I mean yeah, but the real criminals are those in power who have the authority to send crack into black communities and disproportionately send black folks to jail. The problem is people just blaming the average white person for these things when they most likely had nothing to do with it.
It’s a classic capitalist trick. Cause strife and conflict among the working class so we don’t rise up against them.
It’s the same thing with climate change — blame the average middle class guy slaving away 12 hours a day who needs to commute two hours to work rather than the corporations burning up the amazon and polluting the oceans.
That's why I posted multiple studies all demonstrating similar results, you dork.
One of the great follies of the age of information is that people think that just because they technically have the ability to look information up, that they also have the foundational knowledge base required to correctly parse and interpret that information. These are the sorts of people who, when you post a study showing them that their point is wrong, go in and read the abstract, and try and find flaws with the methodology of the study so they can justify their cognitive dissonance in ignoring it. Or worse, they accuse others of appealing to authority when they try and cite sources, but never acknowledge their own appeal to ignorance. An appeal to ignorance occurs when a person mistakenly believes something to be true that is not because he or she does not know enough about the subject, or has not been given enough evidence to know otherwise.
I'm sorry, but no. Some random redditor is not an expert on this subject, neither am I. If they think the peer reviewed study I posted is bunk, they can find another peer reviewed study that challenges the results, preferably one that references and points out the methodological flaws in my study. I cannot explain to you how uninterested I am in anyone’s armchair researcher opinion on the results of a peer reviewed study. That's why we have experts, that's why we have peer review, that’s why we have the scientific method.
They are not a researcher, it's embarrassing that they think their "review" is relevant to the conversation. Why? Because real understanding takes a lot of learning about things not directly related to the topic at hand. It's not enough to look just at that part that's controversial; you've got to understand all the relevant background material to really grok what you're looking at. That's a lot of basics, and sometimes a lot of history, and if you don't have that understanding, you don't understand anything. Without having the proper context, you don't have the understanding to fully understand what you're looking at, and if you assume scientists are all full of crap or part of a conspiracy, you can be very easy to mislead. Unfortunately, that's how you get people who have no idea what they're talking about but still think they've 'done the research.'
Because here is the thing. The studies I’m posting? They might be wrong.
But the way to prove that is to post other studies that fail to reproduce the results or challenge the methodology. Not to tell me why they think it’s a bad study, nothing could be more useless than that.
If the actual experts are constantly modifying and refining their hypotheses based on the realities of the scientific model, what on earth makes the amateurs think their backyard interpretations of the data hold even the smallest measure of truth?
I was asking for links to the study itself which I still don’t see. I don’t care to read that whole diatribe, but judging from the language and length, you should probably put away the thesaurus and learn how to communicate concisely.
Here's the part about methods. Can you please tell me if anything here indicates the study is faulty?
Methodology
This report is based primarily on a large national survey and a series of four focus groups conducted Dec. 12-13, 2016 in Cincinnati, Ohio.23 The focus group participants included white, non-Hispanic adults between the ages of 25 and 55, who did not have a four-year college degree. Groups were gender segregated and all participants identified as politically independent. The focus groups were conducted at L&E Research.
The survey was designed and conducted by PRRI in partnership with The Atlantic. The survey was made possible by generous grants from Open Society Foundations and the Ford Foundation. Results of the survey were based on bilingual (Spanish and English) RDD telephone interviews conducted between September 22, 2016 and October 9, 2016 by professional interviewers under the direction of SSRS. Interviews were conducted among a random sample of 3,043 adults 18 years of age or older living in the United States (1,823 respondents were interviewed on a cell phone). The selection of respondents within households was accomplished by randomly requesting to speak with the youngest adult male or female currently living in the household.
Data collection is based on stratified, single-stage, random-digit-dialing (RDD) sample of landline telephone households and randomly generated cell phone numbers. The sample is designed to represent the total U.S. adult population and includes respondents from all 50 states, including Hawaii and Alaska. The landline and cell phone samples are provided by Marketing Systems Group.
The weighting is accomplished in two separate stages. The first stage of weighting corrects for different probabilities of selection associated with the number of adults in each household and each respondent’s telephone usage patterns.24 In the second stage, sample demographics are balanced to match target population parameters for gender, age, education, race and Hispanic ethnicity, region (U.S. Census definitions), population density and telephone usage. The population density parameter was derived from Census 2010 data. The telephone usage parameter came from an analysis of the July-December 2015 National Health Interview Survey. All other weighting parameters are derived from an analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s May 2016 Current Population Survey.
The sample weighting is accomplished using an iterative proportional fitting (IFP) process that simultaneously balances the distributions of all variables. Weights were trimmed to prevent individual interviews from having too much influence on the final results. The use of these weights in statistical analysis ensures that the demographic characteristics of the sample closely approximate the demographic characteristics of the target populations.
The margin of error for the survey is +/- 2.1 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence. The survey included a subsample of 1,956 likely voters. The margin of error for the subsample of likely voters is +/- 2.6 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence. The design effect for the survey is 1.3. In addition to sampling error, surveys may also be subject to error or bias due to question wording, context and order effects.
Don't get me wrong, I don't expect you to dig through all the cited research, either, but they're using metrics to determine how the respondents answered that aren't presented directly.
For example, Trump support was linked to a belief that high-status groups, such as whites, Christians or men, faced more discrimination than low-status groups, like minorities, Muslims or women, according to Dr. Mutz’s analysis of the NORC study.
In other words they fear being discriminated against.
On which. The existence of white privilege, or more sources explaining that racial motivations and fear of losing status were the primary motivations of Trump voters?
You can't use that line when I'm posting peer reviewed studies. I mean, you can, you just did, but it makes you look like an idiot.
Here are a few of the literally hundreds of examples of economic and political oppression that black people continue to face to this day, that white people benefit from.
Summary: Implicit bias leads to white people being hired over black people even when their resumes are identical. Just having a black sounding name reduces your callback chances by 50%.
Dumbing it down: Being white makes it easier to get a job, regardless of qualifications.
Summary: Black people are sentenced longer for the same crimes as white people, accounting for nearly identical criminal backgrounds. GOP appointed judges are the worst for this, but all judges do it on average.
Dumbing it down: Born white? Do less time for the same crimes.
Summary: Federally mandated discriminatory lending practices are directly responsible for the creation of poor urban black communities, the historic lack of black home ownership (with generational wealth being the most important form of transferable wealth), and easier home purchasing for white people. Some of these practices still continue to this day, despite being outlawed.
Dumbing it down: White parents owned a house? Federally mandated racism got them that loan, and you are absolutely benefiting from it.
Correlation vs causation means that all of that is nothing but unsubstantial claims, until such a point where you can prove that nothing else realistically influences the choices people to make in those situations.
I don't live in the US and honestly don't care much for your "evidence". Because you always preface facts with claims, from what I've seen and the impression I've formed. You don't prove things, you go in with an expectation of an outcome and hack the research until you get what the results you want. Then you instantly form a conclusion and try to market it as some kind of absolute truth, which is not how science works. Especially not science that includes thousands of variables.
Data is cool, bias and hasty conclusions are not.
If you have some citations to convince me otherwise I'm listening otherwise I'm not willing to invest much time in this.
Ooh, ooh, I get it. It took me a while to figure out what you were actually trying to argue, as what you were saying is so colossally not the point.
You're trying to argue that i haven't shown causation between the historic injustices black people face, and what causes them, right?
Except, that's not what I was arguing, you colossal embarrassment.
I was only argueing the fact that black people face a stacked deck, historic and current inequality in the form of systemic oppression. I'll leave the "why" to the researchers.
So you've missed the point utterly, and revealed you don't understand even the basics of the conversation, let alone the research.
You do nothing but throw out insults, and now you even put words in my mouth. No that doesn't have anything to do with anything I was trying to say or think for that matter.
However, people like you only make it so much more clear to me how unsightly the whole thing is.
Logically this type of conversational tactic should lead to an account ban. Yet you get upvotes.
It amazes me that anyone could be so arrogant as to read the abstract, and think that they can understand a methodological flaw in the research.
Not even close. Someone asked for a source to the claim I already quoted, your source was garbage to the claim. 1,200 people are not a majority and that’s no where near a large enough sample size to draw any conclusions.
What, you think you know more than all these experts?
Is that what I claimed? Is that even close to anything I’ve said? I know your source did not back up the claim made. Which is what I replied to. I’m not paying $30 to read your other source, sorry.
All you're demonstrating is that you don't understand how statistics work. One poll doesn't mean much, but multiple studies that all show the same results?
The majority of trump voters were white and studies showed they voted for him out of fear of losing race status
That is the claim, and I've posted more than a half dozen sources verifying it.
If you can find a study that contests the claim, by all means post it, but until you do the burden of proof has been more than adequately met. Because here is the thing. The studies I’m posting? They might be wrong. But the way to prove that is to post other studies that fail to reproduce the results or challenge the methodology. Not to tell me why they think it’s a bad study, nothing could be more useless than that. If the actual experts are constantly modifying and refining their hypotheses based on the realities of the scientific model, what on earth makes the amateurs think their backyard interpretations of the data hold even the smallest measure of truth?
One poll doesn't mean much, but multiple studies that all show the same results?
Where are the multiple? You posted one weak article and whatever was behind a $30 paywall.
Again, you cannot take 1,200 people, look at the results, and then say “the majority of 62,000,000..”
That’s absolute garbage. I never claimed your source was incorrect. I said it did not at all back up the original claim that was made by someone else. And it doesn’t. Sorry, you cannot tell how 62,000,000 people feel by asking 1,200. I’m not sure I made any claim, there is no burden of proof I need. I mean trying to find a study that shows 1,200 is not a fair representation of 62,000,000 might be hard, being so specific and all. I’m not playing along with your prove me wrong grandstanding.
I’ll try to explain again:
Someone made a claim.
Someone asked for the source.
You replied with a source that does not at all back up the original claim by another person.
Thats what quality research looks like, academic paywalls if you don't have a profession that comes with access.
Either way, my point stands.
You're trying to challenge the validity of studies you don't understand. I'm sorry, but no. Some random redditor is not an expert on this subject, neither am I. If you think the peer reviewed study I posted is bunk, then you can find another peer reviewed study that challenges the results, preferably one that references and points out the methodological flaws in my study. I cannot explain to you how uninterested I am in anyone’s armchair researcher opinion on the results of a peer reviewed study. That's why we have experts, that's why we have peer review, that’s why we have the scientific method.
You are not a researcher, it's embarrassing that you think your "review" is relevant to the conversation. Why? Because real understanding takes a lot of learning about things not directly related to the topic at hand. It's not enough to look just at that part that's controversial; you've got to understand all the relevant background material to really grok what you're looking at. That's a lot of basics, and sometimes a lot of history, and if you don't have that understanding, you don't understand anything. Without having the proper context, you don't have the understanding to fully understand what you're looking at, and if you assume scientists are all full of crap or part of a conspiracy, you can be very easy to mislead. Unfortunately, that's how you get people who have no idea what they're talking about but still think they've 'done the research.'
Thats what quality research looks like, academic paywalls if you don't have a profession that comes with access.
I have dozens upon dozens of bookmarks from various universities about various subjects, none behind paywalls. It’s just weird that every thing you linked is behind a paywall is all.
You're trying to challenge the validity of studies you don't understand. I'm sorry, but no. Some random redditor is not an expert on this subject, neither am I.
I’ve done nothing of the such. I said 1,200 people out of 62,000,000 people is not enough to say “the majority of..” anything. That was my claim. You’re really hurting that straw man.
You are not a researcher, it's embarrassing that you think your "review" is relevant to the conversation.
Yep, that’s what reddit is for. There are millions of other people engaging in conversations at this very moment regarding things outside of their employment. I imagine my “review” as you put it is as valid as anyone else here. I’m not going to form any sort of opinion or blindly agree on your sources without having any sort of information because they all happen to be behind a paywall. What were the exact questions, what were the possible answers? Regardless, that doesn’t negate what I said to your original source, the only thing I’ve been firm on: 0.000019% of potential is not enough to say “the majority of.” I get you’re a smug cunt who sounds hilariously religious, but at least attempt to focus your responses on things I’ve said, not things you wish I would have said.
253
u/[deleted] Dec 11 '19
I mean yeah, but the real criminals are those in power who have the authority to send crack into black communities and disproportionately send black folks to jail. The problem is people just blaming the average white person for these things when they most likely had nothing to do with it.
It’s a classic capitalist trick. Cause strife and conflict among the working class so we don’t rise up against them.
It’s the same thing with climate change — blame the average middle class guy slaving away 12 hours a day who needs to commute two hours to work rather than the corporations burning up the amazon and polluting the oceans.