Crime Harvard professor says ‘all hell broke loose’ when his study found no racial bias in police shootings

[blackheart]

You're big time mad and losing it and its priceless...

Study headline from a 3rd party - "New evidence suggests bananas are purple, not yellow"
Study author - "yeah no, bananas are yellow."
You - "Ha!!! I fucking knew bananas weren't yellow!!"
Me -"the author of the study says you're wrong and that his study isn't evidence of bananas being purple"
You - "hahaha!! Meltdown much?!?"

You're so, so, so, fucking stupid man. This is comedy gold. Please keep going.

 

[blackheart]

So you're a white guy who thinks he's superior to this black Harvard professor and assume he must never have set foot in a college classroom? Yikes, don't be late for your klan meeting.

You know, you could have just plainly admitted that you got fooled by a headline. But I'll take this concession anyway. Better luck next time nazi boy!

 

[CubicleGangster]

The study found that police were more than twice as likely to manhandle, beat or use some other kind of nonfatal force against blacks and Hispanics than against people of other races. However, the data also determined that officers were 23.8 percent less likely to shoot at blacks and 8.5 percent less likely to shoot at Hispanics than they were to shoot at whites.

When Fryer claimed the data showed "no racial differences in officer-involved shootings," he said, "all hell broke loose," and his life was upended.

Am I crazy, or are these contradictory? He says no racial differences in officer-involved shootings but also says they are more likely to shoot depending on race (i.e. more likely to shoot if they are white as opposed to black or hispanic).

 

[blackheart]

A study that proved everything about BLM was a lie.

lol

A study that proved no such thing, as explained by the author of the study himself. But I don't expect you to read. I know it makes your head hurt.

 

[Phisher]

Yes, it was so explosive that nobody had ever heard of this guy before he started self-promoting his own research, which is based on self-reported PD data.

 

[nostradumbass]

You know, you could have just plainly admitted that you got fooled by a headline. But I'll take this concession anyway. Better luck next time nazi boy!

You've made an ass of yourself for like 20 posts ITT now, but I think another 20-30 will convince everyone that you really are a victim and this black white supremacist professor is just out to get you too.

 

[Lucas1980]

Study headline from a 3rd party - "New evidence suggests bananas are purple, not yellow"
Study author - "yeah no, bananas are yellow."
You - "Ha!!! I fucking knew bananas weren't yellow!!"
Me -"the author of the study says you're wrong and that his study isn't evidence of bananas being purple"
You - "hahaha!! Meltdown much?!?"

You're so, so, so, fucking stupid man. This is comedy gold. Please keep going.

It's clear you didn't actually read or understand the study which really was already really common knowledge and it crushes the narrative that you "want" to believe and that's why you're fucking losing it and its aweosme.

 

[Lucas1980]

You know, you could have just plainly admitted that you got fooled by a headline. But I'll take this concession anyway. Better luck next time nazi boy!

BAHAHAAHAHA...He pulled the "Nazi" card

 

[nostradumbass]

It's clear you didn't actually read or understand the study which really was already really common knowledge and it crushes the narrative that you "want" to believe and that's why you're fucking losing it and its aweosme.

Dude already failed miserably in post #11 by mistaking the word "and" for the word "or", and it looks like he might end up in a straight jacket by the time this thread is done.

 

[blackheart]

It's clear you didn't actually read or understand the study which really was already really common knowledge and it crushes the narrative that you "want" to believe and that's why you're fucking losing it and its aweosme.

"It's clear you didn't actually read or understand the study" - guy who literally didn't read the study and who is literally too stupid to understand study methodology.

Look buddy. You can keep up the posturing all you want. But it doesn't get more black and white than when the studys own author says that you're wrong. So you keep posturing. Flinging shit at the wall. But it remains a fact in this situation that the author of the study that YOU are deferring to, says you're wrong.

 

[blackheart]

Dude already failed miserably in post #11 by mistaking the word "and" for the word "or", and it looks like he might end up in a straight jacket by the time this thread is done.

The studys author says you're wrong. Keep owning yourself.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Hahahahahahahaha. You literally did the God of the gaps argument, a widely recognized fallacy, while suggesting I have a learning disability. Holy fuck. This is post modern comedy gold.

"Oh OK, so this isn't evidence of anything, but does that mean it's evidence of NOTHING?! Got you!!"

You really thought that was an own didn't you?

So according to you any study that isn't evidence of a nationwide trend is the same as not being evidence of anything and isn't worthy of any consideration. Congratulations, you're an imbecile.

 

[HOLA]

The author of this study has an interesting wiki. He got suspended from Harvard for years for Me Tooing the ladies, and tried to play the race card over it haha.

In 2019, a series of investigations at Harvard determined that Fryer had engaged in "unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature" against at least five women, that he had fostered a hostile work environment in his lab, and also cited unspecified conduct violations regarding Fryer's grant spending and lab finances. As a result, Harvard suspended Fryer without pay for two years, closed his lab, and barred him from teaching or supervising students.[2][3]

In 2021, Harvard allowed Fryer to return to teaching and research, although he remained barred from supervising graduate students for at least another two years. Fryer apologized for the "insensitive and inappropriate comments that led to my suspension", saying that he "didn't appreciate the inherent power dynamics in my interactions, which led me to act in ways that I now realize were deeply inappropriate for someone in my position."[4]

Fryer alleged that he was "unfairly scrutinized ... for his skin color."[29] Harvard confirmed that its Office for Dispute Resolution (ODR) received complaints against Fryer in January, March, and April 2018.[30] A total of 38 complaints were received from a[clarification needed] former assistant who worked in EdLabs. The investigation found that he had "engaged in “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” against at least five employees over the course of a decade," according to the New York Times.[31] The report stated that he made references to various colleagues engaging in sex acts.[31]

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Fox News wrote an article, about a study that they had already written an article about 8 years ago.

Must be an incredibly slow news day in MAGA land.

seems very important to you.

 

[HOLA]

Also:

In 2016, Fryer published a working paper concluding that although minorities (African Americans and Hispanics) are more likely to experience police use of force than whites, they were not more likely to be shot by police than whites in a given interaction with police.[17] The paper generated considerable controversy and criticism.[18][19][20][21] Fryer responded to some of these criticisms in an interview with The New York Times.[22] In 2019, Fryer's paper was published in the Journal of Political Economy.[17] A 2019 study by Princeton University political scientists disputed the findings by Fryer, saying that if police had a higher threshold for stopping whites, this might mean that the whites, Hispanics and blacks in Fryer's data are not similar.[24] Nobel-laureate James Heckman and Steven Durlauf, both University of Chicago economists, published a response to the Fryer study, writing that the paper "does not establish credible evidence on the presence or absence of discrimination against African Americans in police shootings" due to issues with selection bias.[25]

 

[Lucas1980]

So according to you any study that isn't evidence of a nationwide trend is the same as not being evidence of anything and isn't worthy of any consideration. Congratulations, you're an imbecile.

Wait until these virtue signaling dolts read the studies on Black on White Crime compared to White on Black Crime

 

[blackheart]

So according to you any study that isn't evidence of a nationwide trend is the same as not being evidence of anything and isn't worthy of any consideration.

These are two completely different things. The imbecile is you for failing to recognize that.

The headline of this article, and the message that the chuds itt are repeating, is that this study is evidence that there is no racial bias in police shootings.

I and other have pointed out that the study's own author didn't say that.

Now, you're backtracking, and saying "well that doesn't mean there's nothing worthy of any consideration!"

 

[blackheart]

Wait until these virtue signaling dolts read the studies on Black on White Crime compared to White on Black Crime

Wait until these nazi chuds read the studies on what percentage of pedophiles are white men.

 

[blackheart]

Fryer [...] also cautioned that his findings shouldn't be seen as evidence of broader national trends.

Study on role of racial bias against Hispanics, blacks in police shootings sparks debate

A Harvard University economist found that although police nationwide are more likely to use nonfatal force against blacks and Hispanics, that racial bias didn't translate to the use of deadly force by officers in Houston, one of the country's largest and most racially diverse cities.

www.foxnews.com

Chuds and magats - "this is irrefutable proof that the police aren't racist"

 

[blackheart]

In this thread: chuds make a rare attempt to cite academic research and immediately fall flat on their faces and start shitting themselves.