Where in this article does it suggest that it’s a statistically safe assumption that most cops are white supremacists?

ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's one data point in a pretty large body of evidence; the FBI thinks they're infiltrating law enforcement in a widespread fashion.

A fascinating study from Stanford looked at police traffic stops nationally around the daylight savings switch (as a natural experimental control) and found pretty hard evidence cops treat black drivers very differently during the day (i.e. when they can see their skin color).

https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2020/05/veil-darkness-redu...

Additional aspect of this: "you're a white supremacist" is almost certainly a First Amendment protected statement of opinion that can't be defamatory.

▲

throw0101d 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Warnings going back to 2006:

* https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/media/24350/ocr

▲

tt24 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-]

> This study seems unconvincing. We see that black drivers are pulled over more during the day - why does that necessarily mean that it’s due to their race?

Because on the day time shifted an hour artificially due to daylight savings, the racial discrepancy moved by an hour, even though the sun physically didn't.

(The alternative explanation is that black people all decide collectively to drive worse/better when daylight savings changes twice a year. Which seems... unlikely.)

It's an extremely clever approach. I'd encourage you to at least skim the article rather than asking questions it readily answers.

	▲	tt24 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Neither your comment nor the article answers my question. There’s no evidence here that the discrepancy is due to race.

▲

kstrauser 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Behold, the sea lion in its native habitat.

▲

tt24 11 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

Retric 11 hours ago | parent [-]

No, you ignored evidence presented while failing to provide any of your own.

Evidence has no minimum standard in debate, you can only provide more compelling evidence to the contrary.

▲

fc417fc802 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think that's fair. He asked about statistical defensibility (implies an entire dataset) and was handed something that definitely does not qualify. What was provided certainly makes it clear that it's a reasonable thing to wonder about but it doesn't (at least I don't think) rise to the level of actually supporting the claim in question.

▲

Retric 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> statistical defensibility

Requesting an arbitrarily high standard doesn’t create any obligation. Evidence of a high standard does.

▲

fc417fc802 9 hours ago | parent [-]

There's no obligation in either direction in this context (idle chitchat) unless of course you care to convince someone of something.

He objected to what was provided and you accused him of ignoring evidence. I'm voicing agreement with his objection. The original claim was one of a statistical nature. Thus any purported evidence should be expected to match.

▲

Retric 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> of a statistical nature. (True) … should be expected to match. (False)

If a group is more likely to be X than the average population then being a member of that group is statistical evidence you are X. Really when referring to statistical evidence here it’s an indication the evidence is of a very low standard not a high one.

He provided evidence that cops are more likely to be white supremacists which doesn’t actually mean much which is kind of a point on its own. That being it’s the same low standard as used by actual racists, but as you said there’s no actual obligation to go beyond such wordplay. Personally I was very amused by the whole thing but obviously it’s quite offensive to some people.

Taking the other side of this one, you could say something like “sure the odds at least one of them are white supremacists is non trivial, but suggesting all seven are is unlikely.” Again not a strong argument, but it’s at minimum an actual argument.

	▲	fc417fc802 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> He provided evidence that cops are more likely to be white supremacists This is the crux of the matter. I don't agree with that statement. I believe the provided evidence does not support that claim in any meaningful sense. I would at least agree that it suggests to seriously entertain the possibility though. I'm not sure what to make of your true/false response. Suppose I claim that apples have a higher chance of poisoning you than oranges. Evidence that someone at some point made an effort to put poison into the apple supply does not directly support that claim. However if credible it is certainly cause to entertain the possibility. More generally a claim about a possibility (discreet) can be supported by an event but a claim about averages (statistical) requires population data. Further, a claim that X is more likely than Y is a claim involving multiple populations.

▲

tt24 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sorry, that's not how this works. Claims must be supported by evidence. I didn't ignore it, I reviewed it and explained how it doesn't support the claim.

I have no obligation to provide evidence to the contrary. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

	▲	Retric 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Court cases look at things like when someone arrives in a city as evidence, that alone doesn’t make someone more likely to have done whatever than a million other people, but it’s still evidence. So you dismissed it, but it is in fact evidence that there were white supremests just as your post is evidence you are a serial killer. It’s not poof after all you could be a bot. But out off all humans who ever lived 95% of them can’t be a serial killer because they are dead, that post is evidence you where alive recently therefore it is evidence that you are vastly more likely than the average person who have ever lived to be a serial killer. Again as apposed to a dead person who at most could be a former serial killer. Thus demonstrating that evidence isn’t the same thing as strong evidence just something that increases the likelihood of something being true.

▲

kstrauser 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And to expand on that, this isn’t even a debate. It’s a casual chat about an actual courtroom debate. Here, no one is judging our presentation. We don’t have to meet a high standard of evidence to speak our opinions, lest they be judged invalid.

However, in the actual courtroom where very similar arguments played out with real consequences, Afroman was found not liable for saying more inflammatory versions of the same things. That is, he was judged, for worse, and he won.

▲

parineum 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You understand that white supremacist groups existing as cops doesn't make the majority of cops white supremacists, right?

I'd hate to see someone use this kind of bad logic when deciding who is a criminal.

▲

ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-]

> I'd hate to see someone use this kind of bad logic when deciding who is a criminal.

Oh dear. I have bad news about cops.

▲

parineum 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Which is, apparently, a strategy you wholly endorse.

▲

pear01 10 hours ago | parent [-]

People walking around with guns and badges should be held to the highest of standards. Suggesting an equivalence between the burden of proof on a hackernews commenter and individuals authorized by the state to detain, arrest, and potentially deprive citizens of a free country of their life, liberty or property is asinine and shameful.

Cops want the power to do all this, do it incorrectly, be unable to be held accountable, and then cry like babies when someone makes videos and mocks them. He could have just sued them directly to recoup his financial losses from them destroying his house over a bs warrant but cops have qualified immunity. The justice system gives him no recourse. They sued him for videos meanwhile his countersuit was thrown out on this basis.

If you support the cops on this I see no reason why one should not conclude you "wholly endorse" the ongoing "law enforcement" assault on free Americans. What principles do you take the nation to be founded on? You realize red coats coming into people's homes under the color of the law is what instigated the war that bought this country its liberty 250 years ago? I fail to see how this is much different, armed goons with guns and badges invading private property that cannot be held accountable. No election he can take part in will reasonably solve this so he can sue in a timely manner, as the unelected justice system has unilaterally decided you cannot sue cops over this. This is anti-American. Go read the bill of rights and tell me it is consistent with the spirit of those hard fought liberties to support the cops on this. I hope if you actually endorse burdens of proof you will at least support local, state and federal representatives who will codify into law a "repeal" of qualified immunity so that cops who fail to meet that burden can be held personally accountable.

Note a case on that count would still need to prevail on the merits. That is how justice is supposed to work. Instead a carve out for law enforcement has been created where you can't even take them to court. Your case is going to get thrown out. The justice system should not be creating this special class of people, with great power and depriving them of the responsibilities common between neighbors in a free society. What they have done is really not unlike the British sending armed men into American cities to violate rights and then insisting they cannot be held accountable in colonial courts as a matter of principle. This is criminal. People should be able to sue police officers. If that makes the cost of waving guns in people's faces more expensive then so be it.

▲

parineum 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> People walking around with guns and badges should be held to the highest of standards. Suggesting an equivalence between the burden of proof on a hackernews commenter and individuals authorized by the state

Let's take a step back. OP, essentially, made a very basic logical error (actually not an error IMO, but a willfully misleading statement).

They said, "Statistically, [assuming a cop is a white supremacist] a pretty sensible assumption."

In my mind, what makes something a statistically safe assumption would mean that, more times than not, you'd be right. So it'd mean that greater than half of police are white supremacists. They then posted a link to support that statement which said that some white supremacist groups are instructing their members to join the police force. He's gone from the evidence of "some" white supremacist groups are telling "some" of their members among the police force to justify saying that it's a safe assumption to assume any officer is a white supremacist (greater than 50% chance for any random cop to be a white supremacist).

Considering that I strongly doubt the quantity of white supremacists that are members of white supremacist organizations in this county is even more than half of the amount of police officers, I very much doubt that the subset of individuals in the subset of organizations who were given this instruction and actually followed through on it comprises more than half of the police officers in the country.

To which I facetious said, "I'd hate to see someone use this kind of bad logic when deciding who is a criminal." Implying that, if the cops used the same logic on a neighborhood with criminals, it'd be sensible for them to assume every member of the neighborhood is a criminal. That point seemed to go over OPs head as he replied as if I wasn't making a facetious point and implied that cops do indeed do that. Presumably he thinks that's a bad thing when they do it but is perfectly reasonable for him to do.

I don't think anyone should be using faulty logic to make claims about groups of people.

> If you support the cops on this

I never said I did and, as such, the rest of this comment is not directed to me.

▲

ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> In my mind, what makes something a statistically safe assumption would mean that, more times than not, you'd be right.

I assume I should buckle my seatbelt.

Not every car ride results in an accident. But enough do.

▲

parineum 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It's safe to assume you won't get in an accident.

You _should_ buckle your seatbelt anyway because it's low effort, high reward in the unlikely case you get in an accident.

▲

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> It's safe to assume you won't get in an accident.

If that were the case, I wouldn't need a seatbelt.

	▲	parineum an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Indeed, your chances of needing a seatbelt for a particular car trip are very low but, over many trips, it becomes a safe assumption you'll be in an accident and, therefore, generally good policy to be prepared for that eventuality.