Roland Fryer Tells the Truth on Race and Policing

[DKW 86 7,424]

20 hours ago, AUDub said:

I don’t care about that. Let’s discuss his research. 

I haven’t seen you present one factual item concerning the research. Don’t worry I will do a dub and immediately dismiss anything you present anyway.  I did a long winded presentation already that you ignored. You are so predictable it isn’t funny. You have presented nothing. I, like I always do presented both sides and discussed why I stay with Fryer. You, nothing as usual. 

[AUDub 11,148]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

The raw data came from several years of Houston PD work. 

Yes. And a smattering of other departments. The meat of the matter, David, is “does this data support his conclusion?”

I assert that it does not. Why is that? Fryer controls for rate of interactions. Who controls those? The departments themselves, and there’s a tremendous catalog of data out there that makes it clear black folks and white folks are not stopped equitably. The data itself is biased.

With that, you’ve already tainted the outcome. What he did is chop out one of the main points at which racial bias in introduced in policing. 

The conclusion of his study counts on the idea that these are comparable groups (white folks interacting with law enforcement v black folks interacting with law enforcement) when we already know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he’s comparing two wildly different things. We know for a fact that minorities are stopped more frequently than white people, and we know that they are more likely to be stopped without cause.

FiveThirtyEight broke down the flaw in his conclusion very well in this article, and visually with this graphic:

At best, it’s inconclusive.

There’s also the problem with his conclusion contradicting other parts of the paper. His own research claims there *is* a marked disparity in measurable use of force. That is, black and Hispanic people are more likely to deal with use of force than white people. But when it comes to lethal force that disparity suddenly evaporates. Huh? I would expect a correlation there. 

[AUDub 11,148]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

 I did a long winded presentation already that you ignored.

That presentation was nothing more than ham fisted arguments from authority and continued insults lobbed at me. I’ve now given you a detailed rebuttal. Make of it what you will. 

[DKW 86 7,424]

17 hours ago, AUDub said:

At best, it’s inconclusive.

I rest my case. I could also take the next hour and write a rebuttal that you will never read and immediately dismiss, as usual. I wont waste the server space, nor my time.

[AUDub 11,148]

1 minute ago, DKW 86 said:

I rest my case. I could also take the next hour and write a rebuttal that you will never read and immediately dismiss, as usual. I wont waste the server space, nor my time.

Where was the immediate dismissal there. I literally spelled it out. 

[DKW 86 7,424]

Fryer has published 60+ papers and worked on dozens more. He has been attacked essentially over one. Gay, one of his attackers, is listed as a contributor on two papers other than her thesis, and is cited for plagiarism in all her work, and was made President of Harvard.  

But we are supposed to set aside all of Fryer's prolific praiseworthy academic work AND praise Gay's extremely limited work.
We are supposed to set aside Fryer's record of academic honesty and accuracy over his career, and ignore Gay's plagiaristic episodes.  

Fryer is a black male. He has more skin in the game than anyone, anywhere. What possible reason could he have to publish trash as you are trying to suggest?

Like Fryer says in the video, and I will repeat yet again: 104 Dense pages of intensely detailed work in the paper with 150-page appendix. When he published the paper, the first hate email started 4 MINUTES AFTER IT CAME ONLINE from a Harvard colleague.  Just like you, it didn't matter what work was done. It didn't matter whether it was accurate. It just mattered that it didn't fit the narrative. Fryer had to have armed guards for him, his wife, and seven-day old son, for seven months, because he told the truth. Death threats and threatened violence because he published a paper he ran 2x with completely different RAs. He went above and beyond the call with his work. Yet all that matters is, IT DIDNT FIT THE NARRATIVE. 

The man came from nothing and made himself into something to be honored and used as an example. Instead he is attacked for what he showed the world.

[AUDub 11,148]

David you’re not addressing the topic by hyping his bona fides. These are appeals to authority and an outright fallacy. Same with your appeals to grievance and appeals to motive.

I don’t care about that. The only question I’m interested in is “is the conclusion of his paper correct?” And again I assert that it is not for the reasons I said above. The data is too limited to draw a strong conclusion. 

Edited February 27 by AUDub

[DKW 86 7,424]

On 2/27/2024 at 8:03 AM, AUDub said:

David you’re not addressing the topic by hyping his bona fides. These are appeals to authority and an outright fallacy. Same with your appeals to grievance and appeals to motive.

I don’t care about that. The only question I’m interested in is “is the conclusion of his paper correct?” And again I assert that it is not for the reasons I said above. The data is too limited to draw a strong conclusion. 

Dude, your response ultimately concluded “at best…” and like I said on the first and later posts I consider your attack on black man to just be too common for words. You have trashed a real academic doing real work over basically nothing but your own inane questions/opinions. He did righteous work, continues to do righteous work, towers over so many because he didnt manufacture a “pay to say” paper like most of “partisan academics” do daily. 

[AUDub 11,148]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Dude, your response ultimately concluded “at best…” and like I said on the first and later posts I consider your attack on black man to just be too common for words. You have trashed a real academic doing real work over basically nothing but your own inane questions/opinions. He did righteous work, continues to do righteous work, towers over so many because he didnt manufacture a “pay to say” paper like most of “partisan academics” do daily. 
 

I explained that I think his conclusion is in error, I’ve explained why, and you simply refuse to address that. You’re handwaving away my very legitimate criticism with nothing but attacks on my character and appeals to authority on his behalf.

[DKW 86 7,424]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

I explained that I think his conclusion is in error, I’ve explained why, and you simply refuse to address that. You’re handwaving away my SILLY criticism with nothing but attacks on my character and appeals to authority on his behalf.

You are right, I don’t find it worth my time. You cannot argue against a dismissal. You attacking a true academic that has published more that you probably ever read. I addressed your ideas before you even posted a reply. Your SOP is to just simply disregard facts. So no, I won’t waste the time. 

Edited March 1 by DKW 86

[AUDub 11,148]

Why would you post it here if you aren’t willing to discuss it. 

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

This chart doesn’t say much about which group is targeted most by the police, but it does address the *narrative* posed by our liberal media:

 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

On 2/27/2024 at 8:53 AM, DKW 86 said:

He went above and beyond the call with his work. Yet all that matters is, IT DIDNT FIT THE NARRATIVE. 

The man came from nothing and made himself into something to be honored and used as an example. Instead he is attacked for what he showed the world.

But he certainly fits your narrative.