flyangler

Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war w Eastasia

Rate this topic

10 posts in this topic

Posted (edited) · Report post

Heather MacDonald is one of the nations type writers on policing, criminal violence and gun control. She’s bright, articulate and uses data, not emotions, to make her arguments. 
 

So what happened when she used an academic study whose authors found “no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers"? 

 

Of you can believe it, this peer-reviewed quantitative study and its finding have come under such attack by the woke mob that the authors have asked thst the paper be retracted from the public domain. Apparently, it has been citied numerous times, by MacDonald and others, as arguing thst there is no "epidemic of blacks being shot by police" and that white LEOs are not more likely to shoot a non-white suspect than are non-white LEOs.

 

Get that? The data does not comply with the narrative so the authors are being coerced to remove the data because the facts are inconvenient. Evidence that disprove systemic police racism will not be tolerated. 
 

But what does this tell us about the pursuit of knowledge when the woke mob can silence reality? 
 

“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with EastasiaOceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”

 

Except when Oceania was previously always at war with Eurasia. The past is alterable by those who control the present. 


"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."

 

"1984" was not supposed to be an instructional manual. 

 

HEATHER MAC DONALD in the WSJ:

 

I Cited Their Study, So They Disavowed It: If scientists retract research that challenges reigning orthodoxies, politics will drive scholarship.

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is a peer-reviewed journal that claims to publish “only the highest quality scientific research.” Now, the authors of a 2019 PNAS article are disowning their research simply because I cited it.

 

Psychologists Joseph Cesario of Michigan State and David Johnson of the University of Maryland analyzed 917 fatal police shootings of civilians from 2015 to test whether the race of the officer or the civilian predicted fatal police shootings. Neither did. Once “race specific rates of violent crime” are taken into account, the authors found, there are no disparities among those fatally shot by the police. These findings accord with decades of research showing that civilian behavior is the greatest influence on police behavior.

 

In September 2019, I cited the article’s finding in congressional testimony. I also referred to it in a City Journal article, in which I noted that two Princeton political scientists, Dean Knox and Jonathan Mummolo, had challenged the study design. Messrs. Cesario and Johnson stood by their findings. Even under the study design proposed by Messrs. Knox and Mummolo, they wrote, there is again “no significant evidence of anti-black disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by the police.”

 

My June 3 Journal op-ed quoted the PNAS article’s conclusion verbatim. It set off a firestorm at Michigan State. The university’s Graduate Employees Union pressured the MSU press office to apologize for the “harm it caused” by mentioning my article in a newsletter. The union targeted physicist Steve Hsu, who had approved funding for Mr. Cesario’s research. MSU sacked Mr. Hsu from his administrative position. PNAS editorialized that Messrs. Cesario and Johnson had “poorly framed” their article—the one that got through the journal’s three levels of editorial and peer review.

 

Mr. Cesario told this page that Mr. Hsu’s dismissal could narrow the “kinds of topics people can talk about, or what kinds of conclusions people can come to.” Now he and Mr. Johnson have themselves jeopardized the possibility of politically neutral scholarship. On Monday they retracted their paper. They say they stand behind its conclusion and statistical approach but complain about its “misuse,” specifically mentioning my op-eds.

 

The authors don’t say how I misused their work. Instead, they attribute to me a position I have never taken: that the “probability of being shot by police did not differ between Black and White Americans.” To the contrary, I have, like them, stressed that racial disparities in policing reflect differences in violent crime rates. The only thing wrong with their article, and my citation of it, is that its conclusion is unacceptable in our current political climate.

This retraction bodes ill for the development of knowledge. 

 

 

Edited by tomkaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back during the credit crisis, a senior executive of my firm, discussing how we got to that point, said:

 

"You measure for what you want, and you get more of what you measure."

 

In the mid-2000s, no one was measuring for the embedded risks in subprime, they were only measuring mortgage activity and the successes of securitization. They got lots of mortgages and lots of innovation in securitization, without measuring the inherent risks. 
 

This episode will dissuade any future research into hypotheses whose results might anger the woke mob. The data reflecting reality will be suppressed if it does not support the prevailing woke narrative. 
 

And people wonder why there is reticence about funding gun violence research by the NIH, CDC, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I Cited Their Study, So They Disavowed It: If scientists retract research that challenges reigning orthodoxies, politics will drive scholarship.

This is not new, the reigning orthodoxies of the Climate Change putsch conspired to silence any and every dissent as heresy. Denier anyone?

 

The parallels with the dark ages of the Inquisition are astounding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 mins ago, zybathegeek said:

This is not new, the reigning orthodoxies of the Climate Change putsch conspired to silence any and every dissent as heresy. Denier anyone?

 

The parallels with the dark ages of the Inquisition are astounding.

But reality eventually catches up with the bullchit, then what? The voices get louder and more shrill, the projections more ominous and the literal and virtual shouts of "Heretic!" get louder and more violent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, tomkaz said:

But reality eventually catches up with the bullchit, then what? The voices get louder and more shrill, the projections more ominous and the literal and virtual shouts of "Heretic!" get louder and more violent. 

Abreaction, catharsis, then the pendulum swings back.

 

Welcome to human history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 mins ago, zybathegeek said:

Abreaction, catharsis, then the pendulum swings back.

 

Welcome to human history.

In your and my lifetimes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tomkaz said:

Heather MacDonald is one of the nations type writers on policing, criminal violence and gun control. She’s bright, articulate and uses data, not emotions, to make her arguments. 
 

So what happened when she used an academic study whose authors found “no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers"? 

 

Of you can believe it, this peer-reviewed quantitative study and its finding have come under such attack by the woke mob that the authors have asked thst the paper be retracted from the public domain. Apparently, it has been citied numerous times, by MacDonald and others, as arguing thst there is no "epidemic of blacks being shot by police" and that white LEOs are not more likely to shoot a non-white suspect than are non-white LEOs.

 

Get that? The data does not comply with the narrative so the authors are being coerced to remove the data because the facts are inconvenient. Evidence that disprove systemic police racism will not be tolerated. 
 

But what does this tell us about the pursuit of knowledge when the woke mob can silence reality? 
 

“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with EastasiaOceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”

 

Except when Oceania was previously always at war with Eurasia. The past is alterable by those who control the present. 


"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."

 

"1984" was not supposed to be an instructional manual. 

 

HEATHER MAC DONALD in the WSJ:

 

I Cited Their Study, So They Disavowed It: If scientists retract research that challenges reigning orthodoxies, politics will drive scholarship.

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is a peer-reviewed journal that claims to publish “only the highest quality scientific research.” Now, the authors of a 2019 PNAS article are disowning their research simply because I cited it.

 

Psychologists Joseph Cesario of Michigan State and David Johnson of the University of Maryland analyzed 917 fatal police shootings of civilians from 2015 to test whether the race of the officer or the civilian predicted fatal police shootings. Neither did. Once “race specific rates of violent crime” are taken into account, the authors found, there are no disparities among those fatally shot by the police. These findings accord with decades of research showing that civilian behavior is the greatest influence on police behavior.

 

In September 2019, I cited the article’s finding in congressional testimony. I also referred to it in a City Journal article, in which I noted that two Princeton political scientists, Dean Knox and Jonathan Mummolo, had challenged the study design. Messrs. Cesario and Johnson stood by their findings. Even under the study design proposed by Messrs. Knox and Mummolo, they wrote, there is again “no significant evidence of anti-black disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by the police.”

 

My June 3 Journal op-ed quoted the PNAS article’s conclusion verbatim. It set off a firestorm at Michigan State. The university’s Graduate Employees Union pressured the MSU press office to apologize for the “harm it caused” by mentioning my article in a newsletter. The union targeted physicist Steve Hsu, who had approved funding for Mr. Cesario’s research. MSU sacked Mr. Hsu from his administrative position. PNAS editorialized that Messrs. Cesario and Johnson had “poorly framed” their article—the one that got through the journal’s three levels of editorial and peer review.

 

Mr. Cesario told this page that Mr. Hsu’s dismissal could narrow the “kinds of topics people can talk about, or what kinds of conclusions people can come to.” Now he and Mr. Johnson have themselves jeopardized the possibility of politically neutral scholarship. On Monday they retracted their paper. They say they stand behind its conclusion and statistical approach but complain about its “misuse,” specifically mentioning my op-eds.

 

The authors don’t say how I misused their work. Instead, they attribute to me a position I have never taken: that the “probability of being shot by police did not differ between Black and White Americans.” To the contrary, I have, like them, stressed that racial disparities in policing reflect differences in violent crime rates. The only thing wrong with their article, and my citation of it, is that its conclusion is unacceptable in our current political climate.

This retraction bodes ill for the development of knowledge. 

 

 

I expect the next d administration to stop FBI crime statistics being reported by race, ethnicity, sex, or whatever.

Maybe just stop reporting crime stats at all.  Especially since we won't have police to make the arrests in the first place.

BTW, maybe some good investments coming up as private security and alarm businesses flourish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tomkaz said:

Back during the credit crisis, a senior executive of my firm, discussing how we got to that point, said:

 

"You measure for what you want, and you get more of what you measure."

This goes far deeper than the extreme examples of the woke mob. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Steve_in_PA said:

I expect the next d administration to stop FBI crime statistics being reported by race, ethnicity, sex, or whatever.

Maybe just stop reporting crime stats at all.  Especially since we won't have police to make the arrests in the first place.

BTW, maybe some good investments coming up as private security and alarm businesses flourish?

Firearms and ammo manufacturers would be good investments too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.