouldn’t control for sentence length.

To say it another way, if
[future sentence length] = f([past sentence length],[race],[other stuff]), and
[past sentence length] = g([race],[other stuff]), then
[future sentence length] = f([race],[other stuff]).

(That reads, if [future sentence length] is a function of [past sentence length], [race], and [other stuff], and [past sentence length] is a function of [race] and [other stuff], then [future sentence length] is a function of [race] and [other stuff].)

So adding in past sentence length doesn’t add information.

Wendy, IR, since AmRen is still blocked at work, can you provide some specific claims in the article that you think support your position or undermine mine, including links/references it provides to any peer reviewed research that supports those claims?

Aren’t we beyond “ifs” and into making claims? You need to show the proof in a first time offenders study where race would be the huge deciding factor, where neither person of relatively the same qualities (age, demographic area, crime, etc.) would have a criminal history to muddle up any findings. Does this study not exist?

I don’t understand your equation, but past sentence lengths definitely is a deciding factor on the current sentence length. Why isn’t that correlated first (it’s not included at all…only generic codes and governmental guidelines for 5 offenses). Doesn’t the study also bitch about maximum minimum sentence lengths being assigned disproportionately to blacks…it’s due to their full criminal histories (which the study doesn’t include) and their actual sentence lengths for their past offenses (not some methodological fabrication standing in for it). If the researchers did not have the necessary data to do a thorough job then perhaps they should have worked on another racist dichotomy study instead of “making do” with what they had.

I have no time to read this study in full.

Paragraph 1 *Black judges assign longer prison sentences to black offenders

Paragraph 2 *Researchers neglecting criminal history (still happening today) and the plea bargaining process (I don’t remember this being covered in your study)

Paragraph 3 *Recidivism rates affect sentence lengths (NOT COVERED IN YOUR STUDY)

Your study is a flop. I still haven’t read all of the next one.

Blacks arresting blacks more than whites arresting blacks. I have no time to read this study.

Let me put it more concretely. Let’s assume, just for demonstration purposes, that on average black people are unfairly receiving 10% longer sentences for the same crime. So two people, one black and one white, commit the same crime, the white person gets 1 year and the black person gets 1.1 years. They’re both released and commit another similar crime. They get sentenced again and again the white person gets 1 year and the black person gets 1.1 years. If we controlled for past sentence length, we would see no race-based sentencing disparity in the second sentence: the sentence for the second crime is completely predicted by the sentence for the first crime, even though we assumed that the sentencing disparity is race based.

This is exactly the type control that you’re rejecting in the study I provided, control for criminal history using sentencing guidelines. My study used Federal guidelines, yours uses the Pennsylvania guidelines. One difference being that the PA system only has 5 categories. So we should outright reject this study based on your stated standards, right?

To the other quote, I feel like I’ve said this before, but let me be as explicit as I can be: black judge and black officer effects aren’t at issue, I’m not making any claim about the race of officers or the race of judges, and disparities in behavior of officers and judges on the basis of race are irrelevant to the claims I’m making here. It’s completely consistent for black officers and judges to be as racist against black people as a person can be, and for black people on average to face discrimination in the criminal justice system.

So everything you get to read is prejudice (pre-judged and filtered from you), which means that everything you believe is formed of prejudice. So why should anyone believe anything you say?

Let’s. The black white first time offenders study? The prejudice would start there since like you said every previous sentence, including the first, would be 10% longer.

Chill before you have aneurysm, I’m not using that study, I was simply marking aspects in their findings that are interesting and noting more accurate testing methodologies that your study did not incorporate for future study references.

I was going to move on to the next 300 page study, but now I have to re-read the current study to better point out all the studies flaws succinctly.

That is one place that you have erred.

Your claim is that there is prejudice and bias. That is different than saying that there is an imbalance. If the evidence is that there is an imbalance in convictions, the first suspicion is that there is an imbalance in the reality of the situation. Secondly, there might be judgmental bias and/or prejudice. If you have evidence that the judges and officers are not likely to be biased in the direction of the conviction, even though with further study more evidence might arise, the assessment falls back to the first suspicion and that is that the reality is actually imbalanced, in this case, the reality is that blacks commit more crimes than whites.

You seem to be expressing bias yourself in your reasoning.