RSS
From MappingPoliceViolence.US:
You can tell when your model of the world is pretty good when it can account for obscure details. For example, if you believe that the reason cops shoot blacks more than whites is because of Trumpist White Supremacism, than city with the highest ratio of black to white shooting probably shouldn’t be Boston, where Biden won over 80%.
Similarly, if the the curse of slavery and Jim Crow is the cause, then South Carolina’s ratio shouldn’t be the second most equal.
In very blue Massachusetts, blacks are shot 5.7 times as often by police as whites. In very red South Carolina, blacks are shot only 1.5 times as often. Why?
Well, obviously, because South Carolina whites are ornerier than Massachusetts’ whites.
Also, because about a third of a century ago Massachusetts, which had been pretty corrupt and inefficient, got a lot better at governing, both in policing (e.g., Bill Bratton became Boston Police Chief in 1993) and educating, judging by NAEP scores. It could be that when you get a better quality police force, you don’t shoot white guys as much.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Whites of course may legitimately be wondering why they commit 1/8 to 1/10 the violent crime per capita, yet in some places are being shot at 2/3 the black rate.
But just try introducing your wokish friends and family to the implications of facts like those. Prepare to have them become ex-friends and ex-family, because they've been instructed a million times not to engage with anything that might disrupt the Narrative.Anyway: They weren't reasoned in, and they can't be reasoned out.Replies: @Technite78, @Cato
Once one excludes places where the ratio rests on merely one or two cases, these charts are reminiscent of Steve's charts of the racial gaps in academic achievement by state: the bluer the state, the bigger the race gap. Deep blue Illinois, New York and New England kill a lot blacks compared to whites, while red South Carolina and Alabama are relatively equitable in who they kill.
It has been alleged, perhaps even by me, that one reason that (Southern) red states are red is because the high black populations mean that voters in those states are perfectly well aware of the reality of race differences no matter how the media try to hide them, while their blue (Northern) compatriots are able to live in a race-denialist bubbles. It is paradoxical, therefore, that the gaps in crime, academic achievement, etc. are so much larger in those blue jurisdictions yet the blue voters still manage not to notice.
Maybe blacks are sufficiently rare (e.g., in Massachusetts) that blue voters don't have to avert their gaze much? But then in blue Illinois, the bluest part (the big city) is also where the most blacks are, while the rural red part has the fewest. Ditto New York. So maybe the Noticing→Red-Pilling→Red-Voting model is incomplete or insufficient.Replies: @Twinkie
Or maybe it's just suicide by cop.
The logic works for both white and black cops. I know cops who have acknowledged as much.
Since there are only 200 or 300 police killings total per year in the United States, how the heck can you get any sort of meaningful data by dividing that up into 50 states or 100 cities? The annual rankings must swing wildly since there is a degree of randomness in whether you have one white and one black or two whites and one black or one white and three blacks.
And of course they’re ignoring Roland Fryer’s findings that when you control for violent resistance to arrest, there’s no difference between blacks and whites. Blacks have the tendency to fight, resist being handcuffed, and run, so they’re more likely to be shot. The few whites (usually on drugs) who fight. resist being handcuffed, and run are also more likely than average to be shot.
Something that is not obvious from the charts is that the results are by racial prevalence. For example, the chart says that supposed top offendering Utah police kill blacks at 10Ă— "the rate" for whites. But a glance at their database shows that Utah police killed 12 blacks and 80 whites over the period, which looks like about 7Ă— killing of whites rather than blacks. So they are saying that there are 70Ă— more whites than blacks in Utah to get back to the 10Ă— ratio, which is approximately true but not necessarily clear from the chart. Of course this assumes that every race is equally law abiding, which we know isn't true.
But in general yes, some of these results rest on very few cases. The red columns for five states, Idaho, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, and Vermont rest on a single black death. Hawaii's and Wyoming's columns rest on two black deaths each.
Yes. Not just in some places, but in many places.
But just try introducing your wokish friends and family to the implications of facts like those. Prepare to have them become ex-friends and ex-family, because they’ve been instructed a million times not to engage with anything that might disrupt the Narrative.
Anyway: They weren’t reasoned in, and they can’t be reasoned out.
And of course they’re ignoring Roland Fryer’s findings that when you control for violent resistance to arrest, there’s no difference between blacks and whites. Blacks have the tendency to fight, resist being handcuffed, and run, so they’re more likely to be shot. The few whites (usually on drugs) who fight. resist being handcuffed, and run are also more likely than average to be shot.Replies: @Renard, @Simon in London, @Almost Missouri
Many if not most blacks really have no conception of legitimate authority, and media propaganda does everything possible to reinforce this. As far as they’re concerned, fighting cops is the same as fighting anyone else, maybe even more legit since ACAB.
If they should lose their lives in the process? They become sacred martyrs, and their families win the lottery. Win-win!
And of course they’re ignoring Roland Fryer’s findings that when you control for violent resistance to arrest, there’s no difference between blacks and whites. Blacks have the tendency to fight, resist being handcuffed, and run, so they’re more likely to be shot. The few whites (usually on drugs) who fight. resist being handcuffed, and run are also more likely than average to be shot.Replies: @Renard, @Simon in London, @Almost Missouri
There seem to be a lot more than 200-300 police killings per year; many jurisdictions simply don’t report.
And of course they’re ignoring Roland Fryer’s findings that when you control for violent resistance to arrest, there’s no difference between blacks and whites. Blacks have the tendency to fight, resist being handcuffed, and run, so they’re more likely to be shot. The few whites (usually on drugs) who fight. resist being handcuffed, and run are also more likely than average to be shot.Replies: @Renard, @Simon in London, @Almost Missouri
Their answer would probably be that since the data are from a ten year period, they have enough data, though obviously they still had zero data for South Dakota and New Hampshire. Other states’ ratios come from very few cases, e.g. Utah, Wyoming, Vermont. One also suspects that there are cases tendentiously included in the category of police “killing” a victim, e.g., George Floyd.
Something that is not obvious from the charts is that the results are by racial prevalence. For example, the chart says that supposed top offendering Utah police kill blacks at 10Ă— “the rate” for whites. But a glance at their database shows that Utah police killed 12 blacks and 80 whites over the period, which looks like about 7Ă— killing of whites rather than blacks. So they are saying that there are 70Ă— more whites than blacks in Utah to get back to the 10Ă— ratio, which is approximately true but not necessarily clear from the chart. Of course this assumes that every race is equally law abiding, which we know isn’t true.
But in general yes, some of these results rest on very few cases. The red columns for five states, Idaho, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, and Vermont rest on a single black death. Hawaii’s and Wyoming’s columns rest on two black deaths each.
Homicide is the one thing that gets almost 100 percent reported: bodies have to be dealt with, and families notice disappearances. And there are several independent sources that monitor local media, such as the Washinton Post database. The Wikipedia article on police shootings has a good roundup on data sources.
Quite.
Once one excludes places where the ratio rests on merely one or two cases, these charts are reminiscent of Steve’s charts of the racial gaps in academic achievement by state: the bluer the state, the bigger the race gap. Deep blue Illinois, New York and New England kill a lot blacks compared to whites, while red South Carolina and Alabama are relatively equitable in who they kill.
It has been alleged, perhaps even by me, that one reason that (Southern) red states are red is because the high black populations mean that voters in those states are perfectly well aware of the reality of race differences no matter how the media try to hide them, while their blue (Northern) compatriots are able to live in a race-denialist bubbles. It is paradoxical, therefore, that the gaps in crime, academic achievement, etc. are so much larger in those blue jurisdictions yet the blue voters still manage not to notice.
Maybe blacks are sufficiently rare (e.g., in Massachusetts) that blue voters don’t have to avert their gaze much? But then in blue Illinois, the bluest part (the big city) is also where the most blacks are, while the rural red part has the fewest. Ditto New York. So maybe the Noticing→Red-Pilling→Red-Voting model is incomplete or insufficient.
Those woke graphs compare [w]white oppression to [B]Black victimhood.
Very recently some anti-White media have started capitalizing “White” — presumably it was feared that too many Whites were noticing.
More late breaking news on the wokester front:
Yesterday I heard an Antifa being interviewed on woke radio. He referred favorably to “the Left” and quickly corrected himself — “the Center Left.” Curiously, I saw that again elsewhere.
BLM/Antifa is the new “Center Left”!
🙂
Or maybe when you get a better quality of white person, they don’t need shootin’ so often by the police.
While MappingPoliceViolence.US does include reports from police departments, they also use every other source they can get. Per their methodology page:
MappingPoliceViolence.US is not the only project doing this kind of thing. Like MPV.US, though, all of these projects I’ve seen tend to top out at about a thousand police killings per year, so I think it is not unreasonable to conclude that they are getting about everything they can. As I mentioned last time this subject came up:
In other words, the databases of “police killings” are arguably over-complete: including a lot of cases that most people would not count as “police killings”.
Some other nuggets from MappingPoliceViolence.US:
https://public.tableau.com/views/PoliceViolenceperPD/TrendsbyGeographyMethod?:language=en-US&:embed=y&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=0&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link
Is this a byproduct of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing where dysfunctional urban blacks are sent to unsuspecting rural whitevilles? Or do urban police fear getting Chauvin-ed, so they don’t bother intervening in urban black crime anymore? Or are hillbillies suddenly more ornery now? A mix?
In a weird coincidence, according to MPV’s own statistics, violent crime has decreased in Atlanta by 76%, while violent crime in Chicago has increased by 4% over a similar period. And note that Atlanta’s police force has shrunk much further compared to the population than Chicago’s has. So going by MPV’s stats, having fewer but much more aggressive police really reduces violent crime. I’m not advocating this; I’m just reading their data.
But I'd trust MPV a lot more if they didn't capitalize Black but leave "white" in lower case.
The reason for equality in police killings down South is that a lot of scummy whites move to where it’s warmer.
Is this a byproduct of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing where dysfunctional urban blacks are sent to unsuspecting rural whitevilles? Or do urban police fear getting Chauvin-ed, so they don't bother intervening in urban black crime anymore? Or are hillbillies suddenly more ornery now? A mix?In a weird coincidence, according to MPV's own statistics, violent crime has decreased in Atlanta by 76%, while violent crime in Chicago has increased by 4% over a similar period. And note that Atlanta's police force has shrunk much further compared to the population than Chicago's has. So going by MPV's stats, having fewer but much more aggressive police really reduces violent crime. I'm not advocating this; I'm just reading their data.Replies: @Patrick in SC
Good stuff.
But I’d trust MPV a lot more if they didn’t capitalize Black but leave “white” in lower case.
Once one excludes places where the ratio rests on merely one or two cases, these charts are reminiscent of Steve's charts of the racial gaps in academic achievement by state: the bluer the state, the bigger the race gap. Deep blue Illinois, New York and New England kill a lot blacks compared to whites, while red South Carolina and Alabama are relatively equitable in who they kill.
It has been alleged, perhaps even by me, that one reason that (Southern) red states are red is because the high black populations mean that voters in those states are perfectly well aware of the reality of race differences no matter how the media try to hide them, while their blue (Northern) compatriots are able to live in a race-denialist bubbles. It is paradoxical, therefore, that the gaps in crime, academic achievement, etc. are so much larger in those blue jurisdictions yet the blue voters still manage not to notice.
Maybe blacks are sufficiently rare (e.g., in Massachusetts) that blue voters don't have to avert their gaze much? But then in blue Illinois, the bluest part (the big city) is also where the most blacks are, while the rural red part has the fewest. Ditto New York. So maybe the Noticing→Red-Pilling→Red-Voting model is incomplete or insufficient.Replies: @Twinkie
What about factoring in the level of residential segregation rather than just the fraction of blacks?
But just try introducing your wokish friends and family to the implications of facts like those. Prepare to have them become ex-friends and ex-family, because they've been instructed a million times not to engage with anything that might disrupt the Narrative.Anyway: They weren't reasoned in, and they can't be reasoned out.Replies: @Technite78, @Cato
Even when the stats quoted are directly from the FBI UCR program, they’ll sputter and try to change the subject. Some of them may even forgive you for bringing up such distasteful information, and assure you that they “don’t think you’re a racist”.
Perhaps there is truth to the age-old assumption that whites commit more crime than blacks, but are less likely to be convicted due to structural inequalities in the justice system. It would also explain why America’s murder rwte has decreased as whites became a smaller, and older share of the population.
Or maybe it’s just suicide by cop.
The boy who was murdered in this video was crying for his mom as the police repeatedly stomped on his skull.
Please grow a heart, you sick Christian MFer.
“Police kill black people at higher rates than white people”
That is a completely meaningless statistic.
“The NBA drafts black men at higher rates then white men”
Another example of meaningless statistics.
Is the Black Lives Matter outfit calling for frying the black cops (“pigs in a blanket”) in Memphis like bacon?
lll
That might not improve the data. By which i mean, the addtional info might be confounding. By which i mean, it might not support the conclusions the researchers want to draw. By which i mean, it might not result in citations, interviews, tenure, promotions, etc.
Similarly, this quote from Missouri’s post above:
…might just possibly arouse suspicion.
If you don’t want tenure, I mean.
What the hell is wrong with Wichita and Mesa? Or South Dakota and New Hampshire?
Look, I’m not expecting these places to live up to the high standards of Utah or the Boston Police Department. But c’mon, you can’t even kill blacks–who commit violent crime at ratios of 5-50X about the white rates–at above their population ratio?
That’s just embarrassing.
I’ve seen a similar finding (exaggerated black:white incarceration ratios in bluer states) explained another way: the higher tolerance of criminality in bluer states means that people who actually do get imprisoned must have exceeded a high threshold of criminality, and, because of their different population means, the black:white ratio at those exalted levels is very high. In contrast, the redder states are just generally less tolerant and will incarcerate people at lower levels of criminality, which evens out the ratio.
It seems like the same analysis would carry over pretty well from incarcerations to police interactions.
Sailer misses perhaps the most obvious answer: the reason that cops in SC shoot almost as many whites as they shoot blacks is that being in the South means that they are even more under scrutiny by anti-racists than are cops from elsewhere. So they many times avoid shooting blacks that need to be shot, while making up for that by shooing as many whites as they feel even halfway justified in shooting.
The logic works for both white and black cops. I know cops who have acknowledged as much.
Is that because the Yiddish have been moving there for decades?
But just try introducing your wokish friends and family to the implications of facts like those. Prepare to have them become ex-friends and ex-family, because they've been instructed a million times not to engage with anything that might disrupt the Narrative.Anyway: They weren't reasoned in, and they can't be reasoned out.Replies: @Technite78, @Cato
Yes! How does one acquire one’s beliefs and one’s values? Hume would say not by reason. So how does one successfully persuade a friend to change their beliefs or values? The answer is not at all clear, but it is clear that reasoning with the friend is seldom successful.
Settle down. It was a mostly peaceful stomping
Crispus Attucks was unavailable for comment.
How touching. Why do they never call out for their dads? You’re allowed three guesses.
Structural ratioism at work.