Popular Post Yakuda Posted February 28 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 28 Why in heavens name would a Harvard professor, enlightened and progressive as they all are, need armed protection? Harvard is a place of tolerance and the free exchange of ideas right? Thats all true unless you're a black professor at Harvard and you discuss your research and it goes against the leftist narrative. Harvard professor Roland Fryer, who at age 30 became the youngest African American ever to be awarded tenure at the Ivy League school, has revealed he faced threats and had to get armed security after publishing a study showing no racial bias in police-involved shootings. His peer-reviewed findings challenge the claim, long made by activist groups like Black Lives Matter, that police in America’s “structurally racist society” readily resort to lethal force when dealing with black suspects. But what should have been an opportunity for academic debate, scholarly disagreement and controversy within a wider, ongoing public conversation, quickly degenerated into a concerted campaign to commit violence against Prof Fryer and his family. Leftists don't seem to care much for black people who won't stay on the plantation. https://freespeechunion.org/harvard-professor-needed-armed-protection-after-publishing-research-that-challenged-woke-orthodoxies/ 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 Guy wrote a flawed study using used flawed data from one city to conclude cops don't shot Black people at higher rates, got suspended for being a sex pest and is now doing the cancel culture grifter circuit, tale as old as time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Guy wrote a flawed study using used flawed data from one city to conclude cops don't shot Black people at higher rates, got suspended for being a sex pest and is now doing the cancel culture grifter circuit, tale as old as time. No proof of the story being flawed, the suspension is alleged, and no evidence of grifting, anywhere. Why are you so full of shit? Is the need to spread lies and disinformation in your DNA? Edited February 28 by Deluge 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post WestCanMan Posted February 28 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 28 49 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Guy wrote a flawed study using used flawed data from one city to conclude cops don't shot Black people at higher rates, got suspended for being a sex pest and is now doing the cancel culture grifter circuit, tale as old as time. "Me no wikey so it not twoo". 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuebecOverCanada Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 54 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Guy wrote a flawed study using used flawed data from one city to conclude cops don't shot Black people at higher rates, got suspended for being a sex pest and is now doing the cancel culture grifter circuit, tale as old as time. Does he deserve to die because of the ideas he pushes? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 13 minutes ago, Deluge said: No proof of the story being flawed, the suspension is alleged, and no evidence of grifting, anywhere. Why are you so full of shit? Is the need to spread lies and disinformation in your DNA? His confirmation bias just went into hijack mode, so the death threats are justifiable I guess. It's a tale as old as time "Say something that we don't like, we kill you." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 2 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said: Does he deserve to die because of the ideas he pushes? No, why would you assume that? 20 minutes ago, Deluge said: No proof of the story being flawed, the suspension is alleged, and no evidence of grifting, anywhere. Why are you so full of shit? Is the need to spread lies and disinformation in your DNA? The study drew it's conclusions from a single limited data set from one city. The suspension is real and anyone who runs with the Bari Weiss crowd is a grifter. QED. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 1 hour ago, Black Dog said: Guy wrote a flawed study using used flawed data from one city to conclude cops don't shot Black people at higher rates, got suspended for being a sex pest and is now doing the cancel culture grifter circuit, tale as old as time. What do you mean? It was a peer reviewed article. I thought you science types liked that kind of shit? You do but apparently not when it exposes your bullshit right? Unless you mean to say "peer reviewed" is flawed too? Leftist stupidity is boring after a while. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 27 minutes ago, Deluge said: No proof of the story being flawed, the suspension is alleged, and no evidence of grifting, anywhere. Why are you so full of shit? Is the need to spread lies and disinformation in your DNA? It was a "peer reviewed" article. Don't the leftists claim that prevents flaws? They tell us we shouldn't question such things but they can apparently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 3 minutes ago, Yakuda said: It was a "peer reviewed" article. Don't the leftists claim that prevents flaws? That's not what peer-reviewed means. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 14 minutes ago, Black Dog said: 1. The study drew it's conclusions from a single limited data set from one city. 2. The suspension is real and anyone who runs with the Bari Weiss crowd is a grifter. QED. 1. Then you should get off your ass and refute it with better sources. Remember, you just standing their with your mouth flapping doesn't mean shit. 2. And you think Trump executed an insurrection on January 6. Don't you people understand that your opinions aren't worth shit? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 7 minutes ago, Yakuda said: It was a "peer reviewed" article. Don't the leftists claim that prevents flaws? They tell us we shouldn't question such things but they can apparently Leftoids are legends in their own minds - pure, and untouchable. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Moonbox said: That's not what peer-reviewed means. I've had this discussion with too many leftist nitwits who claim a peer reviewed article has been examined for errors in methodology, procedures, subjects etc etc. The clear implication is a peer reviewed studied can be believed because of this "rigorous" review. Leftists claim all this bullshit until it no longer serves the narrative. 9 minutes ago, Deluge said: Leftoids are legends in their own minds - pure, and untouchable. lol They're nitwits. Edited February 28 by Yakuda 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 12 minutes ago, Yakuda said: What do you mean? It was a peer reviewed article. I thought you science types liked that kind of shit? You do but apparently not when it exposes your bullshit right? Unless you mean to say "peer reviewed" is flawed too? Leftist stupidity is boring after a while. What did science say? I looked for a quote from Fauci but I couldn't find one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 It's pretty disturbing, but not at all surprising, that this man gets death threats because he published something that shoots down a longstanding myth pushed by the left. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 23 minutes ago, Black Dog said: The study drew it's conclusions from a single limited data set from one city. Ahhh, the death threats are justified then. Thanks for clearing that up. Do you have a cite for the study? Did he even claim that his study proves that there's no racial bias elsewhere? What did he do that's serious enough to warrant death threats? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: What did science say? I looked for a quote from Fauci but I couldn't find one. He's an imbecile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 1 minute ago, Yakuda said: He's an imbecile Nice knowin' ya. Tell the alt-left death squad that comes to kill you that I live in Ulan Batur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Yakuda said: What do you mean? It was a peer reviewed article. I thought you science types liked that kind of shit? You do but apparently not when it exposes your bullshit right? Unless you mean to say "peer reviewed" is flawed too? Leftist stupidity is boring after a while. It wasn't peer reviewed. It was working paper and not submitted for publication. Oops. Edited February 28 by Black Dog 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 1 minute ago, Yakuda said: I've had this discuss with too many leftist nitwits who claim a peer reviewed article has been examined for errors in methodology, procedures, subjects etc etc. If they're saying peer-reviewed = infallible and unquestionable, then they're wrong as well, especially in the social sciences. Peer-reviewed just adds credibility, and mainly depending on the quality and standards of the publishing journal/board/group. In the case of Roland Fryer, he had a working paper that was not subjected to peer-review but the New York Times picked it up and published it anyways, and this was back in 2016. The methodology and conclusions of the study have since been picked apart and refuted as flawed by other experts, including by the university he worked for. Many of the people who liked the conclusions he drew, however, have elevated him to mythical/martyr status, just like the anti-vaxx crowd did with the odd dissenter. They revere the experts that tell them what they want to hear, and ignore everyone else. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 27 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: Ahhh, the death threats are justified then. Thanks for clearing that up. Do you have a cite for the study? Did he even claim that his study proves that there's no racial bias elsewhere? What did he do that's serious enough to warrant death threats? No one said that. Are you gonna make up another quote for that too you f*cking loser? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Deluge said: Don't you people understand that your opinions aren't worth shit? You've NEVER shown the least recognition your opinions aren't worth shit, so maybe you should set and example and stop posting YOUR BULLSHIT. Edited February 28 by robosmith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 31 minutes ago, ironstone said: It's pretty disturbing, but not at all surprising, that this man gets death threats because he published something that shoots down a longstanding myth pushed by the left. When did YOU EVER object to the death threats fomented by Trump against EVERYONE who opposes HIM? This is ONE EXAMPLE. There are hundreds of examples of MAGA CULT issuing death threats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 4 minutes ago, robosmith said: When did YOU EVER object to the death threats fomented by Trump against EVERYONE who opposes HIM? This is ONE EXAMPLE. There are hundreds of examples of MAGA CULT issuing death threats. What are the examples of Trump making death threats to his opponents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 3 hours ago, Yakuda said: Why in heavens name would a Harvard professor, enlightened and progressive as they all are, need armed protection? Harvard is a place of tolerance and the free exchange of ideas right? Thats all true unless you're a black professor at Harvard and you discuss your research and it goes against the leftist narrative. Harvard professor Roland Fryer, who at age 30 became the youngest African American ever to be awarded tenure at the Ivy League school, has revealed he faced threats and had to get armed security after publishing a study showing no racial bias in police-involved shootings. His peer-reviewed findings challenge the claim, long made by activist groups like Black Lives Matter, that police in America’s “structurally racist society” readily resort to lethal force when dealing with black suspects. But what should have been an opportunity for academic debate, scholarly disagreement and controversy within a wider, ongoing public conversation, quickly degenerated into a concerted campaign to commit violence against Prof Fryer and his family. Leftists don't seem to care much for black people who won't stay on the plantation. https://freespeechunion.org/harvard-professor-needed-armed-protection-after-publishing-research-that-challenged-woke-orthodoxies/ Your cite says "peer reviewed" but there is no pointer to a peer review published article. Your cite references a working paper, not published and no reference to peer reviewed. Quote An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force Roland G. Fryer, Jr NBER Working Paper No. 22399 July 2016, Revised January 2018 JEL No. J01,K0 So cite the PUBLISHED DOCUMENT and JOURNAL or admit you LIED. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.