Something doesn't feel right about BLM

[BNR32FAN]

You can defend the actions of a murderer all you want. I'm sure a knee parked on his neck did not abate his inability to breathe. When someone can't breath you check there airway, you don't out your knee down on their neck.

With 3 other officers backing home up, don't tell me he was afraid for his life with an incapacitated man under dude's knee. You only see what you want to see, a big bad black man getting rightly put in his place. It wasn't his place to be murdered.

What was Chauvin’s motivation for killing Floyd?

 

[istodolez]

If it’s random they will swim in all directions. So they’re all swimming different directions.

You should read more of the post that I wrote. It is actually an attempt to explain this important topic.

I don't blame you if you find statistics and this sort of thing unappealing, a lot of folks don't enjoy science or statistical analysis and don't have a technical background of any sort, but it is a great way to understand systems. And it can help uncover details about the system that your "gut feelings" hide.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I don't think that Floyd was "faking it."

I think Floyd saying "I can't breathe" while he was still standing was because he was already experiencing the first stages of the heart attack that killed him.

I think he was playing out his claim of being claustrophobic. He said I’m claustrophobic then started saying I can’t breathe.

 

[Radagast]

I think he was playing out his claim of being claustrophobic. He said I’m claustrophobic then started saying I can’t breathe.

Well, that is also possible. No way of proving it either way.

We know that Floyd died of a heart attack, but we don't know when that started.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You should read more of the post that I wrote. It is actually an attempt to explain this important topic.

I don't blame you if you find statistics and this sort of thing unappealing, a lot of folks don't enjoy science or statistical analysis and don't have a technical background of any sort, but it is a great way to understand systems. And it can help uncover details about the system that your "gut feelings" hide.

Statistics always lack the details of each individual case. The only thing statistics show is that blacks have a lower average household income YOU CANNOT USE THAT STATISTIC TO DETERMINE WHY THEY HAVE AN AVERAGE LOWER INCOME BECAUSE THERES NO DATA TO BASE ANY HYPOTHESIS ON.

 

[istodolez]

Statistics always lack the details of each individual case. The only thing statistics show is that blacks have a lower average household income YOU CANNOT USE THAT STATISTIC TO DETERMINE WHY THEY HAVE AN AVERAGE LOWER INCOME BECAUSE THERES NO DATA TO BASE ANY HYPOTHESIS ON.

You are getting closer! You are 100% correct in a point here. All you can say about the two distributions is that they are different. You can even do a "one-tailed test" and see that one is LOWER than the other.

BUT, as you note, you cannot say WHY that difference exists based solely on that data. BUT you CAN say that (in our example) median black income is LOWER than median white income. This is a signal that there is a RACIAL COMPONENT that explains differences in income. It may not be the ONLY component but it is within your measurement.

So your original point about expecting things to be all random is shown to NOT BE ACCURATE. You have "Rejected the Null Hypothesis".

We have, indeed, established a racial basis which explains differences in income. But why does that racial difference exist? That's not answered in this analysis. But we've established a systemic racial disparity.

So, again, I ask, what is the reason for this disparity which is based largely on race? You have a statistically signfiicant SIGNAL...what do you do with it? And why would it break out along lines of skin color alone?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well, that is also possible. No way of proving it either way.

We know that Floyd died of a heart attack, but we don't know when that started.

I won’t deny that it could’ve triggered as a result of fear of going back to jail. That’s definitely a possibility.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So your original point about expecting things to be all random is shown to NOT BE ACCURATE. You have "Rejected the Null Hypothesis".

That was not my original point. My original point was that the outcome was the product of each individual’s decision. Here let’s review my original post.

Thats like saying that a fish tank full of the same type of fish should all swim in the same direction because they’re all the same type of fish. No some swim to the left, some right, some up, some down, it’s going to be completely random. It just depends on what the fish feels like doing at that particular moment.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You can defend the actions of a murderer all you want. I'm sure a knee parked on his neck did not abate his inability to breathe. When someone can't breath you check there airway, you don't out your knee down on their neck.

With 3 other officers backing home up, don't tell me he was afraid for his life with an incapacitated man under dude's knee. You only see what you want to see, a big bad black man getting rightly put in his place. It wasn't his place to be murdered.

Again what was Chauvin’s motivation for killing Floyd? Was it because he resisted? Chauvin never experienced this before in his 19 years of service to the police force? He only killed one person in the line of duty before and it was justified. Was it because Floyd was black? Chauvin never arrested a black man before in his 19 years on the force? Your saying that Chauvin had his knee on Floyd intending to kill him as he looked right at someone taking video with their cell phone? That’s completely ridiculous. It doesn’t add up. Chauvin didn’t care about being videoed because he didn’t expect Floyd to die. He expected this to be just another routine arrest where he forced another person to comply and get in the vehicle. Believe it or not the police do have the authority to inflict pain on someone who is resisting arrest in order to force them to comply. That’s what Chaivin was doing.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You are getting closer! You are 100% correct in a point here. All you can say about the two distributions is that they are different. You can even do a "one-tailed test" and see that one is LOWER than the other.

BUT, as you note, you cannot say WHY that difference exists based solely on that data. BUT you CAN say that (in our example) median black income is LOWER than median white income. This is a signal that there is a RACIAL COMPONENT that explains differences in income. It may not be the ONLY component but it is within your measurement.

So your original point about expecting things to be all random is shown to NOT BE ACCURATE. You have "Rejected the Null Hypothesis".

We have, indeed, established a racial basis which explains differences in income. But why does that racial difference exist? That's not answered in this analysis. But we've established a systemic racial disparity.

So, again, I ask, what is the reason for this disparity which is based largely on race? You have a statistically signfiicant SIGNAL...what do you do with it? And why would it break out along lines of skin color alone?

How does this imply that the cause is racism? What if we took a statistic on which race had the most spinners installed on their vehicles? If Asians or whites had a lower number than blacks could we conclude that it is the result of racism? Of course not we would conclude it is the result of preference or desire. Just because the numbers favor one race above another doesn’t indicate racial prejudice or discrimination.

 

[rjs330]

You are getting closer! You are 100% correct in a point here. All you can say about the two distributions is that they are different. You can even do a "one-tailed test" and see that one is LOWER than the other.

BUT, as you note, you cannot say WHY that difference exists based solely on that data. BUT you CAN say that (in our example) median black income is LOWER than median white income. This is a signal that there is a RACIAL COMPONENT that explains differences in income. It may not be the ONLY component but it is within your measurement.

So your original point about expecting things to be all random is shown to NOT BE ACCURATE. You have "Rejected the Null Hypothesis".

We have, indeed, established a racial basis which explains differences in income. But why does that racial difference exist? That's not answered in this analysis. But we've established a systemic racial disparity.

So, again, I ask, what is the reason for this disparity which is based largely on race? You have a statistically signfiicant SIGNAL...what do you do with it? And why would it break out along lines of skin color alone?

I believe you have claimed systemic racism. A racial basis for difference in income does not show that there is systemic racism. As it's been pointed out, Asians actually do better. There is something else at play besides skin color these days. There is a racial component. But a racial component does not extrapolate into systemic racism.

 

[istodolez]

That was not my original point. My original point was that the outcome was the product of each individual’s decision. Here let’s review my original post.

That doesn't matter. The point is

We need to establish IF income is randomly distributed among all members of society

IF IT IS NOT then what explains the differences? If we look at a population of black and white people there is no reason to assume there will be a difference in the MEAN INCOME. Nonewhatsoever.

And, indeed we DO SEE DIFFERENCES IN INCOME THAT CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE COLOR OF THE SKIN OF THE MEMBERS OF THE TWO DISTRIBUTIONS.

That is how science starts. We look to see if there is a REAL PROBLEM (testing against the null hypothesis) and once that happens you have to explain why there is a SYSTEMIC DIFFERENCE which, in our example, is based SOLELY ON THE COLOR OF SKIN.

(Is any of this making any sense? I'm not asking to be snarky or nasty, not everyone has experience with science, statistics or math in general. Do you have any experience with what these statistics terms mean? It will help to craft the conversation better if I know your general level of understanding of these topics)

 

[BNR32FAN]

I believe you have claimed systemic racism. A racial basis for difference in income does not show that there is systemic racism. As it's been pointed out, Asians actually do better. There is something else at play besides skin color these days. There is a racial component. But a racial component does not extrapolate into systemic racism.

Thank you

 

[BNR32FAN]

That doesn't matter. The point is

We need to establish IF income is randomly distributed among all members of society

IF IT IS NOT then what explains the differences? If we look at a population of black and white people there is no reason to assume there will be a difference in the MEAN INCOME. Nonewhatsoever.

And, indeed we DO SEE DIFFERENCES IN INCOME THAT CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE COLOR OF THE SKIN OF THE MEMBERS OF THE TWO DISTRIBUTIONS.

That is how science starts. We look to see if there is a REAL PROBLEM (testing against the null hypothesis) and once that happens you have to explain why there is a SYSTEMIC DIFFERENCE which, in our example, is based SOLELY ON THE COLOR OF SKIN.

(Is any of this making any sense? I'm not asking to be snarky or nasty, not everyone has experience with science, statistics or math in general. Do you have any experience with what these statistics terms mean? It will help to craft the conversation better if I know your general level of understanding of these topics)

I already explained it by showing statistics on college graduates and unemployment. Case solved.

 

[DaisyDay]

How many decades ago was that?

Do you think there is no ripple effect through the generations? When the grandparents are deprived of wealth and education, they don't have that to pass along - and this isn't one family but an entire community.

 

[DaisyDay]

It still renders the outcome to be completely random and only based on which direction each individual fish felt like swimming at that particular time.

 

[istodolez]

How does this imply that the cause is racism?

It implies a difference that is explained by race. That's all. It simply says that, of the variables we have access to; race accounts for the majority of the difference between the distributions.

By definition, that means "race is the explanatory variable". How that manifests is a different question.

What if we took a statistic on which race had the most spinners installed on their vehicles? If Asians or whites had a lower number than blacks could we conclude that it is the result of racism?

You could, then, conclude there is a difference explained by race.

Of course not we would conclude it is the result of preference or desire.

But if, on average, black populations have a preference for spinners at a higher rate than white or asian populations then indeed it appears to be a racial distinction. You can, of course, dig in and figure out if it is more likely something deeper (is it a COMMUNITY preference?). But right now we KNOW that we can explain income differences solely based on skin color.

The point here is simply to establish if there is SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO LOOK INTO. Which, clearly, there IS. What is that? Well that's where we do have to look deeper.

So, again, what accounts for the systemic difference between incomes for black and white Americans?

When you figure out that the problem EXISTS then you can start to ask the MEANINGFUL QUESTIONS.

What's your guess? We have already established that there IS a difference, now what do you think is that difference?

 

[istodolez]

I already explained it by showing statistics on college graduates and unemployment. Case solved.

OK, so graduation rates are your preferred explanatory variable. But, why is there a difference in college graduation rates for blacks vs whites?

(I hope you are seeing the deeper point here...but I'm game)

 

[istodolez]

I believe you have claimed systemic racism. A racial basis for difference in income does not show that there is systemic racism. As it's been pointed out, Asians actually do better. There is something else at play besides skin color these days. There is a racial component. But a racial component does not extrapolate into systemic racism.

As I noted earlier we do not know ALL of the variables (you never do in any given statistical model). AND the fact that we can explain differences (positive or negative) based solely on "race" means there IS a systemic racial difference.

But there are other variables. (Here's some nice summary of what some of those may be). So there may very well be a cultural difference or difference based on some other aspect.

But that brings us back to the IMPORTANT question in this thread: what is it about the black community that results in a statistically lower median income than whites?

(Remember, all I set out to do in this portion of the thread is show that there IS a difference and what it's primary explanatory variable is as of the state of our knowledge).

 

[BNR32FAN]

Do you think there is no ripple effect through the generations? When the grandparents are deprived of wealth and education, they don't have that to pass along - and this isn't one family but an entire community.

Education is mandatory by the state. So that’s completely irrelevant. Just because my grandparents didn’t get a good education has nothing to do with me today. Wealth is a problem majority of America has regardless of race. We can’t change the past, all we can do is work towards a better future. What do you propose to solve the problem that hasn't already been done?