|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> You CAN'T Say That! /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1725685367 Message started by JOG on 09/06/24 at 22:02:46 |
|
Title: You CAN'T Say That! Post by JOG on 09/06/24 at 22:02:46 Doesn't matter that it's true.. https://defconnews.com/2024/02/26/commentary-black-prof-forced-to-get-armed-security-after-showing-cops-do-not-kill-blacks-disproportionately/ |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by zevenenergie on 09/07/24 at 04:32:31 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by Eegore on 09/07/24 at 07:02:37 That youtube video is the tip of the iceberg. |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by Serowbot on 09/07/24 at 08:04:25 That would be like a MAGA saying the election wasn't stolen |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by MnSpring on 09/07/24 at 09:40:55 537371796473160 wrote:
So: "... [A]n economist who worked hard on a study and verified the results were accurate is punished for those results because they don’t fit into a narrative. ..." "...Economist Roland Fryer was caught in a frenzy after publishing a paper that found no racial bias in police shootings, recalling that he had colleagues warning him that his study could be career-ending...." You believe it is TRUE, or not TRUE ? |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by Eegore on 09/07/24 at 14:37:28 You believe it is TRUE, or not TRUE ? I need to do more research on the actual information and not what I am TOLD it says. I am familiar with Fryer, and the article referenced here mixes a suspension from allegations of sexual misconduct, supported with text messages, with this study. For instance the comment "exhibited a pattern of behavior” that did not meet the expectations of the university." is about his sexual misconduct allegations, not this specific research. I completely believe organizations would refuse to support information that says police aren't racist/biased in fear of uneducated backlash. I can not however comment on whether the information alluded to but not provided is TRUE or not. I need to evaluate the actual information, not what I am TOLD about it from a website that also lied in the article about responses to a study that didn't exist when the response happened. |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by MnSpring on 09/07/24 at 16:34:07 7050525A4750350 wrote:
Interesting. "... and verified the results were accurate is punished for those results because they don’t fit into a narrative. ..." So that statement could totally be 100% accurate. (And have nothing to do with any 'sexual misconduct allegations') |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by Eegore on 09/07/24 at 23:14:56 Interesting. "... and verified the results were accurate is punished for those results because they don’t fit into a narrative. ..." So that statement could totally be 100% accurate. (And have nothing to do with any 'sexual misconduct allegations') Yes. Organizations can react negatively to accurate information from humans that do not have sexual misconduct allegations. Your question was if the information was TRUE. I don't know, and the source lied. |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by MnSpring on 09/08/24 at 08:46:37 48686A627F680D0 wrote:
Here are excerpts of what Fryer said in the article listed on the first post of this subject. (The Direct quotes from Fryer, are underlined) Which ones did the source lie ? Any time line on your, opinion, if the information is TRUE ? The Harvard professor shared his experience with Bari Weiss, a journalist for The Free Press, when he published the paper researching racial bias in Houston policing. The issue came with the latter part of his study that found: (F). [N]ot only were blacks not more likely to be shot at than their white counterparts, but it was more likely police would use their firearms against the white suspects. Fryer shared that even he was surprised with the results. He recruited eight fresh research assistants to redo the data, and they found the same results as before. But according to the professor: (F) [A]fter he confirmed the data and was ready to share, that’s when all hell broke loose. He stated: (F)It was a 104-page dense, academic economics paper with a 150-page appendix, OK? It was posted for four minutes before I got my first email ‘This is full of s–t!’ He shared that his colleagues doubted the results, pointing to flaws in the methods he used despite the fact that they used the same methods in their own research. He said: (F) I had colleagues take me into the side and say, ‘Don’t publish this, you’ll ruin your career,’ I said, ‘What are you talking about?’ I said, ‘What’s wrong with it? Do you believe the first part? Yes. Do you believe the second part? Well … the issue is they don’t fit together.’ Even then-dean of Harvard Claudine Gay claimed his research “exhibited a pattern of behavior” that did not meet the expectations of the university. Fryer then shared a story about how he had to be escorted by a bodyguard to go buy diapers for his newborn because of the immense backlash he faced for his findings. Is this bizarre or typical of the degraded state of sociocultural health in America? To wit: [A]n economist who worked hard on a study and verified the results were accurate is punished for those results because they don’t fit into a narrative. … said his colleagues told him: (F)f the second half of his study also showed bias in police violence that he should publish it in full, but as it was, it shouldn’t be a single study. Even then-dean of Harvard Claudine Gay claimed his research “exhibited a pattern of behavior” that did not meet the expectations of the university. Fryer then shared a story about how he had to be escorted by a bodyguard to go buy diapers for his newborn because of the immense backlash he faced for his findings. [A]n economist who worked hard on a study and verified the results were accurate is punished for those results because they don’t fit into a narrative. One would think that results showing blacks are less likely to be shot by police would be a positive. Proof that supposed institutional racism is being mispresented should be good news for everyone, yes? Unfortunately, the mental illness of the Left requires a category of victims for them to manipulate. (F) So, when something comes out that concretely shows that the narrative the liberal media has worked so hard to craft is a sham, it’s immediately in their sights. Final thoughts, two imperatives: Imagine the amount of valuable research and sociocultural advancement that has been suppressed because it did not fit the liberal narrative. And likewise, imagine the valuable findings that are distorted to meet liberal biases for publication. How interesting: "dean of Harvard Claudine Gay claimed his research “exhibited a pattern of behavior” that did not meet the expectations of the university." Don't see any, 'allegations' of ''sexual misconduct'. Yet that does not matter even if true. As a POTUS, on TV, said : " I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman " And it was PROVED, beyond a shadow of a doubt, he did. And-just over half this Nation did NOT CARE he lied ! |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by thumperclone on 09/08/24 at 09:51:07 why would a maga nut Trumper mention lies? |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by JOG on 09/08/24 at 10:12:05 Lefty mantra White cops are Hunting unarmed black men! The unarmed black man is more likely to be killed in any interaction with a white cop than anyone else. Black educated man proves it wrong. Immediately castigated instead of applauded for proving the lie. The LIE is part of the foundation for the False claims of foundational racism, agreed with and promoted by the higher up. Are there racist cops? Yep! And bank tellers and doctors, but what They are isn't the majority nor do they have any ability to make Their racism control or affect the ideas of society at large. So, the paper, used intelligently, Should help erase some of the racial divide. Stop believing lies AND stop having the emotional responses that those Lies make understandable. Accept that what we've been told has been Proven false. Now nobody needs to hate cops for being murderous racists. Seems like that Ottsta be a Good Thing.. If government and/or media Wanted racial harmony, this would be being pit forth on every news station on TV. The indoctrination that has been created has been to divide. You Do remember the Mike Brown thing, right? The bodycam PROVED everything the cop said. He had a Busted Orbital bone. But they Would NOT let it out. It took weeks before they showed it. And that Further Investigation they used to justify the refusal ?? It was clearly a lie. The whole time they withheld the evidence that proved Brown was trying to steal the cops gun and the fight was brutal and the cops life was on the line, the media kept the flames of racism fanned HIGH. And the Evidence that didn't suggest, didn't indicate, but PROVED there was No Reason for anyone to be pisstawff about Brown being killed,was being withheld. He deserved it, and anyone in the cops place would have shot him. They Want us at each others throats. Indoctrination.. But who added that up? It's not that hard, folks. |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by Eegore on 09/08/24 at 10:42:26 How interesting: "dean of Harvard Claudine Gay claimed his research “exhibited a pattern of behavior” that did not meet the expectations of the university." Don't see any, 'allegations' of ''sexual misconduct'. That's because the article left that out. Her comment about his pattern of behavior was directed towards the sexual allegations, not the research. The article provided indicates the statement was directed towards the research. Either they do a poor job of copying the information from the original source, or they left it out on purpose. So do I know if the research is TRUE? No. I need it to go under more assessment. Are the words you put in your post from the article? Yes, that is TRUE, those words were in that article. |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by MnSpring on 09/08/24 at 11:31:04 2404060E1304610 wrote:
So you know that statement, was not about the research, but about the allegations, How ? Would it not be the, 'paper/study/research', 'information from the original source', be the original source ? And why would Fryer put a 'allegation' in his paper ? |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by JOG on 09/08/24 at 11:49:21 Knowing what We Know about the indoctrination and the Direction OF that indoctrination, it would be more reasonable to believe the study WHILE moving to Further prove or disprove it. This isn't the first time someone who had reasonable credentials brought this up. KNOWING that the government and media have no Problem advancing AA divisive false narrative, the notion that this whole Mantra of Cops aggressively gunning down unarmed black men has been another psy-op, like the Brown shooting, is not exactly a stretch of the imagination. The data have been gathered and made public. I'll bet that if he was asked if he had seen evidence that The Mantra was manufactured and data proved it was not supported by evidence before he did the study, he would say yes. Rather than wait for what a jury would find, let's use our brains and do what would be Easily justified, based on everything we know about the media and what they have done in the past. |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by Eegore on 09/08/24 at 17:53:15 So you know that statement, was not about the research, but about the allegations, How ? Because the entirety of her statement, not the single sentence, was made while discussing his sexual assault allegations. Also it was made before the research in question was published and read by the human making the statement. But to be fair time and space as we know it never mattered here before. Would it not be the, 'paper/study/research', 'information from the original source', be the original source ? No. The article JOG referenced copied almost word for word from another website. In my statement "information from the original source" is in reference to the website that originally posted the information. So maybe JOG's reference poorly copied the information, or selectively left-out the context and timeframe of the quote. And why would Fryer put a 'allegation' in his paper ? He didn't. The sexual allegations happened years before the paper was published and as such have the potential to be commented on prior to publication. A website took a statement directed towards his sexual allegations and stated it was exclusively about his research. This is not TRUE. I can not say the information in his research paper is TRUE until further assessments are made. The website that is referenced in the original post here lied about one human's statement about that specific research module. I will not use the lying website's word and repeat what I am TOLD it says, I will instead look for myself, until I do I will not say it is TRUE. None of this matters as I already stated that I completely believe organizations would refuse to support information that says police aren't racist/biased in fear of uneducated backlash. |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by MnSpring on 09/08/24 at 18:16:00 69494B435E492C0 wrote:
So their is another web site, (not the one in post 1) which has stated things differently ? Can you post that URL ? |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by JOG on 09/08/24 at 21:46:48 Hell, are my posts even Visible? |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by MnSpring on 09/09/24 at 06:51:28 I can see this one. If others have been deleted I simply would not know. 162330283334302335510 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by Eegore on 09/09/24 at 09:25:39 Here is where the text originally was copied from: https://www.westernjournal.com/black-prof-forced-get-armed-security-showing-cops-dont-kill-blacks-disproportionately/ That source pulled text from multiple sources. Instead of outlining each one individually I will provide information about the specific portion I believe , which is opinion based off observable verifiable information, supported by the objective truth of time and space as we know it, that is incorrect. These sources outline the statement made by Gay, prior to her reading the research module, since it did not exist at the time. https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2019/07/harvard-sanctions-economist-roland-fryer https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/07/10/harvard-suspends-roland-fryer-celebrated-harvard-economist-suspended-two-years-over-sexual-harassmen/1693011001/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/07/10/harvard-suspends-star-economist-roland-fryer-following-sexual-harassment-complaints/4v3vYV1Dgn9XzVTQqi2UiP/story.html I can not say the information in the research module is TRUE without further assessment. The website use as reference lied. I choose not to repeat/use what I am TOLD by an unreliable source. None of this really matters as I already stated I completely believe organizations would refuse to support information that says police aren't racist/biased in fear of uneducated backlash. |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by Eegore on 09/09/24 at 09:26:04 Hell, are my posts even Visible? Yes. |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by JOG on 09/09/24 at 10:08:04 I thought I made a few points that were worthy of conversation. |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by Eegore on 09/09/24 at 10:59:13 I thought I made a few points that were worthy of conversation. I agree for the most part. My assessment is that multiple organizations feel they have to appease the most vocal. Even if Fryer is completely wrong - almost nobody read it before saying they can't support it due to inaccuracy. It should be pretty clear I am not a fan of people criticizing things they refuse to look at for themselves. |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by JOG on 09/09/24 at 11:50:19 If they wanted racial harmony, I stand by my posts |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by MnSpring on 09/09/24 at 18:53:38 7B5B59514C5B3E0 wrote:
Looked at that site, did not see any reference to the allegations ! Did see on the the three 'Harvard' sites, (which you provided) where the allegations and punishments were announced. Went to a, Catholic, Boys only, boarding Prep School. Freshmen to Senior. EVERYONE, knew who the QUEER Priests were. EVERYONE, knew who the QUEER boys were. Years later, a bunch of the, 'boy's", (Who were NOT QUEER), decided to take the, 'hush money', 'accusing', the Know-en QUEER Priests. The info from the 3 sites provided, from Harvard, looked very similar and resembled the Queer Priests & Boys. Only difference was, "Get Money", or "Discredit Any Papers" ! Now I don't know if the accusation was real, or made up. Don't care. The HIDING that Harvard, and other, institutions DO, and HAVE done, and will CONTINUE to do. Not wanting anyone to PROVE, The UL, DFI, FDS, WOKE, Socialist Mantra, is NOT TRUE. Is the factor here ! |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by Eegore on 09/09/24 at 19:29:09 Looked at that site, did not see any reference to the allegations ! I didn't either which is why I never said it did. They did however falsely state the quote about the sexual allegations were about the research module. That is the factor, for me, here! Did see on the the three 'Harvard' sites, (which you provided) where the allegations and punishments were announced. The Boston Globe and USA Today are Harvard sites? Now I don't know if the accusation was real, or made up. Don't care. I don't care either. I do however care that the website, that has nothing to do with Harvard, is lying, indicating the statement was about the research module and not the sexual allegations. That is the factor, for me, here! I can not in good conscious repeat what I am TOLD from that source and believe the research is TRUE because they said so. Using that source to decide if the research module is TRUE makes zero sense. Reading the research makes sense. None of this really matters as I already stated I completely believe organizations would refuse to support information that says police aren't racist/biased in fear of uneducated backlash. |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by MnSpring on 09/10/24 at 11:50:49 6D4D4F475A4D280 wrote:
Did not the Globe/USA just copy the Harvard (Sanctioned) Magazine, which did what it could, to discredit any Future papers, that did not meet the UL, WOKE, FDS, standard ? Again, it IS, all about someone, HAS TO Come to a UL, FDS, WOKE, Conclusion, or else ! |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by thumperclone on 09/10/24 at 12:34:20 597A4764667D7A73140 wrote:
Did not the Globe/USA just copy the Harvard (Sanctioned) Magazine, which did what it could, to discredit any Future papers, that did not meet the UL, WOKE, FDS, standard ? Again, it IS, all about someone, HAS TO Come to a UL, FDS, WOKE, Conclusion, or else ! do you even know what woke means? NO.. |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by Serowbot on 09/10/24 at 13:22:38 and the opposite of woke is... |
|
Title: Re: You CAN'T Say That! Post by thumperclone on 09/10/24 at 15:15:20 1107100D15000D16620 wrote:
HATE |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |