Ok fine…. lets do this. No insults. Really pay attention though, ok? Is that fair? Like I won’t curse at you or insult you. I’m really just going to point out why your argument is wrong. But you have to actually listen:
“Except the whole premise of your position in regards to BLM is that their movement is predicated on the idea that blacks are being killed by police at such a rate as to make drastic action necessary. Which is false.”
No it’s not. You made that up. I never said that. I intentionally left out statistics. I didn’t say anything about rate. I said specifically:
“#BlackLivesMatter is a political movement founded in 2013 based around a a singular premise of “police are killing too many innocent black people. Please stop killing us.” ”
“too many” is the only thing even approaching statistics that I used. That’s not a defined mathematical term. Even if the number was 1… If one single innocent black guy was killed by police and we knew for a fact he was the only one, they could still make the rhetorical claim that “too many are being killed. Please stop killing us.”
You invoked statistics to prove that it wasn’t too many. Too many has no mathematical definition. So instead you tried to prove that there wasn’t a statistically significant chance that a black man would be killed by the police. That is an entirely different question. And wholly unrelated to the statement that I made.
Again, take race out of it. I might very well make this claim “People should vaccinate their children because too many people die of measles.” How many people die of measles in the US? One in the last 4 years. That’s too many.
What you’re trying to prove is that the chance of dying of measles is insignificant (overstated) and therefore not worth vaccinating over. That’s a different statement.
“Just as I would say there is a serious problem if say, 1 million black people were shot vs 2 million arrests. At that point, it makes no difference how many blacks vs whites get shot, 1/3 of the encounters ending with someone shot is a serious issue. More serious than less than 1%.”
The key point here is that you’re saying “I would say” that’s why significance matters. for YOUR argument you need actual statistics. You’ve just arbitrarily decided that 1/3 is important to you as opposed to .01% not being. But you just decided. You don’t get to do that (neither do I) because statistical significance is a thing. Which is why I left it out.
To move to the other example. I don’t know if you’re significantly less likely to die of measles if you are vaccinated than if you’re not (actually I do happen to know you are… but ignoring that). It takes an actual analysis to make that statement. But I do know that I can say “1 person every four years is too many.” Which is what I said in my argument. Yours requires math. Mine doesn’t.
“No statistics degree necessary to make that assessment.”
Yes it is… or if not a degree an understanding of significance. Basically in your example you said 1/3 was a serious issue. Ok… What about if it was 1/4? Would you say let it go? 1/5? 10% where is the magic number? And the answer is, you are just sort of deciding what the magic number is that is acceptable to you. But that’s not how it works. What you actually do is find out what the number is for one population and you regress it against the other populations to and then compare those regressions to find out if one is an outlier greater than a mathematically defined ratio. You can’t just do this with basic arithmetic.
“Black people are being hunted. That has been a mantra of BLM and their supporters.”
I didn’t say that. It appears nowhere in my article. It’s something you heard and you added. That’s not part of my argument so it doesn’t actually counter it. And it wouldn’t matter because even if you determined that 98% of black arrests culminated in death, you still don’t know if that’s statistically significant until you know what percentage of what arrests, mexican arrests, chinese arrests, etc result in death. And before you can even do that you have to know what percentage of those populations is arrested in the first place compared to reported crime and what percentage of reported crime is occurs in accordance to the population as a percentage of the population whole. It’s not a simple math problem which is why it doesn’t actually work the way you are claiming.
All you are proving is that 400/3,000,000 is a number that is smaller than 1/3. And yes, that is true. But it doesn’t actually prove your point. It doesn’t show there is no correlation and it certainly doesn’t show no causation (which once again, is actually impossible to do with just statistics)
There. No insults. Just facts on how the math works.