Something doesn't feel right about BLM

[BNR32FAN]

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)

It’s a little thing we here in America like to call FREEDOM.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.



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



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?

Ik so if the statistic was separated not by race but by hight then there should be no difference in the amount of tall people who graduated college as opposed to short people? Or what if it was separate by weight. Would you expect those numbers to be the same for thin people as opposed to fat people?

 

[Redwingfan9]

Please be respectful in this thread regardless of the opinions of others! Thank you!

I don't know about you, but for me, something about the Black Lives Matter movement just seems a little... off to me. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about it doesn't seem right, and it's deeply unsettling to me that everyone has jumped on the bandwagon to declare that they stand with BLM.

Now, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with believing that "black lives matter" because, in actuality, they DO matter! Everyone's life matters, and I think that it's okay that we're focusing on black lives mattering too right now... BUT, at the same time, I think there's something very wrong going on when there are "white" people apologizing for being white, police officers being targeted with awful slogans that say that they're ALL terrible people, and people are using the name of BLM to violently riot in the streets.

But I think one of the things that unsettles me the most is the fact that just about every single company and celebrity, even overseas, have said that they are standing with BLM. Something about that tips me off as very blatant "virtue-signaling" and like they're using this to profit off of us. Maybe this last point has more to do with the companies and not the BLM movement itself, but it still makes me thing something really "not right" is going on here. In other words, I'm highly skeptical of everyone and everything right now.

Is it just me? Am I crazy in thinking that something might not be so right about the BLM movement?? Someone please let me know.

BLM is a neo-Marxist movement, which is perhaps why you find it unsettling. It uses intimidation to get people to submit to their radical agenda.

 

[istodolez]

It’s a little thing we here in America like to call FREEDOM.

I know this is tough, especially if you've never analyzed data, but bear with me: how on earth could "freedom" be the reason?

Do you honestly think that black college graduation rates are statistically lower due to "freedom"? Why didn't you just say "electrical switches!"...it would be as meaningful.

 

[istodolez]

Ik so if the statistic was separated not by race but by hight then there should be no difference in the amount of tall people who graduated college as opposed to short people? Or what if it was separate by weight. Would you expect those numbers to be the same for thin people as opposed to fat people?

This question doesn't really make any sense as written. If there was a difference based on HEIGHT in graduation rates I would expect to see that difference in the data. If there was a difference due to WEIGHT I would expect to see that difference.

Is there such a difference?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I know this is tough, especially if you've never analyzed data, but bear with me: how on earth could "freedom" be the reason?

Do you honestly think that black college graduation rates are statistically lower due to "freedom"? Why didn't you just say "electrical switches!"...it would be as meaningful.

Because it would be ridiculous to expect that the same percentage of each race would make the same choices in life.

 

[istodolez]

BIt uses intimidation to get people to submit to their radical agenda.

So do you think all people who are oppressed and rise up against their oppression are using intimidation to get people to submit to their radical agenda? Did the Revolutionaries in the 18th century here in the US "intimidate" the British into submitting to their radical agenda of not being controlled by the British? Were the slaves in Haiti who lead the most successful slave uprising in history intimidating their masters?

The thing all your sneering and fault-finding about BLM does is simply prove that you wish to align yourself with every single group who FAILED TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE. In every case like that the people who felt they had nothing to lose made it very, very bad for the people who wanted to maintain the status quo.

You are free to label BLM whatever you want! No matter how fantastical or fanatical you have to become to generate a new label...that won't change the course of anything. You will see that, in the fullness of time, you will have to listen to what they say one way or another. I suggest listening NOW before they become TOO disaffected.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This question doesn't really make any sense as written. If there was a difference based on HEIGHT in graduation rates I would expect to see that difference in the data. If there was a difference due to WEIGHT I would expect to see that difference.

Is there such a difference?

The point is would you assume that the same percentage of tall people graduate college as short people? Or would you assume that the same percentage of thin people graduate college as fat people? No the numbers are most likely going to be different. That’s why I can’t imagine why you would expect the same percentage of blacks to attend college as whites when none of the race groups have the same percentage. So if blacks have a lower college graduation percentage than whites then that means blacks are being discriminated against? So then by that rationale since Asians have a higher graduation percentage than whites then whites are being discriminated against. Is that your logic?

 

[istodolez]

Because it would be ridiculous to expect that the same percentage of each race would make the same choices in life.

Here's your primary error: you are failing to see the large scale population. This is why we do statistics. In any given population there is a measure of the central tendency of that population. If I look at the population of the USA in general I can find that approximate 34% of ALL Americans go to college and finish a 4-year degree (SOURCE).

BUT if we look at how this number is spread across different races we see that black Americans (circa 2015) are only finishing a 4-year degree at about 25% of their population. (SOURCE)

The key point then is WHY? Why do black people on average across the ENTIRE United States statistically finish a bachelors degree at lower rates than white people? Why?

You say "each will make different decisions"...but that's why we do STATISTICS! Statistics allows us to look at large numbers of things without having to know the EXACT reason for each individual data point's behavior.

Let's use a simpler example: I will ask you to flip this coin I give you. Every time it winds up "heads" I pay you $5. Every time it winds up "tails" you pay me $5.

Now IT IS PERFECTLY POSSIBLE THAT YOU WILL FLIP 5 "tails" in a row. This is probability. And every single flip doesn't care about the flip before or the flip after. BUT if you flip the coin hundreds and hundreds of times it WILL come out that sooner or later you will see that 50% of the time it comes up heads and 50% of the time it comes up tails.

BUT, what if I gave you a "weighted coin". It is weighted such that the probability of flipping a "Tails" is 1/3 instead of 1/2? Well, you will pay me a lot more than I will pay you in the fullness of time.

So the way to tell if the coin is a "fair coin" or not is to repeatedly flip it until you establish a measure of central tendency. This is how you will see if the coin is fair or not.

You can't tell from one single flip.

 

[istodolez]

The point is would you assume that the same percentage of tall people graduate college as short people?

Yes I would! I would assume that there is no reason for more tall people to graduate than short people. So if I do the statistics and I find that there IS a difference then I have to ask why.

No the numbers are most likely going to be different.

That makes no sense. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason that I am aware of that would result in more thin people getting degrees than heavy people. Absolutely none.

I see you have never done inferential statistics. What about testing a drug for efficacy, as a simple example: in science we commonly start with the assumption "This chemical (drug) will have NO EFFECT on the thing we are treating". Then they run the experiments and check to see if that assumption (the "Null Hypothesis") is true or should be rejected.

They will run the drug vs a placebo. They will get a distribution of results from the drug trial. If the null hypothesis (there is no effect) is TRUE then they will see the exact same average response between the test and the placebo populations. MIND YOU: NOT EVERYONE IN THE TEST OF THE ACTUAL DRUG WILL HAVE THE DRUG WORK FOR THEM EVEN IF THEY GOT THE DRUG. (Not all people respond to a drug in the same way). By the same token some people experience a "placebo effect" in which they seem to improve in some way even though they didn't get the drug...this happens by random chance at times.

The key is do the two populations (drug and placebo) statistically significantly differ? If they do then we can assume that the "null hypothesis" that the drug has NO EFFECT should be REJECTED. We can no longer say "the drug has no effect".

This is an admittedly oversimplified example but hopefully it gets the point across.

 

[Aldebaran]

Sure you can blame the bad people for destroying these things, but you have to remember: they don't feel like they have any investment in that history we thought we all valued. And why should they? If you have black people who feel like there's nothing for them in this country (whether YOU agree with that or not) what do you expect will be of value to them among the things YOU value?

There's plenty for them in this country. It's only the people you listen to (democrats, mainstream media) who keep telling them they have nothing and can't do nothing unless they vote democrat, and then they're disappointed when a place that is run almost entirely by democrats (such as Minneapolis and Chicago) end up as they are.

But what do you expect me to do in response to someone who doesn't value what I value? Am I supposed to give them my hearty approval to go ahead and destroy public and private property just because they don't value it?

 

[Aldebaran]

Armed men aimed loaded weapons at US law enforcement in Nevada when Bundy's clan wanted to steal forage from public lands and they got to go home unharmed as well.

The Right's violent acts seem to be kinda "ok" meanwhile black men get killed on the street for counterfeit $20 and selling loose cigs.

Bundy was shot dead. What did he and his "clan" do but take over a wildlife refuge building? The BLM people have taken over a 6 block area of Seattle and have prevented police from doing their job while people are shooting and killing each other there. That's after all the businesses they've looted and burned down. Police usually stand back and watch as this happens in order to satisfy those who are offended when they do their job and actually protect life and property.

 

[Redwingfan9]

So do you think all people who are oppressed and rise up against their oppression are using intimidation to get people to submit to their radical agenda? Did the Revolutionaries in the 18th century here in the US "intimidate" the British into submitting to their radical agenda of not being controlled by the British? Were the slaves in Haiti who lead the most successful slave uprising in history intimidating their masters?

The thing all your sneering and fault-finding about BLM does is simply prove that you wish to align yourself with every single group who FAILED TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE. In every case like that the people who felt they had nothing to lose made it very, very bad for the people who wanted to maintain the status quo.

You are free to label BLM whatever you want! No matter how fantastical or fanatical you have to become to generate a new label...that won't change the course of anything. You will see that, in the fullness of time, you will have to listen to what they say one way or another. I suggest listening NOW before they become TOO disaffected.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[istodolez]

There's plenty for them in this country.

And I'm sure you just yelling that at them will convince them!

It's only the people you listen to (democrats, mainstream media)

Don't forget "black people" in that list as well.

But what do you expect me to do in response to someone who doesn't value what I value? Am I supposed to give them my hearty approval to go ahead and destroy public and private property just because they don't value it?

No. Not at all. What you are supposed to do is listen to what they are telling you. Because when you DON'T listen they are going to get their message through loud and clear in the end.

That's why I keep talking about the French Revolution.

Let me put it in terms you might also understand: Think about the Russian Revolution of 1917. The Russian people had been pushing back on the Tsar for YEARS. Neither you nor I probably think the rise of Russian style Communism was a GOOD thing as result of that, but that is what happens when people's needs are unmet for so long and their voices sytematically ignored. Once the fire is lit it is very hard to predict if it is going to work out well. You can be guaranteed, though, that it will NOT work out well for the status quo.

That's my point all along: if we don't address people's needs and we systematically ignore them (or throw them a few sops once in a while) we will find that disaffected people who feel they have nothing to lose (note I said "feel", so your arguments of what they do have don't really matter at that point), they will have little incentive to care about those things you and I value.

How about one more example: are you in a relationship? If your partner comes to you and says "Hey, I'm in pain here, I feel like you don't care about my feelings" is your response "Huh, you get PLENTY of care from me. So shut up." No, of course you don't. No one in their rational mind does that. But that's kind of where we are right now. One HUGE swath of our population is saying "Ya know, we feel like you are treating us like second class citizens and we've tried asking nicely with MLK and all we got were a few streets named after him."

The answer is not to simply tell them "Huh, you get PLENTY of care from us, so shut up!"

 

[istodolez]

Thank you for proving my point.

How so?

 

[istodolez]

Bundy was shot dead.

Ummm, no he wasn't. He is still very much alive. Even his son, the one who took over Malheur is still very much alive. The only Bundy-related person I know of who was shot dead was Robert Finicum after the LATER Malheur takeover (2 years after the Nevada standoff) and he was being arrested. Apparently he reached for a gun and police shot him.

So you might want to actually LEARN about the topic before you make declarations.

What did he and his "clan" do but take over a wildlife refuge building?

Point loaded guns at federal law enforcement. Oh, and stealing by grazing on public lands without permission.

The BLM people have taken over a 6 block area of Seattle and have prevented police from doing their job while people are shooting and killing each other there.

And they have been beaten, teargassed, permanently injured and shot.

The Cliven Bundy standoff in Nevada ended with a negotiation to de-escalate and, last I read (but have not been able to confirm) he still grazes on lands without paying his fees.

So, yeah, Cliven Bundy (still alive) and enjoying all that wonderful white privilege. While George Floyd died in the street over a counterfeit $20.

 

[Redwingfan9]

How so?

BLM is a radical Marxist outfit who places things in absolutist terms about race, basically doing exactly what you did in an intimidating online and in person way. There is no room for discussion with them, there is no room for nuance. It's all or they'll destroy you. This is typical of Marxiste and unfortunately society and the church have forgotten how to deal with Marxism.

 

[istodolez]

BLM is a radical Marxist outfit who places things in absolutist terms about race, basically doing exactly what you did in an intimidating online and in person way.

So anyone that disagrees with YOU is a "radical Marxist" who is "intimidating" you? You must have a tough time in just regular every day life.

There is no room for discussion with them

I'm discussing. Why do you think I wasted all that time talking about how statistical inference worked on this thread????

, there is no room for nuance. It's all or they'll destroy you.

You mean like taking a movement based around fighting against police brutality and decreeing it a "Radical Marxist Outfit"? And then clutching your pearls in fear over how they are going to destroy America?

This is typical of Marxiste and unfortunately society and the church have forgotten how to deal with Marxism.

How should the Church deal with Marxists? (he asks, hoping that the floodgates of bizzaro will pour forth real entertainment...)

 

[Aldebaran]

And I'm sure you just yelling that at them will convince them!

Would getting down on my knees before them do the trick?

No. Not at all. What you are supposed to do is listen to what they are telling you. Because when you DON'T listen they are going to get their message through loud and clear in the end.

Let me guess, "NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!"
Yeah, I hear what they're saying loud and clear.

The answer is not to simply tell them "Huh, you get PLENTY of care from us, so shut up!"

Those are the words you're trying to put in my mouth. They aren't the words I said.

 

[Aldebaran]

Point loaded guns at federal law enforcement. Oh, and stealing by grazing on public lands without permission.

Oh my! Killing someone because their animals grazed on public lands! Good reason to kill someone. It sure beats a black guy pounding your head into the concrete, or one grabbing your gun and trying to use it on you. Not to mention burning down thousands of businesses, including black-owned ones.