Did someone involved in this thread dismiss a study in the past only because it came from an ivy leaguer? If not, how is it relevant to this discussion? Who cares if a random person disagreed with a study in the past? How does that dispute this study?

This is a thread on a Harvard study. Studies from Harvard have been dismissed on here by several in the past as "Ivy League" or " liberal" trash. As such, a discussion on that point is relevant to this thread.

This is a thread on a Harvard study. Studies from Harvard have been dismissed on here by several in the past as "Ivy League" or " liberal" trash. As such, a discussion on that point is relevant to this thread.

 

Dismissed by members participating in this thread? Otherwise it's irrelevant, imo.

This is a thread on a Harvard study. Studies from Harvard have been dismissed on here by several in the past as "Ivy League" or " liberal" trash. As such, a discussion on that point is relevant to this thread.

 

That was my only point. Teachers' views are often dismissed, professors' views are often dismissed, east cost academics are often dismissed, a "liberal source" is often dismissed.

That was my only point. Teachers' views are often dismissed, professors' views are often dismissed, east cost academics are often dismissed, a "liberal source" is often dismissed.

Views being the key word. This thread pertains to a statistical STUDY. The Harvard professoer did not base his findings on views or opinion.

That was my only point. Teachers' views are often dismissed, professors' views are often dismissed, east cost academics are often dismissed, a "liberal source" is often dismissed.

So are you dismissing the study for those reasons too, or because you disagree with it?

 

You are definitely not in the crowd that poo poos anything coming from the Ivy League Schools, so do you think this study is valid or not? Seems as if even the author of the study was surprised, it looks like he was setting out to prove a bias and was shocked when he himself couldn't find one.

I finished reading the paper. I found it interesting and I think they were honest in their analyses. I would caution against taking this as the bedrock truth or generalizing the findings too much since an analysis is only as good as the data and this data is very selective. I don’t fault the authors for that. There’s no national reporting for police use of force or any well maintained database that aggregates it, so most of the data that is available is piecemeal and you have to use what you’ve got.

This study doesn't say that racism is a thing of the past. All it points out is that blacks, especially unarmed blacks, aren't being shot anymore than whites in similar circumstances.

 

The protest points that the Police are intentionally Targeting Blacks to shoot them rings untrue after looking at this study. Even though it is only 10 departments, the number of shootings is a sizable amount of the shootings that occur across the country.

Dismissed by members participating in this thread? Otherwise it's irrelevant, imo.

Not irrelevant, but good to have you on record as one who supports Harvard studies.

Not irrelevant, but good to have you on record as one who supports Harvard studies.

 

1.) Why does it matter if random people have dismissed Harvard studies in the past? I'm sure we could bring up things random people have dismissed in any thread. It's irrelevant and is a way for you and everyone else to distract or disagree with the findings without actually talking about the findings.

 

2.) I never said i agreed with anything in this thread, but let's assume I did. If that was the case, that automatically means I agree with everything that comes out of Harvard? Do you see how irrational that is?

1.) Why does it matter if random people have dismissed Harvard studies in the past? I'm sure we could bring up things random people have dismissed in any thread. It's irrelevant and is a way for you and everyone else to distract or disagree with the findings without actually talking about the findings.

 

2.) I never said i agreed with anything in this thread, but let's assume I did. If that was the case, that automatically means I agree with everything that comes out of Harvard? Do you see how irrational that is?

 

My purpose was NEVER to distract or disagree with the findings. As a matter of fact, I wasn't even the one who brought it up, but you chose to quote me, instead. Hmmmmm.....

By all means, when the numbers and stats are presented what exactly should I say at this point? I mean, statistics show racial bias doesn't exist and that black people have made it up so please, let me know what the correct thing for me to say is at this point. It's clear that nothing else that I have said makes the slightest difference in this discussion at all. Screw it. There has never ever ever been a racist moment by the cops and since Obama was voted POTUS that means racism doesn't exist anymore. Isn't that what people want us to say at this point? We spend days upon days trying to make headway on this division in our country but the stats say there is no racial bias and we all know the stats don't lie. What am I supposed to say at this point? I can't fight against these facts and I didn't finish college so this cat from Harvard wins. No racial bias anywhere. I'm grateful for all of his hard research to prove that racial bias is a myth and now I can head in to work and apologize to all my fine coworkers who have been trying to tell me in their Facebook posts how blacks are the real racists because we make stuff up that the numbers don't support. I sure hope they let me keep my job. I have a family to feed. I won't cause anymore trouble. I promise. :thumb:

 

If we can agree that racism still exists, can we also agree that every white person, every white cop is not a racist? Can we also agree that every time a black person has an unfavorable encounter with a white person and vice versa that it's not always racism? Can we agree some people are just jerks? ( to use the nice BGP words. ) Can we agree that some people who are shot by police, (more white than black) had it coming and worked real hard on getting shot? Can we agree that the police do shoot people who should not be shot and it is a terrible thing, white or black? Can we agree all our blood runs red?

If we can agree that racism still exists, can we also agree that every white person, every white cop is not a racist? Can we also agree that every time a black person has an unfavorable encounter with a white person and vice versa that it's not always racism? Can we agree some people are just jerks? ( to use the nice BGP words. ) Can we agree that some people who are shot by police, (more white than black) had it coming and worked real hard on getting shot? Can we agree that the police do shoot people who should not be shot and it is a terrible thing, white or black? Can we agree all our blood runs red?

 

Excellent post.

If we can agree that racism still exists, can we also agree that every white person, every white cop is not a racist? Can we also agree that every time a black person has an unfavorable encounter with a white person and vice versa that it's not always racism? Can we agree some people are just jerks? ( to use the nice BGP words. ) Can we agree that some people who are shot by police, (more white than black) had it coming and worked real hard on getting shot? Can we agree that the police do shoot people who should not be shot and it is a terrible thing, white or black? Can we agree all our blood runs red?

 

Yet another common sense post.

 

Honestly if you still can't agree with this basic post the only thing left is to remove the police from the equation.

 

If police departments are working daily on community relationships building trust doing all the right things (ie. Dallas pd) and incidents still happen, which they will and black people are still going to claim racism none of these conversations will mean anything.

 

Putting a white office in a predominantly black community will never work based on what the black community is saying. It only takes one crazy cop or one crazy black dude to tear down years of trust between a good police force and a good community.

Yet another common sense post.

 

Honestly if you still can't agree with this basic post the only thing left is to remove the police from the equation.

 

If police departments are working daily on community relationships building trust doing all the right things (ie. Dallas pd) and incidents still happen, which they will and black people are still going to claim racism none of these conversations will mean anything.

 

Putting a white office in a predominantly black community will never work based on what the black community is saying. It only takes one crazy cop or one crazy black dude to tear down years of trust between a good police force and a good community.

 

That only furthers the divide. We all just have to do better.