Seattle Schools Teaching Math Is Racist

[Liriena]

"Low as shit" by whose standard, bro? Yours?

55 lynchings per year over 86 years. That number drops to 41 per year if only looking at blacks. Let's assume that all of these lynchings happened at the beginning of the period when the black population was the lowest (7.5 million in ~1890). This gives us a per capita lynching rate of 0.53 in that year, which would be the bloodiest year on record as far as lynching of blacks go (of course the actual number is lower because those lynchings were spread out over a time period when the black population increased by like 5.5x).

Now, by what standard is incident with an occurrence rate that low considered structural? Does one exist? Also, given that most people doing the lynching were impoverished Southernerns (i.e. the people least likely to have structural power after blacks in the 1890s USA), it really begins to cast doubt on your assumptions.

I'm still not seeing where you got your standard to measure things as structural from. Nevermind the fact that lynchings are only one aspect of structural racism so you're basically strawmanning anti-racists.

Because it looks like you are measuring all of this by your personal, unfounded standards.

So what is your gripe? I compared the frequency of two things, when popular conception about those frequencies is distorted. I showed the correct ones. You can clearly see one is more common than the other.

"popular conception about those frequencies is distorted"? Uh, source?

"one is more common than the other"? Yeah... so? That doesn't mean one can't be structural because it's comparatively less common. The Armenian genocide killed fewer people than every anti-semitic genocide, but we don't use that as an argument to handwave away the Armenian genocide.

How do you measure something as "structural"?

By whether or not is more common than things that aren't structural

So you think criminality among specific demographics aren't structural issues?

I'm dying to hear about your rigorous methodology. Are you planning to get your posts peer reviewed?

Appeals to authority are...strange.

Peer review is not an "appeal to authority". lrn2science

That doesn't answer my question. How does this methodology of yours work?

I compared the frequency of two events, on a per capita basis.

And how does that help you determine what is or isn't a structural problem? Why those two numbers in particular? How are they relevant to each other?

[Kowani]

Well, now you’re just plain wrong.

No u.

Did you forget that education was a thing? You know, this very thread topic?

[New haven america]

No u.

Did you forget that education was a thing? You know, this very thread topic?

Why would we talk about that when we could talk about the evils of liberalism and cities?

[Kubra]

It's a perfectly valid argument.

Explain.

it toughens em up

[Chernoslavia]

Explain.

Well we're never gonna get rid of all child molesters, so what's the point of trying to catch them?

Best we just let them be and send their victims to therapy.

Who in the flying fuck is talking about child molesters?

[Liriena]

Did you forget that education was a thing? You know, this very thread topic?

Why would we talk about that when we could talk about the evils of liberalism and cities?

And how actually lynchings were not a systemic problem because contemporary black-on-black murders are comparatively more common and that's apparently how some people think sociology works I guess???

This thread has seriously lowered my opinion of this forum.

[Chernoslavia]

No u.

Did you forget that education was a thing? You know, this very thread topic?

And how is going around informing people going to completely stop microagression?

[New haven america]

Well we're never gonna get rid of all child molesters, so what's the point of trying to catch them?

Best we just let them be and send their victims to therapy.

Who in the flying fuck is talking about child molesters?

You, apparently.

[New haven america]

Why would we talk about that when we could talk about the evils of liberalism and cities?

And how actually lynchings were not a systemic problem because contemporary black-on-black murders are comparatively more common and that's apparently how some people think sociology works I guess???

This thread has seriously lowered my opinion of this forum.

It's possible to go lower than bottom of the barrel?

[Chernoslavia]

Who in the flying fuck is talking about child molesters?

You, apparently.

prove it.

[Liriena]

And how actually lynchings were not a systemic problem because contemporary black-on-black murders are comparatively more common and that's apparently how some people think sociology works I guess???

This thread has seriously lowered my opinion of this forum.

It's possible to go lower than bottom of the barrel?

Roger Ebert thought so.

I think I'm gonna take a break from this garbage.

[New haven america]

You, apparently.

prove it.

You and Liri started this fantastic conversation with this cute exchange:

Look, friend, the real problem with child molestation isn't child molesters. After all, realistically speaking, you can't catch them all. So just send the survivors to therapy.

Not a valid argument.

[Chernoslavia]

prove it.

You and Liri started this fantastic conversation with this cute exchange:

Not a valid argument.

You literally just proved Liri was the one talking about child molesters, are on something tonight?

[Bear Stearns]

Lynchings were isolated even in their own time! Not structural at all.

Says who?

Says numbers. The Chicago Tribune said there were 6,971 homicides in the US in 1900, out of a population of just 104 million (in that same year there ~10 lynchings).

So violent people shouldn't be blamed for being...uh...violent?

Individual people?

What if the individually-violent people all seem to have something in common?

See the opening post it. It's simple arithmetic and I cite my sources.

"Simple arithmetic"? Showing us that one arbitrarily selected number is bigger than another arbitrarily selected number is a child's idea of how you assess the severity (or existence) of systemic racism.

How are the numbers arbitrary?

"Simple arithmetic" is not a reliable method to produce the conclusion you are trying to present here.

So what do you want? A regression model? I don't have all day to do that.

So you've got two choices here: either drop the pretentious facade of being some sort of enlightened mathematician objectively measuring whether racism is real,

The fact you consider multiplication and division to be pretentious...

which you clearly aren't,

Shots fired!

or actually start doing some hard arithmetic work that's deeper and more meaningful than "big number bigger than smaller number".

It's size-adjusted frequency is more frequent than other size-adjusted frequency, which is actually a relevant comparison.

What I think is the wrong is way people politicize

ohforfuckssakeshutupshutupshutupshutup

Things don't become political the moment they are observed as such. They're already political. Things are never "politicized". They are either acknowledged as being political matters all along or we decide to play dumb about it because we're neck-deep in pure ideology.

What kind of Marxist horeshit is this?

incidents of interracial crime when the statistics plainly show that the people doing it should be more concerned about intraracial crime.

For someone who is so smug about using "simple arithmetics", you sure aren't using logic properly here.

"logicallyfallacious.com"

lol now who's pretentious? What's your argument here? Where is the logical fallacy?

This kind of politicization leads to anti-social behavior and encourages criminality.

[citation needed][/quote][/quote]

>Chris Dorner
>Dallas police shooting

[New haven america]

You and Liri started this fantastic conversation with this cute exchange:

You literally just proved Liri was the one talking about child molesters, are on something tonight?

I never said they didn't, I said you were talking about them too.

Which you were.

[Totenborg]

Well we're never gonna get rid of all child molesters, so what's the point of trying to catch them?

Best we just let them be and send their victims to therapy.

Who in the flying fuck is talking about child molesters?

Analogies are hard.

[Chernoslavia]

Says who?

Says numbers. The Chicago Tribune said there were 6,971 homicides in the US in 1900, out of a population of just 104 million (in that same year there ~10 lynchings).

Individual people?

What if the individually-violent people all seem to have something in common?

"Simple arithmetic"? Showing us that one arbitrarily selected number is bigger than another arbitrarily selected number is a child's idea of how you assess the severity (or existence) of systemic racism.

How are the numbers arbitrary?

"Simple arithmetic" is not a reliable method to produce the conclusion you are trying to present here.

So what do you want? A regression model? I don't have all day to do that.

So you've got two choices here: either drop the pretentious facade of being some sort of enlightened mathematician objectively measuring whether racism is real,

The fact you consider multiplication and division to be pretentious...

which you clearly aren't,

Shots fired!

or actually start doing some hard arithmetic work that's deeper and more meaningful than "big number bigger than smaller number".

It's size-adjusted frequency is more frequent than other size-adjusted frequency, which is actually a relevant comparison.

ohforfuckssakeshutupshutupshutupshutup

Things don't become political the moment they are observed as such. They're already political. Things are never "politicized". They are either acknowledged as being political matters all along or we decide to play dumb about it because we're neck-deep in pure ideology.

What kind of Marxist horeshit is this?

For someone who is so smug about using "simple arithmetics", you sure aren't using logic properly here.

"logicallyfallacious.com"

lol now who's pretentious? What's your argument here? Where is the logical fallacy?

This kind of politicization leads to anti-social behavior and encourages criminality.

[citation needed]

[/quote]

>Chris Dorner
>Dallas police shooting[/quote]

Dude the moment he started calling your argument ''inflammatory'' just means he's arguing emotionally now.

[Chernoslavia]

You literally just proved Liri was the one talking about child molesters, are on something tonight?

I never said they didn't, I said you were talking about them too.

Which you were.

No, I'm talking about how people ''microagressing'' you don't have to give a shit.

[Liriena]

Says who?

Says numbers. The Chicago Tribune said there were 6,971 homicides in the US in 1900, out of a population of just 104 million (in that same year there ~10 lynchings).

And you think that makes them "isolated" incidents?

Islamic terrorism in Europe has killed at least a couple hundred people since 2015. Are Islamic terrorist attacks "isolated" incidents?

Individual people?

What if the individually-violent people all seem to have something in common?

Such as?

"Simple arithmetic"? Showing us that one arbitrarily selected number is bigger than another arbitrarily selected number is a child's idea of how you assess the severity (or existence) of systemic racism.

How are the numbers arbitrary?

The selection of them seems rather arbitrary. Why did you choose lynchings over the course of almost a century compared to overall black-on-black murder statistics over the course of a couple years?

"Simple arithmetic" is not a reliable method to produce the conclusion you are trying to present here.

So what do you want? A regression model? I don't have all day to do that.

If you can't be rigorous, then maybe you ought to avoid trying to play amateur researcher. I'm sure that you could find tons of proper research that agrees with your conclusions. Google Scholar is your friend.

So you've got two choices here: either drop the pretentious facade of being some sort of enlightened mathematician objectively measuring whether racism is real,

The fact you consider multiplication and division to be pretentious...

Strawmanning will get you very far in life, I promise.

which you clearly aren't,

Shots fired!

Not really? You are not "objectively measuring" whether racism is real.

ohforfuckssakeshutupshutupshutupshutup

Things don't become political the moment they are observed as such. They're already political. Things are never "politicized". They are either acknowledged as being political matters all along or we decide to play dumb about it because we're neck-deep in pure ideology.

What kind of Marxist horeshit is this?

It's basic historical materialism. lrn2philosophy

>Chris Dorner
>Dallas police shooting

Just two cases? Over the course of how many years? Sounds like a couple isolated incidents to me. Maybe you should worry more about white-on-white murders.

[Bear Stearns]

55 lynchings per year over 86 years. That number drops to 41 per year if only looking at blacks. Let's assume that all of these lynchings happened at the beginning of the period when the black population was the lowest (7.5 million in ~1890). This gives us a per capita lynching rate of 0.53 in that year, which would be the bloodiest year on record as far as lynching of blacks go (of course the actual number is lower because those lynchings were spread out over a time period when the black population increased by like 5.5x).

Now, by what standard is incident with an occurrence rate that low considered structural? Does one exist? Also, given that most people doing the lynching were impoverished Southernerns (i.e. the people least likely to have structural power after blacks in the 1890s USA), it really begins to cast doubt on your assumptions.

I'm still not seeing where you got your standard to measure things as structural from.

Structural: generally things that are caused by the machinations of power or are so overwhelmingly common as to be inherent. Lynchings don't meat this by a long shot.

the fact that lynchings are only one aspect of structural racism so you're basically strawmanning anti-racists.

Admit defeat, change the subject, and move on?

So what is your gripe? I compared the frequency of two things, when popular conception about those frequencies is distorted. I showed the correct ones. You can clearly see one is more common than the other.

"popular conception about those frequencies is distorted"? Uh, source?

Allow me to purposefully change this this. Pretend I didn't say that popular conception is distorted. Assume I said that your perception is distorted.

"one is more common than the other"? Yeah... so? That doesn't mean one can't be structural because it's comparatively less common.

Two similar things actions (murder against blacks) occur. One form of it occurred in a certain time period with a certain population. The other form occurred in another. When adjusting for that population and time, we can now reliably compare them. So that's what I did.

The Armenian genocide killed fewer people than every anti-semitic genocide, but we don't use that as an argument to handwave away the Armenian genocide.

No, but we'd use to handwave any arguments that Armenians have had it worse than everyone else.

By whether or not is more common than things that aren't structural

So you think criminality among specific demographics aren't structural issues?

For crimes that have identifiable structural causes (like trafficking), I don't.

For shit like homicide and rape? No that's all nature right there.

Appeals to authority are...strange.

Peer review is not an "appeal to authority". lrn2science

I will now counter every argument you have with "where's your peer review".

I compared the frequency of two events, on a per capita basis.

And how does that help you determine what is or isn't a structural problem? Why those two numbers in particular? How are they relevant to each other?

Because one supposedly structural thing occurred less frequently than a related act that isn't structural?

[Bear Stearns]

Says numbers. The Chicago Tribune said there were 6,971 homicides in the US in 1900, out of a population of just 104 million (in that same year there ~10 lynchings).



What if the individually-violent people all seem to have something in common?



How are the numbers arbitrary?



So what do you want? A regression model? I don't have all day to do that.



The fact you consider multiplication and division to be pretentious...



Shots fired!



It's size-adjusted frequency is more frequent than other size-adjusted frequency, which is actually a relevant comparison.



What kind of Marxist horeshit is this?



"logicallyfallacious.com"

lol now who's pretentious? What's your argument here? Where is the logical fallacy?


[citation needed]

Dude the moment he started calling your argument ''inflammatory'' just means he's arguing emotionally now.

Yeah, no shit.

[Liriena]

Dude the moment he started calling your argument ''inflammatory'' just means he's arguing emotionally now.

So?

[Bear Stearns]

Dude the moment he started calling your argument ''inflammatory'' just means he's arguing emotionally now.

So?

[Liriena]

I'm still not seeing where you got your standard to measure things as structural from.

Structural: generally things that are caused by the machinations of power or are so overwhelmingly common as to be inherent. Lynchings don't meat this by a long shot.

How so? By comparing their frequency to that of a separate issue existing in a different time and context?

the fact that lynchings are only one aspect of structural racism so you're basically strawmanning anti-racists.

Admit defeat, change the subject, and move on?

I'd have to be "defeated" first, which would require you to stop tap dancing around your own argument.

"popular conception about those frequencies is distorted"? Uh, source?

Allow me to purposefully change this this. Pretend I didn't say that popular conception is distorted. Assume I said that your perception is distorted.

And what perception is that?

The Armenian genocide killed fewer people than every anti-semitic genocide, but we don't use that as an argument to handwave away the Armenian genocide.

No, but we'd use to handwave any arguments that Armenians have had it worse than everyone else.

Both the numbers you chose are about black victims of murder, so "had it worse than everyone else" is not even on the table within your own argument.

So you think criminality among specific demographics aren't structural issues?

For crimes that have identifiable structural causes (like trafficking), I don't.

For shit like homicide and rape? No that's all nature right there.

"All nature"? So why the disproportionality you acknowledged before?

Peer review is not an "appeal to authority". lrn2science

I will now counter every argument you have with "where's your peer review".

That sounds like a tedious bit.

And how does that help you determine what is or isn't a structural problem? Why those two numbers in particular? How are they relevant to each other?

Because one supposedly structural thing occurred less frequently than a related act that isn't structural?

How do you know that the latter isn't structural?

Oh, right, because it's "natural"?

[Bear Stearns]

Says numbers. The Chicago Tribune said there were 6,971 homicides in the US in 1900, out of a population of just 104 million (in that same year there ~10 lynchings).

And you think that makes them "isolated" incidents?

Islamic terrorism in Europe has killed at least a couple hundred people since 2015. Are Islamic terrorist attacks "isolated" incidents?

It would depend. If the attack was carried out by ISIS or Al-Qeada, then it wouldn't be isolated. Something like the Orlando gay club shooting, however, is.

What if the individually-violent people all seem to have something in common?

Such as?

By having certain traits regarding impulse control, aggression, and temperament. If only there were a way to see in who those traits were more likely to be expressed :^)

How are the numbers arbitrary?

The selection of them seems rather arbitrary. Why did you choose lynchings over the course of almost a century compared to overall black-on-black murder statistics over the course of a couple years?

Because lynchings over the course of a couple of years would be basically nothing and black-on-black murders over 86 years would be so astronomical it wouldn't even be worth talking about.

So what do you want? A regression model? I don't have all day to do that.

If you can't be rigorous, then maybe you ought to avoid trying to play amateur researcher.

I don't think that's a standard that applies to an internet forum. My math is simple and is easily understood. If someone wishes to be more rigorous and refute it, then by all means.

I'm sure that you could find tons of proper research that agrees with your conclusions.

I'm aware. They aren't relevant right now.

Google Scholar is your friend.

I use it at work.

The fact you consider multiplication and division to be pretentious...

Strawmanning will get you very far in life, I promise.

Worse things have gotten me further.

Shots fired!

Not really? You are not "objectively measuring" whether racism is real.

Racism is real. It's just not as big of a problem.

What kind of Marxist horeshit is this?

It's basic historical materialism. lrn2philosophy

It's neurotic and insane.

>Chris Dorner
>Dallas police shooting

Just two cases? Over the course of how many years? Sounds like a couple isolated incidents to me. Maybe you should worry more about white-on-white murders.

Why? White-on-white murders, while being the most common type of white murder, are not very common overall. White-on-white crime is a non-issue in America once you adjust for population size.