That is your dumb ass perception of society. It's not reality. One thing that is good about the majority of the "black" community is that they are more rational decent people then guys like you. The racist white trash segment of the US that can't re-educate themselves and drop these primitive destructive ideas. You don't even know you are being fucking stupid but you are. Stop being a destructive dumb ass railing on people because of their skin colour. I could talk forever about your segment of the population, how you drag down and divide the US with your fucked up racist ideas. You don't even know why it's wrong. People can't help how they look, what skin colour they have, where they come from. In fact, it can be a source of pride you can't understand at all. But you CAN work on your ignorance and become a better person. When you refuse to do so, and continually post this racist shit on here, I'm going to highlight how FUCKING STUPID AND IGNORANT YOU ARE.
Wall Street Journal What the data really says about US police A police officer takes a knee during a nine-minute moment of silence in honour of George Floyd. Picture: AFP I have led two starkly different lives — that of a Southern black boy who grew up without a mother and knows what it’s like to swallow the bitter pill of police brutality, and that of an economics nerd who believes in the power of data to inform effective policy. In 2015, after watching Walter Scott get gunned down, on video, by a North Charleston, South Carolina, police officer, I set out on a mission to quantify racial differences in police use of force. To my dismay, this work has been widely misrepresented and misused by people on both sides of the ideological aisle. It has been wrongly cited as evidence that there is no racism in policing, that football players have no right to kneel during the national anthem, and that the police should shoot black people more often. Here’s what my work does say: ● There are large racial differences in police use of nonlethal force. My research team analysed nearly five million police encounters from New York City. We found that when police reported the incidents, they were 53 per cent more likely to use physical force on a black civilian than a white one. In a separate, nationally representative dataset asking civilians about their experiences with police, we found the use of physical force on blacks to be 350 per cent as likely. This is true of every level of nonlethal force, from officers putting their hands on civilians to striking them with batons. We controlled for every variable available in myriad ways. That reduced the racial disparities by 66 per cent, but blacks were still significantly more likely to endure police force. A police officer provides cover during the search for a man who wounded a sheriff's deputy and killed a transient continues in Paso Robles, California Picture: AP ● Compliance by civilians doesn’t eliminate racial differences in police use of force. Black civilians who were recorded as compliant by police were 21 per cent more likely to suffer police aggression than compliant whites. We also found that the benefits of compliance differed significantly by race. This was perhaps our most upsetting result, for two reasons: The inequity despite compliance clashed with the notion that the difference in police treatment of blacks and whites was a rational response to danger. And it complicates what we tell our kids: Compliance does make you less likely to endure a beat-down — but the benefit is larger if you are white. People who invoke our work to argue that systemic police racism is a myth conveniently ignore these statistics. Racism may explain the findings, but the statistical evidence doesn’t prove it. As economists, we don’t get to label unexplained racial disparities “racism.” ● We didn’t find racial differences in officer-involved shootings. Our data come from localities in California, Colorado, Florida, Texas and Washington state and contain accounts of 1399 police shootings at civilians between 2000 and 2015. In addition, from Houston only in those same years, we had reports describing situations in which gunfire might have been justified by department guidelines but the cops didn’t shoot. This is a key piece of data that popular online databases don’t include. No matter how we analysed the data, we found no racial differences in shootings overall, in any city in particular, or in any subset of the data. I have grappled with these results for years as I witnessed videos of unmistakeable police brutality against black men. How can the data tell a story so different from what we see with our eyes? Our analysis tells us what happens on average. It isn’t average when a police officer casually kneels on someone’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. Are there racial differences in the most extreme forms of police violence? The Southern boy in me says yes; the economist says we don’t know. Several scholars have rightly pointed out that these data all begin with an interaction, and suggested that racist policing manifests itself in more interactions between blacks and the police. The impact of this hypothesis in our shootings data seems minimal. The results on police shootings are statistically the same across all call types — ranging from officer-initiated contact with a suspicious person (where racism in whom to police is likely paramount) to a 911 call of a homicide in progress (where interaction with the potential suspect is more likely independent of race). Police gather at the scene where two New York City police officers were shot in a confrontation on June 3. Picture: AFP Are the data nationally representative? We don’t know. But at least two other studies, both published in 2016 — by Phillip Atiba Goff et al. and Ted R. Miller et al. — have since found the same using different data. Moreover, when we use our data to calculate the descriptive statistics used in popular databases such as the Washington Post’s, we find a higher percentage of black civilians among unarmed men killed by the police than they do. Those statistics, however, cannot address the fundamental question: When a shooting might be justified by department standards, are police more likely actually to shoot if the civilian is black? Only our data can answer this question, because it contains information on situations in which a shooting might meet departmental standards but didn’t happen. The answer appears to be no. ● Investigating police departments can have unintended consequences. Following the brutal beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police officers in 1991, the U.S. Attorney-General was given the power to investigate and litigate cases involving a “pattern or practice” of conduct by law-enforcement officers that violates the Constitution or federal rights. Many argue that the answer to police reform in America must include more of these types of investigations. We conducted the first empirical examination of pattern-or-practice investigations. We found that investigations not preceded by viral incidents of deadly force, on average, reduced homicides and total felony crime. But for the five investigations that were preceded by a viral incident of deadly force, there was a stark increase in crime — 893 more homicides and 33,472 more felonies than would have been expected with no investigation. The increases in crime coincide with an abrupt change in the quantity of policing activity. In Chicago alone after the killing of Laquan McDonald, the number of police-civilian interactions decreased by 90 per cent in the month the investigation was announced. Importantly, in the eight cities that had a viral incident but no investigation, there was no subsequent increase in crime. Investigations are crucial, but we need to find ways of holding police accountable without sacrificing more black lives. For all of us who are frustrated about decades of racial disparities that have gone unchecked, this is our Gettysburg. Yet we do ourselves a disservice in the battle against racial inequality if we don’t adhere to rigorous standards of evidence, if we cherry-pick data based on our preconceptions. The truth is enough to justify sweeping reform. The Wall Street Journal A police officer secures the scene of a shooting that left multiple people dead on December 10, 2019 in Jersey City, New Jersey. Picture: Rick Loomis/Getty Images/AFP
Pretty much none of these are true. I seriously think you are confusing black culture with Christian culture. Or maybe you're confusing blacks that adhere to Christian values with "black culture". They're not the same. Just because someone is black, doesn't mean they keep with black culture.
Ok, you caught me. In all honesty, I did originally write down Will Smith was probably 2 standard deviations above the average here on ET, but changed it to 1 sd to be a little more gentle and in hopes ET members actually do have higher IQs than average. My selection of high achieving Black people were based on their crowning achievements, not on whether I necessarily liked them or if they were flawless.
GW Carver would be a good one. I used to have my suspicions about average black intellect vs white, there is an old joke "What is the difference between a tourist and a racist? Two weeks in South Africa". What I know now after years there and other contact via girlfriends etc. is poverty has a really crushing effect on braniness. Especially in the super crucial relm of forward planning, if you live day to day you just don't have the same mental habits as middle class. The same happens with white populations. Europeans like the Polish, Irish, Italians (the 'black-whites' the eugenacists tried to label) were regarded as just dumb. Then with no genetic change, in a generation, within the life of the same person they equaled other Europeans. The Flynn Effect is something that should come up in such discussions far more than it does. This is what is really going on and means things can change quickly. Many African nations and people 20 years ago are unrecognisable now in a good way. Prosperity brings out forward thinking habits, better health, these raise the standard of all thinking.
I would say as Flynn had some trouble with I suspect being unfairly taken out of context by a right wing reporter, I'm referring his quality of life affects standardised IQ research. Basically (from memory) he said that the average black standard of living (in Africa) in 1995 was the equivalent to whites in 1945. As property spreads, a people can catch up far far faster than 1:1 years. I have noticed that in Colombia since I first visited I'd say they have acquired several years for every one that passed with their newfound prosperity. The availability of visa on demand to Shengen Zone Europe since 2015 has utterly transformed retail and restaurants etc. People expect more, plan better. Neuroplasticity especially in younger people allows them to up their game really fast.
If you are going to have a private definition of Black culture and not tell anybody about it, how is it possible to have meaningful discussion of Black culture? It is possible for Blacks and non-Blacks to have different opinions at what constitutes Black culture than you do? This is an important discussion because those who minimize another race are more likely to tolerate, condone, or even participate in harmful behavior towards members of that group, without consideration that member is nothing like the label than has been applied to them by the racists. You may think of Black culture as a male teenager who wears his pants low and a carries boombox to his ear, but the reality is Blacks encompass a large variety of peoples whose heritage includes dozens of countries, dozens of cultures, a wide variety of traditions, languages, and religions. Speaking of religion, over 15 million Blacks identify themselves as Christians. It seems to me, if you are going to be a racist, you have a intellectual mandate to show you are superior to the race you are alleging to be superior to. So tell us, what are your achievements? Please don’t be one who only talks about others but never looks at themselves.
It looks like improved quality of education could pay dividends for younger generations and by extension, society as a whole. How should we define and measure quality of education? How do we create an environment at school that is conducive to student development, including students that come from broken or disfunctional homes? Repeating my own experience, I came from a broken home and was raised by a dysfunctional parent. I responded well to teachers who were somewhat authoritarian and demanded high standards. The chance to see how others live and work can provide help with one’s perspective on reality, allowing them to make a more informed decision on what their opportunities are after they get out of school. More specifically, frequent field trips to experience different occupations and activities; to meet and talk with people from various professions can help a student develop an interest in something, become more focused, and maybe create some goals. I’m writing a bit “Off the hip” here, but feel the insight of others and more specific ideas are necessary for sound policy decisions.
I need to get some stuff done but will reply tonight. But overall of course, you only succeed when you have a carrot a stick and a general destination.