Jump to content

Kyle

banned
  • Posts

    1684
  • Joined

Posts posted by Kyle

  1. 2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

    The very first study by the US Sentencing commission pretty thoroughly addressed the topic. What issue did you have with the government's methodology? 

    And, how exactly are you reading the mitchell mackenzie study as being inclusive? It is a meta analysis of a variety of other studies, and the conclusion is that a statistically signicant difference exists. 

    Agreed. Admit I did not read every word of every study, but IIRC the first study noted 1) things progressively improving with mandatory guidelines and 2) did not account for distinctions in other factors such as previous convictions. (if I am incorrect, then fair enough)

    Absolutely on the M-M study ... which is generally why "science" is hard because its says concurrently there is statistical significant differences and studies are inconclusive. Tough to process that.

    This is consistent with the trouble of a lot of these issues - it is very difficult to tease out what is driven by race and what is driven by economics, i.e. inability to afford sophisticated, focused legal counsel. Even if we grant there is systematic racism in the criminal justice system, as noted above ... there is a very easy way not to become of victim of it.

  2. 9 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

    The Mitchell-MacKenzie article seemed to get the closest to answering the question and acknowledged of the studies they reviewed, the results were inconclusive. A few of the others are articles with sensational headlines not supported by the study being discussed. For example, the "Same Crime, More Time" article discussed a study that just compares incarceration rates and does not examine disparate sentencing for the exact same crime with the exact same criminal history of the convicted; but it gets emotions up.

    Stop projecting. Proof is not impossible. If you cannot find evidence to support your contention, the answer is not to change the evidence but change your contention. 

  3. 4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

    I don't know what you consider reasonable, but from the wiki link:

    • "Although approximately two-thirds of crack cocaine users are whites or Hispanic people (reported past-year use in 2013 of 0.8%, 0.3%, and 0.1% for Black, white, and Hispanic, respectively),[59] a large percentage of people convicted of possession of crack cocaine in federal courts in 1994 were Black people. In 1994, 86.3% of the defendants convicted of crack cocaine possession were Black people while 10.3% were whites and 5.2% were Hispanic people. In the state of California, 38% of people halted by police officers in Los Angeles were Black people, despite accounting for only 9% of the population.[74] In Washington D.C Black people make up 46% of the population but composed 72% of the people stopped even though the contraband hit rates between the two races are not statistically significant.[75] In Boston, Blacks made up 64% of those stopped despite making up only 24% of the population, even after controlling for alleged gang involvement and prior arrest records Blacks were more likely to experience repeat police encounters and to be frisked or searched during an encounter.[76] In Illinois minority drivers are stopped 1.5 more times than White drivers and latino drivers are nearly 2 times more likely to be subjected to dog sniff searches than White people but are found with contraband 1.6 times less.[77]"
    • "A Stanford University study that analyzed 93 million traffic stops in the United States revealed that African Americans are twenty percent more likely to be stopped despite being less likely to be in possession of contraband compared to White people.[73]"
    • "A Harvard University study[78] found that in Massachusetts' criminal justice system minorities face greater risk to be represented across all parts of the criminal justice system in excess of their proportion of the population in that state. The likelihood that they will get arrested and convicted due to drug or weapons charges is eight times greater than whites. Black people were found to receive average sentences that were 238 days longer for the same offences and Latino people 178 days longer. "

    There are myriad factors that could explain these things ... what I am asking for is this: a study that shows on average white people convicted of the exact same crime were given significantly less severe sentences. I thought that was clear (not being sarcastic). 

  4. 10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    Are you asking for a definition? Here is wikipedia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism

    In the US, a specific example would be the criminal justice system which disproportionality incarcerates black men and gives them more severe sentences than their white counterparts. 

    I was not looking for a definition but a system. Criminal justice is fair. No pun intended ... but is there a reasonable study done that shows in clear black and white the average sentence for Crime X led to Y sentencing for African Americans and Z sentencing for Caucasians? Please trust me, that is a genuine seeking to understand request and not an argument disguised as a question. I do not doubt it, but a lot of those conversations get fuzzy with trying to compare crack vs. power cocaine and other types of stretches. Now, one could argue both sides of that particular coin and not really interested in that here; but am curious if there really is an apples to apples comparison.

  5. 3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Well, white supremacy, despite its connotations, has become the phrase for institutional or systemic racism that doesn't require individuals to believe in white supremacy in the Klan sense.

    It's kind of unfortunate because it grinds a lot of white people's gears.  And these are the white people that are willing to help eliminate systemic racism, not the Klan types.  I don't think the Klan types give a fuck about being called a white supremacist.  It's pretty much what they call themselves.

    I've been asking for about a year if someone can tell me a system that's racist.

  6. 32 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

    When you live in an echo chamber, everything sounds awesome.

    I am not going to pay $38 to buy the actual study, but the Orlando Sentinel story is a perfect example of today's lazy, agenda-driven journalism.

    1. It assumes that deaths must also follow models without consideration for causality

    2. We at least read that covid panic caused many to forgo other medical care as well as the increase in suicides, domestic violence, etc.

    So one might argue that covid panic not covid drove the delta. Causality is important. Guessing the average grievance study major does not understand correlation vs. causality much less p-values.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  7. 9 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

     

    Holy fuck you are dumb. It literally says right there on the link that the Covid relief amounts are determined based off of prior year revenue. It has nothing to do with how many Covid cases they have.

    "These funds are allocated proportional to providers' share of 2018 patient revenue. "

    image.png.89407e8e5c5d734130336c3fa39b9e73.png

    Read the text of the bill sweetheart not the summary. And learn what the word "dumb" means. It makes you seem stupid. 

    And for the record, I find your texags/QAnon conspiracies endearing and entertaining.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    You make half a point.  It's accurate, but incomplete.

    It is a phenomenon of post-modernism that "truth" (which should be largely an objective, fact-based concept) is subordinate to perception.  If I FEEL that something is true, that makes my feeling true, regardless of the objective facts.  That doesn't mean that perception is irrelevant -- the person dropping the bombs clearly perceives the event of a bombing raid MUCH differently than the target of the bombs does.  Perception IS relevant and important in reporting on the overall story.  But in both stories, the FACTS are the same: planes from country X dropped bombs on structures in country Y.

    But the second half of your point is something that doesn't even fit in that post-modernist "perception" exception.  And that is the tendency of a large chunk of society to believe in actual, objective "facts" that are not facts at all.  See Qanon, all that shit.  Their beliefs are not driven by their perception of a factual situation - they are driven by belief in facts that just....aren't real.  John Podesta doesn't drink baby's blood.  Joe Biden isn't Trump with a face transplant.  And the list could go on for pages, those are just some of the crazier ones.

    A disconnect from objective reality is a problem.  It's a problem when it is done because of perception, although that's harder to tease out, because perception indeed does color one's reality -- but allowing it to subsume objective reality is a bridge too far.  It's like food -- you need it, but clearly, if you consume too much, you're doing more harm than good.  Post-modernist thinking takes the reasonable point of "consider a person's perspective and perception" too far -- and at the extreme, it becomes totally irrational.  But this disconnect is also a huge problem when you have a whole segment of the population who believes in "alternative objective facts" (I mean, that term literally was used by leadership within the past 4 years).  In the story about the bombing raid, it is unsupportable to believe that you were actually bombed by alien spaceships, piloted by a secret organization of Space Jews.  Those are factual beliefs -- they are objectively true or false -- and you hold a belief that is objectively and verifiably false.

    I don't see how we get back to any sort of reality-based culture.

    And I agree and did not feel the need to go into every single aspect. Said another way, one may legitimately believes his feelings reflect reality; however, that does not mean they do. For the first time I'm very pessimistic about ever being able to re-center around anything resembling some sort of objective truth and reality-based conversations. We can debate tax rates, environment, defense, and immigration, but we cannot debate if we cannot even agree on what is a tax. Concurrent with the media and influencers completely abdicating any desire to promote fact-based information and social media's inherent talent at pouring gasoline on the worst instincts of tribalism, not sure how it's possible to return to adults talking.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. 4 hours ago, Message Board User said:

    As you so often are, you are right - this belief that white supremacy is behind every evil (even those committed by non-whites) is getting more and more popular in regular media and social media.

    "White Supremacy" is this year's new undefinable all-encompassing bogeyman for everything I don't like.

  10. 2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    Yeah don't question him, he's of course right, his anecdotal evidence is always acceptable, and Cabal approved, and you're just not allowed Cabal approved double standards.... Scurry away now....

    This is a perfect illustration of the tension between Enlightenment-rational and Romantic-emotional ontology. I've been trying to explain that to one of my old friends who has gone completely wack-a-doodle. He genuinely believes what he feels is "truth," i.e. a fact, as opposed to what he simply believes to be true. That underscores a lot of why we talk past one another. When an Enlightenment-rational says "the sky is blue" that is because objectively, according to the scientific method, it is blue (as generally defined by the culture). However, to a Romantic-emotional, it is "blue" only to the extend that the viewer feels that it is blue.

  11. 21 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

    It wouldn't be so bad if it was just crackpots on the web spouting this drivel to all of their incels (and of course there are crackpots on both sides of the aisle).

    But the problem I see is that the media is picking all this up and regurgitating it to the point there is very little (if any) difference from what you get from the activists and "regular" news outlets that are supposed to be objective (HA!).

    E.g., 

     

    This is why the world has never experience such a group of highly educated people that are completely misinformed. If 2020 showed us anything, it was the Establishment's skill at completely shaping public opinion via misinformation. Even back to 2016 arguable half the "big stories" have been complete disinformation campaigns. Unfortunately, if you read much of shit-throwing chimps on the other board they have no idea they keep getting lied to. Only in 'murica can a largely fabricated propaganda win a pulitzer and be used to indoctrinate little authoritarians.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 2
  12. 1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

    I'm not sure what the bipartisan bill you linked to has to do with the current President or the 1994 Act. I'm not sure repealing the act entirely accomplishes much. Some of the more specific provisions (some supported by Biden and others not) were and are problematic (e.g., funding for building more prisons, mandatory minimums). 

    I assume for context and to demonstrate that Asians were a minority in that particular area? The paragraph prior to was about the police increasing "outreach and patrols in predominantly Asian communities." 

     

    Facepalm.jpeg

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 2
  13. 13 hours ago, Randolph Duke said:

    Amazing. Simply amazing.

    aggy bayou boat.jpeg

    Fuck you for making me go to the regard forum and read that entire, stupid story. It does not feel real, but the pictures of the post-iceberg are convincing.

    • Haha 1
  14. 17 hours ago, Tom said:

    I enjoyed it for what it was.  It felt like a watered down attempt to re-create John Wick, except the villains and pacing were subpar to that one.  I might watch it again someday if it's on TV.

    It was probably better than the two John Wick sequels.

    John Wick was fun. Agreed started to lose it during 2 & 3 with the fantasty-universe stuff ...

×
×
  • Create New...