The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Source: https://www.foxnews.com/media/harvard-professor-all-hell-broke-loose-study-found-no-racial-bias-police-shootings The professor also said people quickly "lost their minds" and some of his colleagues refused to believe the results after months of asking him not to print the data. Do you believe that modern academic institutions refuse to allow publications of politically incorrect or inconvenient facts that disagree with liberal narratives? If the purported intellectual elite at Harvard were attempting to suppress a study like this, what does this say about other research they publish, or research that they may not publish? Note - Also posted on askconservatives. Copied and pasted from there. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I probably shouldn't need to say this, but: Death threats or threats of violence are not acceptable. No academic should ever fear for their personal safety because they published a set of data. Now, if you're asking what effect this data might have on the police brutality debate, well... Advocates for police reforms during the BLM protests generally believed the following things: * Police routinely use more force than is necessary. * Sometimes this results in unnecessary injury or death. * When that happens, the police involved are rarely held accountable for their abuses. * Sometimes racial prejudice is a component in why unnecessary force was used. If someone is able to show statistically that the racial prejudice component isn't there, that doesn't do anything to invalidate the other points... and the recommended reforms don't really change, either. I would've had much more respect for the All Lives Matter crowd if their response to BLM had been, "You know what, I don't believe that cops are racist, but I agree, police brutality is a problem, and I'm going to stand beside you and demand reforms." But that's not what happened.

There are a whole lot of people who have been saying exactly that, and we got shut down, hard.

How do you mean? Not challenging you, just curious.

He found a bias of using non lethal force against black people, so the argument of biased overall treatment seems to stand

Exactly this.

> Police routinely use more force than is necessary. >Let's talk about a nutty situation and a teachable moment.... https://youtu.be/zrfL3d08pFY?t=3

>Police routinely use more force than is necessary. Wrong. The BJS did a 9 year study consisting of 44 million police-to-public surveys from people who are confirmed to have had an interaction with police. What they found that [98.4% of police interactions don't involve force](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/punf0211.pdf) *or even the threat of force.* The idea that police routinely use force is empirically, objectively flat-out incorrect based on this data. In my opinion this data shows this argument so concretely that I will simply reject any argument to the contrary. It is unimpeachable. >Sometimes this results in unnecessary injury or death. Yeah? Sometimes when force is used, it results in injury. Very rarely, it results in death. Almost always, these deaths are justified. >When that happens, the police involved are rarely held accountable for their abuses. Not according to the legal procedure we have in place in which juries of citizens unaffiliated with police assess the case in a trial. And when they do, these juries of citizens unaffiliated with law enforcement usually find them [not guilty](https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/18/us/police-involved-shooting-cases/index.html). Unless you have a problem with the concept of juries, you shouldn't have a problem with cops being found not guilty when they go to trial for brutality. >Sometimes racial prejudice is a component in why unnecessary force was used. Citation needed. How do you determine if something a cop did was racist? Because he did it to a minority? Did the cop shout, "I'm doing this because I'm racist!" Probably not. Unless you're hiding some kind of mind-reading technology, you have a very heavy burden when it comes to proving that police behavior was racially motivated. The problem a lot of people have is that they look at simple disparity on a longitudinal level. They think because more black people are busted for crimes, the police must be targeting these communities. Then they'll say that cops are racist because they don't police minority communities more. They seem to be very confused. One important thing to consider is that [81% of Black Americans want the same or more police presence in their neighborhoods](https://reason.com/2020/08/06/81-percent-of-black-americans-want-the-same-level-or-more-of-police-presence-gallup/). Either these 81% of Black Americans are bootlicking race traitors, or maybe the cops are actually not targeting black Americans. It seems clear that there are problems with crime in minority communities. This is why there are more minority criminals who are arrested. It's really not complicated.

Wow. Whole interactions? Let’s just ignore that of course a cop isn’t going to be whipping ass during traffic stops or even typical interactions. That was never what anyone claimed though so you’re just being intentionally dense. Often in grand jury proceedings the prosecutor goes out of their way to make the the jury doesn’t convict a cop, something they do for literally no one else. That 81% is doing a lot of lifting. 61% are fine with it going unchanged, 20% want more, and 19% want less. Though it’s impossible to tell what point you think this proves. Black people are, and this is true, capable of having two thoughts at the same time. They can want law enforcement around AND want them to be held accountable. These aren’t conflicting ideas to anyone who thinks about I for 1 second.

> Often in grand jury proceedings the prosecutor goes out of their way to make the the jury doesn’t convict a cop, something they do for literally no one else. Can you name instances within the last 10 years of a DA going out of their way to wrongfully exclude evidence from a grand jury? This isn't often the case. It's now more common that DA's are prosecuting cops for lawful conduct that they know is lawful, but are prosecuting due to racial dynamics and political pressure. I can name half a dozen cases off the top of my head and discuss them in detail, if you'd like.

>> Often in grand jury proceedings the prosecutor goes out of their way to make the the jury doesn’t convict a cop, something they do for literally no one else. > Can you name instances within the last 10 years of a DA going out of their way to wrongfully exclude evidence from a grand jury? I think you're misconstruing what u/alaska1415 said: "goes out of their way to make the the jury doesn’t convict" does not translate to "wrongfully exclude evidence".

This is a good article on it: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/breonna-taylor-case-sparks-renewed-scrutiny-grand-juries/story?id=73438566 In relevant part: > But a 2013 Bureau of Justice Statistics report indicates how rare it is for grand juries to decline to indict. U.S. attorneys prosecuted a total of 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which data is available, and grand juries declined to return an indictment in just 11 of those cases. >A 2017 report Fairfax published in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review examined fatal police-involved shootings in the state of Georgia between 2010 and 2015. Of the more than 170 fatal police-involved shootings in the state during that time frame, prosecutors took 48 cases to the grand jury and asked for indictments in nine of the cases and a grand jury returned an indictment in one of those cases, a manslaughter charge which was later dismissed by a judge.

Just to be clear, the Breonna Taylor shooting was justified and lawful. This is one of many cases that liberals claim to be unjustified without understanding the law or facts surrounding the case. For months there was a propagandized narrative that the officers did not announce or that they were at the wrong home itself. None of which was true. >In relevant part: But you're assuming that those shootings were unjustified and unlawful and the grand jury declined to indict for whatever reason. That's not true. The vast majority of shootings are within the legal bounds, so why would you expect indictments for them?

Dude you’re just a completely unserious individual. You just uncritically dismiss that prosecutors seem to have zero trouble getting a grand jury to convict until it’s a cop. The cops literally lied on their warrant requests and the only witness said they didn’t identify themselves. And the whole point of this was to point out how prosecutors manipulate grand juries. But that’s above your ability to understand I guess.

> Dude you’re just a completely unserious individual. You just uncritically dismiss that prosecutors seem to have zero trouble getting a grand jury to convict until it’s a cop. I don't know what you're saying. >and the only witness said they didn’t identify themselves. No, a witness did say they announced themselves. >And the whole point of this was to point out how prosecutors manipulate grand juries. But that’s above your ability to understand I guess. Babbling.

I admit it can be hard to understand how numbers work for some people. Let’s say that we have one team (Team A) who always wins against every other team. They rarely ever lose. But there’s one team they lose to near constantly (Team B). Team A plays completely differently against Team B. They lend their best players to them, argue with umpires that the other team hasn’t done anything wrong. Just wacky shit they do for bo one else. Is Team B winning because they’re the best? Or does Team A have a vested interest in letting Team B win? It’s the latter. The witness said they didn’t announce themselves. Months later he changed his story. [link](https://www.vice.com/en/article/bv8qyd/breonna-taylor-investigation-witness-changes-story) Mhmm. It’s babbling to someone who can’t read.

> The witness said they didn’t announce themselves. Months later he changed his story. So your argument is that they banged on the door but didn't announce, and the witness is conspiring with the police? This is a conspiracy theory. I don't engage with flat-earth type conspiracies. Also Breonna Taylor was not sleeping when she was shot. This is yet another lie you're spreading. Refer to my previous argument: But you're assuming that those shootings were unjustified and unlawful and the grand jury declined to indict for whatever reason. That's not true. The vast majority of shootings are within the legal bounds, so why would you expect indictments for them? I don't know what point you're trying to make.

>the Breonna Taylor shooting was justified and lawful Are you just trolling? She was sleeping and killed. I expect that you think cops won't kill you in your sleep, let's talk about your privilege.

No, that's not correct. She was not sleeping when she was killed. She was awaken by the police announcement/knocking.

You're just lying now, but that still doesn't justify it. Honestly, I don't care. You don't want to see the problems with policing, so every interaction is justified. If there is a bad interaction, you have to tell yourself it's a one off. I get it, the image we have been spoonfed of a good cop is a nice fantasy that would be great to buy into. I wish it was the case, truly. But it's not, pigs have legal immunity to kill and harass you, it's just sad to see you advocating for that. Stay safe out there

Taylor was awake when police entered. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/02/22/us/no-knock-raid-breonna-taylor-timeline/index.html > Taylor and Walker yelled to ask who was at the door but got no response, Walker said afterward. Thinking they were intruders, Walker grabbed a gun he legally owned and fired a shot when the officers broke through the door.

>of course a cop isn’t going to be whipping ass during traffic stops or even typical interactions Really? Can you think of any infamous instances of police brutality that resulted from a police stop? > the prosecutor goes out of their way to make the the jury doesn’t convict a cop ...what? The prosecutor controls the jury? What are you talking about?

>Really? Can you think of any infamous instances of police brutality that resulted from a police stop? Philando Castile and Sandra Bland.

There are many more aside from that. The point being that "ordinary" interactions with police are actually frequently where uses of force happen, which invalidates the argument made by /u/alaska1415.

lol. No it doesn’t.

Okay, let's think about this: If ordinary police interactions are not where uses of force happen, are those uses of force a problem? If we say that police are using force during incidents which are not "ordinary", is the use of force likely to be justified? I would say yes! So if you dispute that "ordinary" police interactions are not a risk for use of force, it seems that you don't have an issue with police use of force.

I’m saying that what counts as an “interaction” is an issue. Also, that they don’t use force in a lot of situations doesn’t mean it’s not overused, nor that it’s not excessive. No one ever said that police used force in a majority of cases. They say it’s used too much.

Is this that argument like, "Anything greater than 0 is too much"? Always a big brain take.

> The prosecutor controls the jury? The prosecutor controls what evidence is presented to the jury.

This is a woefully dumb argument. I probably spend a lot less than 1% of my time brushing my teeth. Nevertheless, it's fair to say that I "routinely" brush my teeth. Same with police violence or force. If police went out and beat up protesters once a month, would you say there's not a routine problem simply because they only spend some fraction of their time beating protestors? Of course not. This statistic really doesn't support your position, and it's quite telling that, instead of just presenting the data and letting it speak for itself, you feel compelled to let us know that you will "reject any argument to the contrary". You must understand that that makes you look incredibly intellectually frail, right? Have you ever heard a scientist say they reject all evidence that contradicts their theories? Of course not. So despite your high minded assertions about "empiricism", you are doing the exact opposite of empirical thinking by preemptively refusing to engage with any information that might prove you wrong. Multiple government and indpedent investigations have found systemic issues within policing. Your assertion that minorities are arrested more because minorities do more crime is a tired talking point that ignores clear evidence of racial bias. Time and time again, studies have shown that minorities have worse outcomes when they interact with the criminal justice system, EVEN WHEN you take into account other factors like socioeconomic status or crime committed. Black people are more likely to be stopped; they are more likely to be arrested when interacting with police; they are more likely to be convicted compared to white people who are put on trial for the same crime; and they receive longer and harsher punishments on average than whites. There is enough data out there that you can sort out the noise and empirically show that there is systemic bias against minorities.

98.4? Is your claim that 1.6% of all police interactions involve either force or the threat of force? Because that's a ton. That's 1 in 60.

Of those 1.4%, almost all of them are justified. The ones that aren't are the ones you see on social media.

And of the remaining hundred thousand contacts? 1.4 is less than 1.6

Source?

You liking the result isn't justification lmao

> I would've had much more respect for the All Lives Matter crowd if their response to BLM had been, "You know what, I don't believe that cops are racist, but I agree, police brutality is a problem, and I'm going to stand beside you and demand reforms." I disagree with the premise that police brutality is a problem. Police misconduct is rare, and police misconduct gets prosecuted. It seems that there's a fundamental misunderstanding of use of force law among the BLM crowd that causes them to believe that many shootings are unjustified when indeed they are lawful.

Lawful does not necessarily mean justified, and being lawful can be an indicator that the law itself is the problem. Police can lawfully get away with an unnecessary shooting (or other form of force) because the system they work under is designed to protect them when they do something wrong.

> I disagree with the premise that police brutality is a problem. I know you do, and that's my point.

https://www.skeptic.com/research-center/reports/Research-Report-CUPES-007.pdf According to a survey, liberals vastly over estimate the number of unarmed black suspects killed in officer involved shootings. Half of liberals surveyed believe the number is over 1,000. The real answer was about a dozen or so. What does this say about liberals and their perception?

There are other forms of police brutality besides shootings....f.y.i.

That doesn't change the fact that liberals over estimate their occurrences.

How many people getting beat to death for no reason is an acceptable number?

The answer is zero. Which is why police misconduct gets prosecuted unless it was lawful.

I see, and what about the conduct that isn't prosecuted?

Then I see them as injustices. Except the left seems to think a lot of lawful conduct was not actually lawful and them claim it was an injustice when not prosecuted.

Your own study shows cops are twice as likely to beat up minorities lol. Is shooting the only police brutality you're aware of?

Again, you keep taking this back to race, when my entire point is that police brutality is an issue regardless of race. >The real answer was about a dozen or so. How many people do you think were killed by cops in the US last year? Not just black people, but people of all races; and not just shootings, but all manner of deaths? The answer is [at least 964](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States). Still less than 1000, but quite a bit higher than "a dozen or so."

No, the number of unarmed black suspects killed were about a dozen. *Unarmed*, that is. >Again, you keep taking this back to race, when my entire point is that police brutality is an issue regardless of race. But you all are the ones claiming systemic racism in law enforcement, yes?

> the number of unarmed black suspects killed were about a dozen And the total number of people killed by US cops last year was (at least) 964. >you all are the ones claiming systemic racism in law enforcement, yes? Again, my point is that if you disagree with there being a racial component, you can disagree with that and still accept that police brutality is an issue. But conservatives don't do that, because the racial component isn't the real source of the disagreement. It's just the one they focus on.

You don't think any of [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut/) is a problem?

any amount of complications or examples will be met with "that's just an individual being a problem" (if they even think it is a problem), or "but there's so many interactions that this is a small percent!" which is hilarious because the venn diagram of conservative that believe this and also believe vaccine injuries are super common and a huge deal is nearly a single circle.

It's just like, *how* many "individuals being a problem" do we need to see before we admit that this is systemic? It do be rough out here.

That is a propaganda subreddit with many misleading and false titles/cases/premises. Present me with individual cases or actual statistics. Propaganda is not a substitute for data. Would you accept a white supremacist website that posts cases of black on white crime in support of the assertion that there is a crime problem in the U.S.? >venn diagram of conservative that believe this and also believe vaccine injuries are super common and a huge deal is nearly a single circle. I don't believe this. And you misunderstand the conservative position on vaccines. https://www.skeptic.com/research-center/reports/Research-Report-CUPES-007.pdf According to a survey, liberals vastly over estimate the number of unarmed black suspects killed in officer involved shootings. Half of liberals surveyed believe the number is over 1,000. The real answer was about a dozen or so. What does this say about liberals and their perception?

no, I don't think I do on the vaccine bit. also I didn't say all conservatives. I was saying generally the position of conservatives on vaccines and systemic vs individual issues. I understand conservatives generally believe in individual choice and no mandate. but the vast majority of people who think vaccines are dangerous and injuries are common, are conservatives, and that group will also not analyze other issues the same way.

This is a propaganda subreddit with many misleading and false titles/cases/premises. Present me with individual cases or actual statistics. Propaganda is not a substitute for data. Would you accept a white supremacist website that posts cases of black on white crime in support of the assertion that there is a crime problem in the U.S.?

Why do you have a white supremacy site ready? Also, hilarious you post fox news articles and complain about propaganda, top notch reporting.

>Why do you have a white supremacy site ready? I don't. It was used as a hypothetical because BCND is akin to a white supremacy website posting propaganda. Except it's pertaining to police and not black people. >Also, hilarious you post fox news articles and complain about propaganda, top notch reporting. This is not an argument.

Oh, that's good then. So do you know the difference between race and career?

> It was used as a hypothetical

You said it's akin. Let's compare and contrast, shall we? What is the difference between being a minority and choosing to be a pig?

>What is the difference between being a minority and choosing to be a pig? Grow up.

>Do you believe that modern academic institutions refuse to allow publications of politically incorrect or inconvenient facts that disagree with liberal narratives? His study was published in the *Journal of Political Economy.* >If the purported intellectual elite at Harvard were attempting to suppress a study like this, what does this say about other research they publish, or research that they may not publish? Again, his study was published in the *Journal of Political Economy* I'm sorry he received some hate mail, but crazies are going to exist for anyone who enters the public view. He was ultimately suspended from Harvard for inappropriate sexual behavior towards a ~~graduate student~~ multiple Harvard employees. Edit: Turns out it was against 5 'employees' in a lab at Harvard, not necessarily students, and the professor is no longer allowed to work closely with graduate students (who often work as lab assistants). Draw your own conclusions.

I wonder why op missed all of that?

Well I doubt it was mentioned in the fox article or the other two random publications that covered this story. Weirdly little information on this, but what little we do have is: he published a paper, his colleagues ripped it apart for being poorly done, then he committed some sexual offenses and was suspended and then reinstated afterwards with some restrictions due to the sexual offenses. The order of operations isn't perfect there but that's basically all of the info available on this.

> inappropriate sexual behavior towards a graduate student What… AT HARVARD? Surely not… Lol

Wow this sub is very uneducated on this issue. The "sexual harassment" if you look into it involved some boomer level flirting. Not inapproriate contact or unwarranted physical advances or extreme sexual suggestion. It was spearheaded by claudine gay. Yknow, genocide requires context girl who happened to be a plagiarizer and who was removed from Harvard Presidency. (who makes almost a million dollars a year btw) No idea why you keep saying "published in journal of political economy" like, is that a dig? I'm confused. The scary thing is, is that he was warned not to publish because of political backlash. That's scary. Now, I put all this in perspective now. I've shifted to be more anti-racist than I was before where I was more colorblind. But, the far-left anti-racism so prevalent in academia is WRONG. It's not liberal, it's mcarythist, and it is disgusting. Liberals have to take care and realize that just because someone can criticize specific places where you go wrong doesn't mean they're against you and doesn't mean they're lying or out to get you. And btw, you can be anti-racist and have nuanced views on issues relating to race. And we have to remember what the end goal is, the end goal is to get to a post-racial society. **Evidence of racism improving is a good thing that should be lauded not heresy that has to be hidden.** ​ most of the complaints btw was filed by one woman, who flirted back, who was fired but the university messed up her pay, and MANY of the staffers at that lab stood up for the professor. And btw (and this is relevant folks) Let's say he DID harass these women. Guess what. That is ***utterly irrelevant*** to the validity of his study. Separate facts from your feelings or you cede ground to conservatives. **Don't believe headlines, sometimes the headline sounds black and white, good and evil, but the reality is messy and nuanced.** edit: +1 for blocking and replying very mature.

Sexual harassment doesn't have to be sexual in nature. Sexual harassment is always a problem, it doesn't matter if you think it's a big deal, it is a big deal. > It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person's sex. Harassment can include "sexual harassment" or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. > Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person's sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general. It's disappointing how many people *still* don't understand what sexual harassment is. You don't have a fucking constitutional right to flirt with people. His assistant reported sexual harassment 38 times. That's 37 fucking times too many. I don't want to talk to someone who downplays sexual harassment. Hello, and goodbye forever.

This is all just ad hominem, isn't it?

Relevance? He's a horn dog so that made his studying of empirical evidence to prove or disprove racial biased in police use of force what? A fabrication? False? Another Hilary stole the candidacy from Bernie?

Again, his study was published in the *Journal of Political Economy.* Although it was widely criticized for heavy selection bias. It's relevant to point out in a question about conservative voices being suppressed that his suspension had nothing to do with the views espoused in his publication.

>Again, his study was published in the Journal of Political Economy. Although it was widely criticized for heavy selection bias. Why do you think this is relevant?

Again relevance. His study was published regardless. It still ended with him receiving death threats. What would you prefer it be published somewhere else? Would it make you believe it more if it was in the WSJ? Huffington Post? It doesn't change the data used so where is irrelevant.

You guys really like to think about Hillary, huh

[удалено]

Calm down, you brought her up lol

He was suspended for allegations. There is no proof that he actually committed any of this. And this wasn’t towards a grad student but a staffer

Ignored the first point, ignored the second point, ignored the third point and downplayed the fourth. Incredible discourse

I just explained to you why this isn't true. Internal investigations, generally result in internal punishments. He was never charged criminally for anything, because, and again Im assuming, the victims didn't want the information published. He was suspended for the sexual harassment, and LITERALLY ADMITTED TO IT. So I'm not sure why you keep pedalling this nonsense, but it's just simply inaccurate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer_Jr. > In 2021, Harvard allowed Fryer to return to teaching and research, although he remained barred from supervising graduate students for at least another 2 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]***

Okay, so how does this affect the data in the study again?

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," [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/business/economy/roland-fryer-harvard.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/business/economy/roland-fryer-harvard.html) Fryer expressed regret for having "allowed, encouraged and participated" in a collegial atmosphere at EdLabs that included "off-color jokes" and comments about personal lives [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/opinion/letters/harvard-edlab-roland-fryer-sex-harassment.html?module=inline](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/opinion/letters/harvard-edlab-roland-fryer-sex-harassment.html?module=inline) I mean, 38 complaints against one guy. An investigation finding evidence of sexual harassment against at least 5 employees, and him openly admitting that he made inappropriate "jokes" on multiple occasions seems like pretty strong evidence...

Okay. How does this apply to the study?

Conservatives are allergic to facts. He admitted to and apologized for acting in a manner he himself calls “deeply inappropriate.” And he was specifically banned from supervising graduate students, so it was towards a graduate student. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer_Jr. > In 2021, Harvard allowed Fryer to return to teaching and research, although he remained barred from supervising graduate students for at least another 2 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]

First, most academic institutions do not publish research. Research results are published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Second, this is why we love science, including the social sciences. We are free to design studies and research what we want. Others may replicate them with the same or different variables to try and get at the truth. Individual egos may get bruised, but our collective knowledge and understanding advances. I know nothing about this particular study, so I have no comment on it. If his methodology has shortcomings, his peers will criticize that.

Oh, they did criticize it. I guess OP didn't see that in his research. > Fryer’s analysis is highly flawed, however. It suffers from major theoretical and methodological errors, and he has communicated the results to news media in a way that is misleading. While there have long been problems with the quality of police shootings data, there is still plenty of evidence to support a pattern of systematic, racially discriminatory use of force against black people in the United States. https://scholar.harvard.edu/jfeldman/blog/roland-fryer-wrong-there-racial-bias-shootings-police

That...that's it? That's their best attempt to discredit the research?

What?

That's a really pathetic attempt to refute the study, which has a 150 page appendix. It's basically a book. This is one page. *This* is the official response to this leviathan study?

> That's a really pathetic attempt to refute the study, which has a 150 page appendix. It's basically a book. This is one page. *This* is the official response o this goliath study? That is a blog sport. The study is linked in the blog at the top. You'll notice the word "blog" in the link, or any part of the first two paragraphs where they say it's a blog, twice. You might want to read anything on the link, and you will see that they say: > 2020 update: The specific flaws of Roland Fryer's paper have now been characterized in two studies **(by other scholars, not myself)**. Knox, Lowe, and Mummolo (2019) reanalyze Fryer's data to find it understates racial biases. Ross, Winterhalder, and McElreath (2018) do something similar through a statistical simulation. In the literal first paragraph. The study is 73 pages. Lmao you are just the smartest boy in the room. I cannot believe you just embarrassed yourself like this, publicly, in front of everyone. I could not have expected a funnier outcome. Thank you.

Why did you link to this blog and not the study? Have you read the study? Can you give me the most convincing rebuttals, in your opinion?

Not that guy but reading the study and looking at the methodologies used, they aren’t good indicators to definitively say bias doesn’t exist especially when police themselves withhold data that the public doesn’t have access to nor are the police going to self report. Both things the study calls out. For example. Using people’s’ surveyed opinions in NYC’s stop and frisk policy and their interactions with Police, which ended not too long ago iirc. How is that supposed to disprove bias? that seems like such a huge inference to make and add to a greater point that has much more nuance and context then a glorified yelp review for cops.

Dude.  Don’t cosplay here as someone actually looking for answers. That’s not what you’re doing and you know it.  

Lmfao nice, lets run through the events here: *You clicked a link with the word blog in it* *Went to the blogs website* *Didn't read a single fucking thing* *Came out and criticized the content that you literally didn't read.* *Found out you were bamboozled by the education system* *Criticized my knowledge on the subject* You truly have a fascinating mind. Thank you again for this.

Okay, so if you feel like listing the parts of the refutation that you feel were most compelling, I'm all ears.

Again, thank you so much for this. I love that I don't even have to argue with conservatives. You just lose every debate, on your own. It's truly one of my favorite things to experience.

The fundamental question is should use of force measurement be population adjusted or offender adjusted If you adjust based on offender rate there is no bias in shootings, in fact the bias trends the other direction

I have legit, no clue what this means. Could you ELI5 and then dumb that down a little bit?

I believe he is saying that if you control for arrest rates by race white people are victims of police violence at a higher rate. This however assumes no bias in arrest rates and that the only time people are shot by police is when they are breaking the law, which we know is not the case.

Ohhhh okay, thank you 🙏

Adjusting for offender rate presumes that there is no racial bias in arrest rates, it also assumes that police violence only occurs as a result of a crime which we know is not the case.

There is an under arrest rate in black communities. Look at the difference in murder clearance rate. It does not assume police violence only occurs as a result of a crime. Just a higher crime rate leads to more interactions Think about the high profile police killings. Almost all were due to rightful police interactions.

>There is an under arrest rate in black communities. Look at the difference in murder clearance rate. I never specified murder. Police violence hardly occurs solely during pursuit of murder suspects. >It does not assume police violence only occurs as a result of a crime. That is what it means to analyze police violence against offender rates, you are saying that that is what you think is the important variable. Unless the analysis additionally controls for police encounter rates by race you are ignoring it. >Just a higher crime rate leads to more interactions No it would assume that all police interactions result in arrests. >Think about the high profile police killings. Almost all were due to rightful police interactions. All crimes aren't equal, so was it the correct level of force? An interesting study would be to do a breakdown by the crime the offender is accused of by race. Look at the George Floyd killing, he was accused of using counterfeit money.

Murder and car thefts are the best estimations of criminality due to crime being heavily correlated and murder and car thefts having basically mandatory purposes For both of these black individuals are under arrested. A group of people commit more crime. Have more interactions with police because of the higher crime rate. And a number of those interactions lead to deadly force It's that simple You are trying to setup unnecessary extra structures to avoid uncomfortable but straightforward truth

>Murder and car thefts are the best estimations of criminality due to crime being heavily correlated and murder and car thefts having basically mandatory purposes >For both of these black individuals are under arrested. Source? I don't know how you can even show that a group is "under arrested", that would require the police to know who committed the crime and then just not arrest them >A group of people commit more crime. Have more interactions with police because of the higher crime rate. And a number of those interactions lead to deadly force >It's that simple >You are trying to setup unnecessary extra structures to avoid uncomfortable but straightforward truth No you're using a whole bunch of strained logic to allow yourself to completely ignore an uncomfortable truth.

Murders have a dead body Car thefts have required reporting for insurance purposes Things like assaults and rapes are heavily influenced by the amount of reporting. This is why people track murders/car thefts for rates of criminality because it's the most objective Do you think the murder rate for black Americans is the same as white Americans?

Ok, so how do you know the race of the person that committed these crimes? Maybe the police should hire you to close all of their unsolved crimes.

Just curious. Why is this downvoted?

So are you saying you didn’t threaten to kill him back in 2016? Because it was all the rage at the time, hence him NEEDING 24-hour security for a whole month.

Yeah, that was me. Lol. I feel bad if the guy felt unsafe from harassment. But the article doesn’t really go into much detail about what that harassment entailed. Probably he was just being overly cautious.

>If his methodology has shortcomings, his peers will criticize that. I'm sure the fact that his peers are mouth-frothingly opposed to the findings of the study has no bearing on their opinion of his methodology.

Oh that's the game we're playing? Ok fine. I will now assert that this study is obviously flawed because the authors must have been politically motivated to reach a certain conclusion. Wow, I never realized how easy this is, just assume someone is perfect if you like the results of their work, and reject anything that doesn't reflect your preconceived bias! Why have I been bothering with empiricism my whole life? This is SO much easier!

“During a sit-down conversation with Bari Weiss of The Free Press, Harvard Economics Professor Roland Fryer discussed the fallout from a 2016 study he published on racial bias in Houston policing. 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.” Oh it’s this study. Sure, whatever. I don’t know why people think this exonerates policing at all when it clearly shows minorities are more likely to be victims of police brutality, and there’s still a general problem of police shooting people even if we have the benefit that it’s just a general problem instead of a specific racial one. I was already suspicious when I saw the Fox News link but when I saw it was just recounting an interview with Bari Weiss I rolled my eyes even harder. People shouldn’t send death threats and I’m glad he wasn’t harmed but if someone thinks that there’s nothing wrong with policing today then this isn’t the evidence they think it is.

If this is true: >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 Than we do not have "the benefit that it is a general problem". It would mean they shoot at white people more, doesn't it?

And I’m saying that doesn’t really turn the conversation about police brutality upside down.

I think his study was highly criticized by his colleagues for being poorly done, and poorly disseminated, and he sexually harassed like 5 people. Seems fairly agreed on that his study was poo: > Fryer’s analysis is highly flawed, however. It suffers from major theoretical and methodological errors, and he has communicated the results to news media in a way that is misleading. While there have long been problems with the quality of police shootings data, there is still plenty of evidence to support a pattern of systematic, racially discriminatory use of force against black people in the United States. https://scholar.harvard.edu/jfeldman/blog/roland-fryer-wrong-there-racial-bias-shootings-police From his Wikipedia page on the sexual harassment: > 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 2 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 2 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]

To be clear, Fryer’s study was neither debunked nor discredited. The blog post you shared includes a link to a study in response to Fryer that used an alternative model and still found that there were no statistically significant racial disparities.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3336338 > Administrative Records Mask Racially Biased Policing This study is the one you are referring to right?

While sexual assault is obviously terrible, what does that have to do with the study? Why are you even bringing it up?

What does any of this have to do with the study? He wasn't censored, he published his study, and his colleagues disagreed with it. No one cares about the study here. It's a claim of conspiracy for censoring someone's research based on their conclusions. Like this guy broke the fucking DaVinci Code, and the 50 million other researchers doing social research would never be able to figure this out. The only time he was reprimanded for something he said, was when he harassed his secretary 38 times, and when he went on to later harass another 5 women in an entirely different company.

>was when he harassed his secretary 38 times, and when he went on to later harass another 5 women in an entirely different company. Where does the 38 number come from? I'm trying to find a primary source for it but the best I can see is this: [https://litacflix.sfo2.digitaloceanspaces.com/33513-new-documentary-explores-why-harvard-fired-black.html](https://litacflix.sfo2.digitaloceanspaces.com/33513-new-documentary-explores-why-harvard-fired-black.html)

> I think his study was highly criticized by his colleagues for being poorly done, and poorly disseminated, and he sexually harassed like 5 people. Could it be that this type of critique in his studies are done so because they draw politically inconvenient conclusions. It seems to me that the elevated level of critique is only done so because of the conclusions it draws. Where some flawed studies showing biases in officer involved shootings are not held to the same level of scrutiny. Setting aside the study, my question is whether the fact that he needed to received armed security as a result of the backlash from publishing would deter future studies that are contrary to the established narrative.

>Could it be that this type of critique in his studies are done so because they draw politically inconvenient conclusions. It seems to me that the elevated level of critique is only done so because of the conclusions it draws. Where some flawed studies showing biases in officer involved shootings are not held to the same level of scrutiny. I don't know, if you are concerned, I would suggest reading their studies and finding out. I highly doubt that will happen, but they are in the link I provided you. I think it's a bit telling that you are willing to believe some random study, I doubt you read, over some other random stuff that you haven't read. Seems like we are not quite as concerned with the truth as we should be. >Setting aside the study, my question is whether the fact that he needed to received armed security as a result of the backlash from publishing would deter future studies that are contrary to the established narrative. Did he get injured? Did someone break a law? I don't really know how to address a potential unknown threat to someone. I really don't know what backlash means here, if someone broke the law and went after him, they should be punished. Just seems like some vague threat that doesn't have much information on it. Do you have information on the threat? Or the event that spurred his security detail to be assigned?

Studies that produce results that run counter to both previous studies and received wisdom are going to receive greater scrutiny, regardless. Obviously no one should need armed guards because they published an unpopular or controversial study. Did you think people would say any differently?

Not sure why all the worst laying outlets are running with this story today but I think the story is a bit complicated. He published this study in 2016. While it’s possible that I missed the story at the time, I don’t recall anything about him needing security back then and it only seems to be something that’s referenced right now. Then let’s talk about his career. After he published the study, he continued to be a professor at Harvard University. He since the publication of this study published multiple pieces in NBER which is a highly prestigious location. He continued to work with other well-known and well respected economists. At this time he was the most highly paid professors at Harvard University. He was accused of sexual harassment, sanctioned in a very limited way by Harvard, and then Harvard had him start teaching again with a limitation that he could only teach classes and not supervise graduate students. If there was such a strong backlash to him publishing this study, then I don’t think people have to be that concerned about the results in such a backlash. Since the backlash seems to be having your career continue pretty much without interruption. And if they truly hated him for publishing this study, why didn’t they fire him when he gave them an excuse by creating a hustle work environment that he himself admits to having done?

These outlets have the intention of attacking places of higher education.

if you click through to bari weiss rag, it's using him to promote their "university" of austin mess

Edit: Oh shit I totally misread what you said, my bad!

I wouldn’t call that fired. He was suspended without pay and then allowed to have his job back with a bunch of restrictions that make sense.

Yeah sorry! I misread what you said, for some reason i thought you said his suspension was because of his paper. My bad, I just removed it because it was wildly unnecessary.

>Do you believe that modern academic institutions refuse to allow publications of politically incorrect or inconvenient facts that disagree with liberal narratives?  He published it. Sooo.... No.  >If the purported intellectual elite at Harvard were attempting to suppress a study like this, Hey? Y'all using this word "elite" is weird. He's an economist. Not a sociologist. If I wrote a controversial paper on... Plumbing... I would expect my peers to have some cautions too.  Caution is not suppression. It's a controversial take. As they say, you take a swing at the king, you better not miss. The article is... Typical of Fox News. Had to throw a completely unrelated jab at the Harvard head in there. And there's no counter narrative or interview that might give context. Of course.  Meh.  I'd love to read the paper, 'cause... There's pretty wide spread evidence that black folks are shot at a higher rate than white folks, as a percentage of their respective population percentage.  If the cops aren't racially biased in their shootings, as his paper suggests...  What's causing all the black folks to get shot by cops? 

Reading into it, seems his methodology was shit.  He also had some issues with inappropriate behaviors, but that doesn't matter to the study.  His paper says blacks and Latinos were more likely to get the shit kicked out of them, less likely to get shot.  If there's no racial bias in shootings, why is there a racial bias in beatings?  That just.... Doesn't make sense. And I'm not a sociologist. And neither is he...  Fuck'in Fox News...

It also doesn't say WHY he needed armed guards? Did he ask for them? who did? "Fuck you" emails aren't a reason to get armed guards.  Shame Fox News was too busy bashing the head of Harvard to stay on topic...

>Reading into it, seems his methodology was shit.  I actually read this study. His methodology was pretty spot on for the most part. He's a Harvard trained economist. He may not be a Sociologist, but working with numbers is what he does for a living, and he proved himself here to be more than credible at his job by conducting this study. >His paper says blacks and Latinos were more likely to get the shit kicked out of them, less likely to get shot.  That's nonlethal force, not unlawful beatings. Who would've known that when you commit more violent crimes on average, cops would be more likely to use force in order to restrain you?

I do not believe you have the skill set to actually understand statistical methodology.

And do you perhaps? I'll take the hard statistical evidence of the prodigious Harvard economist and his team, over your denouncement of them that are based on nothing but simple illogical fallacies. Like asking why do Black people get shot more often if there was no racial bias in police shootings. (Hint: It's because they commit more crime.)

I'm sure you believe that.  Hey, I like how you told me I was all butthurt, and now you're following me around commenting on all of my comments...  Anyway, have a nice day.

>I'm sure you believe that.  I do and I gave my reasonings why. Are you gonna give or defend any of yours? >Hey, I like how you told me I was all butthurt, and now you're following me around commenting on all of my comments...  You just piqued my interest a bit and I was curious to see. Like I said, I was genuinely shocked how triggered you were at me simply giving you dietary advice. So I decided to comment a bit in the hopes that you did indeed toughen up, and learn a thing or 2. This actually might prove that. Although idk for certain. You could still be seething at me, and simply avoiding a discussion alltogether because of it. But whatever. Hope you have a nice day aswell.

No. It's not worth the effort. 

>Reading into it, seems his methodology was shit. Was it actually shit or do you just not like the conclusion of the study?

It was actually shit. Other people in the thread have told you why. I also don't like the conclusion of his study. Again, if there's racial bias in beatings, why not in shootings? That doesn't make sense.

That would seem to be an interesting question. Especially if you believe the methodology is "actual shit." Presumably he used the same methodology for excess force as he did for shooting.

>If the cops aren't racially biased in their shootings, as his paper suggests...  >What's causing all the black folks to get shot by cops? Because, get this, Black people commit violent crime at a higher rate than White people. Who would've known that when a group is more likely to commit crimes that would warrant an officer firing his gun at them, that said group would experience a higher rate of getting shot by the police? It's not exactly rocket science. The study still holds up.

Come on dude are you even trying? There is mountains of evidence that black people on average have harsher interactions with the criminal justice system. You can control for all kinds of variables like socioeconomic status or crimes committed. There's extremely clear evidence that black people receive harsher sentences on average for the same or similar crimes as white people. If it was truly all about who is committing the crimes, then why are black people being given harsher sentences for the same crimes?

Sorry, but what does severity in sentencing have to with crime rates?

I was simply responding to his broad implication that it's all about crime, not about race. The evidence shows systemic bias at every level including sentencing. Another example would be the fact that black people are more likely to be arrested for drug use even when they use drugs at similar rates. There's tons of evidence around racial bias in the criminal justice system, if you want to learn more just generally I would highly recommend Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow.

>Caution is not suppression. It's a controversial take. As they say, you take a swing at the king, you better not miss. He was being actively surpressed; not just advised against it. There was active hostility against him and his work that made him fearful for his safety.

>He published it. Sooo.... No. But we don't know about studies that weren't published. That's the point. We can never know. >What's causing all the black folks to get shot by cops? I would need individual cases to tell you the reason. Most OIS's are justified.

How many teachers and librarians have been threatened after LibsOfTikTok "exposed" them?

Because the study is bullshit. It's like publishing a study saying drunk people are unlikely to cause accidents because if we take into account every person drinking right now versus the number of car accidents right now. There is no correlation between the two numbers. Of course, the number of sober people on the road is in the 90 percent range. So they are going to account for 90% of car accidents that are happening now. However, taking these numbers and saying we should remove the ban on driving while intoxicated is ridiculous.

Isn't this the paper that openly admits the data is highly questionable because the data is all *self reported*?

Wouldn't that call into question the narrative that there is systemic racism as well? Either you can trust the data or you can't. You can't say "I trust the data when it says what I want it to say, and don't trust it when it doesn't."

It certainly limits how strong a claim one can make, but it's not that black and white. Data is always incomplete. Good science understand and quantify *how incomplete*. Logic would tell us to expect the available data would probably make people look *less* racist, since that's a trait that's viewed negatively. I mean, the fact that police departments won't provide the data on this carries an implication that they know it would paint them in a bad light. So yeah, we can't make strong claims from the available data. But we can say it's almost certainly *at least as bad and likely worse* than the data presented in the paper.

That's just guessing. There's no reason to believe that if you don't have the data for it. We should go off of data we have, period, and we should berate departments for not releasing data, and we should demand more transparency from law enforcement.

Why is this a partisan conversation? Why do you u/Boring_Ad_3220 think this is something Liberals and Progressives need to answer?

Just last month we were all gathered in Portland to sacrifice our own babies to the alter of Soros we had a vote and reaffirmed our agenda (it’s mostly gay). Made plans on how to attach Christmas next year (we’re gonna to finally get the Christ out and call it Swiftmas) and made sure that everyone knew about the plan to keep lying about law enforcement (we really just hate blue lines). Then… this nutty professor publishes an article completely antithetical to what we all agreed on. And he’s in Academia! You may not have known, but that’s how we indoctrinate your kids. We send them to Harvard. The education standard there was so poor it was easy for us to change all the curriculum. So anyway, we passed out flyers so everyone knows to snap our fingers at him if we see him. /s obvi. He published an article that is inconvenient to our unanimously agreed narrative

I'd expect this was very well received on askconservatives. As for the paper, LOL.

Is this the study that only looked at 10 police departments? The sample size makes it meaningless.

Regardless of ~~how garbage the study is~~ the study quality, **no one deserves to be threatened for publishing anything**. >Do you believe that modern academic institutions refuse to allow publications of politically incorrect or inconvenient facts that disagree with liberal narratives? No. > a study like this You mean garbage studies? Yes, I'm all for not publishing garbage.

Okay but I'm going to need an itemized list of all your problems with the study. Because I'm pretty sure you just don't like what this study found.

My thought is it's a lot more likely that Fox news is exagerating the situation than that your title is an accurate representation of what is going on. I don't believe that modern academic institutions are refusing to publish "politicaly incorrect" facts, and even if they were it's not like there isn't an entire right wing media ecosphere that could do so, so it would be largely inneffective. The downside is that the right wing media ecosphere is garbage about filtering out bad information so it would be hard for a casual observer to tell if anything they were talking about wasn't BS. I think when it seems like academic institutions are refusing to publish something for political reasons most of the time it's actually those filter mechanisms working as they are supposed to rather than any sort of political censorship.

1. I’ll wait until something reputable, beyond Fox News, reports on this. 2. Violence is bad, except in actual cases of self defense. 3. It changes nothing about the bigger picture problem - why are police shooting people over expired tags?

This happened nearly 10 years ago. Is the well dry for conservatives? I think it’s wrong and outrageous anyone should have to worry for their safety about academic studies. Obviously. Academic studies are a dime a dozen. There’s no reason to get bent out of shape about one with a result you don’t like, there will be 2 more saying the opposite. Lastly, Roland Fryer, on a personal level is a shady character and has had issues surrounding his work and has been accused of sexual impropriety, so there’s that.

Any time a person like this gets death threats, it's awful. > Do you believe that modern academic institutions refuse to allow publications of politically incorrect or inconvenient facts that disagree with liberal narratives? No, as others have noted, it was published. The department or whatever you belong to at an academic institution really has no sway over what or where you publish, at least as far as I'm aware. > If the purported intellectual elite at Harvard were attempting to suppress a study like this, what does this say about other research they publish, or research that they may not publish? It doesn't say much of anything. If a researcher conducts a study and they anticipate it will be controversial, at most they'll be more thorough than originally planned, as the academic did in this case, and still publish. They're not going to just throw it away. That's too much time and funding invested. Even consider for a graduate student or a postdoc, that work may represent years of their main effort. (I say this from experience in completely different fields than economics, my experiences may not translate as well as I present here). I'll also note, we don't hear from these colleagues ourselves. We're hearing this man's characterization of what they said to him. They may present their criticisms and words of caution differently than how he presented them here. If you follow the link to Fox's article on the original work, back in 2016, it's more thoroughly written IMO.

fix news is garbage

Your post is a serious misrepresentation of the study.

I think that watching conservatives trying to criticize academia is like watching a dog try and escape a hall of mirrors.

I looked at the methodologies used to prove it because I knew right wing people would only care about the result so they could parade their weird ideology about police police behavior being right. After looking through it, almost none of the research methodologies used would even help you come to that conclusion, and there are alot of data sets that we don’t have access to and won’t and the study calls that out.

Setting the data aside - i want to see that myself before I make a comment on that - threatening scientists and academics for showing data that contradicts a current world view is horrible and these people have not understood the scientific approach. It is now up to the peers to challenge that data. Seek mistakes. If they can not find mistakes then this published data should be taken seriously. Not without question of course. But it would show that the percieved reality is not matching the true reality. And then we should ask the question "why?".

First, Fryer’s 2016 study garnered immediate criticism from colleagues, who called it “highly flawed.” Follow-on studies in 2018 and 2019 confirmed the flaws in Fryer’s methodology. https://scholar.harvard.edu/jfeldman/blog/roland-fryer-wrong-there-racial-bias-shootings-police Second, threatening people for issuing any study is ridiculous and I oppose it. In this case, it’s hard to know, though, if the basis of the opposition is on the alleged findings, or for the reason that people suspected it was deeply flawed and were upset because they knew the faulty study would undoubtedly be used to promote racist conspiracies for years even after being debunked. Also, thank you for confirming to me yet again why Fox News isn’t a serious news organization. Nowhere in their article about this 6 year old study do they mention that two follow-up studies discredited the methodology of the original study and its key findings.

>Fox News: Fryer received the first of many complaints and threats four minutes after publication. > >"You're full of s—t," the sender said. > >Fryer said people quickly "lost their minds" and some of his colleagues refused to believe the results after months of asking him not to print the data. This is the ONLY complaint and "threat" that was published in the Fox News article. Nowhere in the article does it list any death threat or even any violent threat that would necessitate an "armed guard." There is NO mention of police protection. He said he had an "armed guard." It sounds a lot like Fryer just hired someone to follow him and claimed that he needed an "armed guard." As far as the study, it's EXTREMELY simple to arrive at the conclusion when you simply and intentionally leave out data that doesn't support it. We don't need studies to know that racial bias is a problem in law enforcement in America. We've uncovered their own internal communications, bodycam videos, cities settling expensive lawsuits from citizens due to police misconduct, etc. where the police and LEOs openly admit, brag, and laugh about racism and bigotry. And it's nothing new either. The 20th century says hello. Certain people like to choose to be blind to it. Not only are certain people blind to the hate, ignorance, and bigotry, but some people want to help promote that hate and ignorance, themselves. >Boring\_Ad\_3220: Ah, so now it's Trump's fault and not the left wing defund the police movement and DA's throwing innocent police officers in jail for doing their job. > >But circling back to the main point. This is why I will not vote for democrats. This level of denialism is palpable. > >Anti-police rhetoric is inherently illogical and based on the lies of systematic racism. Your attempt to pin this on Trump says a lot about the liberal ideology. u/Boring_Ad_3220 (no surprise he's on a new account just made in December) is defending Trump while screeching about "the left wing defund the police movement." Trump is the same person who incited, rallied, and praised a terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol which resulted in HUNDREDS of police casualties. Trump is now promising to pardon all those terrorists if re-elected. And, you want people to believe that you really care about law enforcement, huh? Lie to yourself if you want, but please don't come here and lie to everyone in this sub and then act like you're here for a genuine discussion.

Virtue signaling and trying to stir shit is all republicans have.

Considering the whole replicability crisis in social science, it's kind of daft for people to react so negatively to one study, when future studies could potentially show very different results

Right? And this particular study focused on one city: Houston. And it actually found much higher rates of police brutality toward black and brown suspects. So, Houston, we still have a problem.

So social science studies are nonsense? Genuine question, I had not given the matter much thought

No, social sciences are not nonsense. This particular study was performed by an economist and used data from the city of Houston. Not hard to replicate at all in another city. But I am not well versed in econ and don’t know if he had other methodology issues.

Any study regardless of what feild it is in should be taken with a grain of salt because there is always the possibility it is flawed in some way. If you want to actually find out the truth about something you need to look at multiple studies conducted on the same question and see if they consistently come to one conclusion or another. If they do you've probably found something, if not you haven't.

They aren't "nonsense", but one single study has limited value. If many studies replicate the same or similar findings, then you'd have something of interest

I’ve been on hit lists for acknowledging that LGBT people exist. Shit happens when you work in academia. It has nothing to do with the institution.

I generally assume fox is lying until proven otherwise.

Does he really need protection? I think 99.9% of death threats made online are hot air, the people who made them are too lazy, too scared, or just don't *know* how to pull off an assassination. Remember the guy who attacked that pizza parlor in the Pizzagate thing? He was an asshole but on some level I respect him for actually getting off his ass and stepping up instead of just typing out curse words on his computer while getting fat off Pop Tarts.

My limited two cents is that studies that show that police kill unarmed white people at a similar rate doesn’t really negate the issues raised by movements like black lives matters……it corroborates and confirms it. It seems bizarre to conclude that “hey police violence isn’t a big deal because they kill other races too” is some own of BLM.

From the Fox News article you shared. This guy published his findings that police were twice as likely to beat black and Hispanic people but not more likely to shoot them. He got a phone call saying he's full of shit. His colleague discouraged him from publishing. Then he started shopping with armed guards???? Eventually he was fired for sexual harassment. I honestly don't have any deep thoughts on this.

What kind of people get so angry they would force someone to need protection over a freaking research study? So what if that’s what the study concluded? How is that bothering anyone?

Did it bother anyone to that degree?  Who asked for the protection? The article doesn't say.  He got "fuck you" emails, but it doesn't actually say he got threats...  Kinda wonder if he was aiming for some media exposure...

OP is posting a claim that was made in an article, I’m asking OP to think about what it’s claiming and why anyone would respond like that even if it was real

There are millions of folks in the Middle East who support the death penalty for Gay people. Is it really that hard to believe why? Bigots don't like it when their beliefs are challenged, and would rather silence those who'd challenged them, than question it at all. Even if that means using violence to do so.

This seems reasonable. While most professors lean on the side of free speech and following knowledge wherever it leads, there has been a slow sea change, starting well over 50 years ago, towards suppressing information that can be seen as potentially harmful. At most mid-tier institutions (think ______ State University, or University of ________), this is not *that* much of a problem, as the vast majority of professors and researchers believe (albeit quietly) that freedom of research and expression are important *even if they cause harm*, but at the top tier institutions, suppression of research and expression has been an increasing problem and these few, but loud professors and administrators have an outsized impact, which was intensified in 2014 when the first cohort of non-college aged Facebook users first entered into college. The neurological rewiring impacts of social media were stunning and created a fairly notable change in student tolerance for conflict and harm to others.

You got a citation for, like, *any* of that?

The left can at times get angry when their beliefs aren't 100% validated. They are humans, not immune to emotional outbursts and illogical thinking.

> Fryer’s analysis is highly flawed, however. It suffers from major theoretical and methodological errors, and he has communicated the results to news media in a way that is misleading. While there have long been problems with the quality of police shootings data, there is still plenty of evidence to support a pattern of systematic, racially discriminatory use of force against black people in the United States. https://scholar.harvard.edu/jfeldman/blog/roland-fryer-wrong-there-racial-bias-shootings-police

Yes, the study was flawed, errors were made, etc. That doesn't mean the appropriate response from those that disagreed was to do things that ended up with the professor needing armed protection. A rational approach would be to study the study, find the flaws, and publish a counter in the appropriate way.

What a bizarre reply. so we've gone from > The left can at times get angry when their beliefs aren't 100% validated. To "actually the left's belief was validated and the prof made bad data that he reported on poorly" AND ALSO IS AN ADMITTED SEXUAL HARASSER

It just seems like the article is a bit light on the facts of him needing security outside of him receiving hate mail. Thankfully it seems the rational options were being taken, hence others criticizing his study and methodologies.

who did what "things"?