1/2 The Mapping Police Violence database counts many cases in which off-duty police officers (for instance) murder their families or lovers (and each family member is counted as a separate victim). I mean..I get that these acts were committed by police officers. But are they..
2/2 ...but can they *really* be reasonably construed* as cases of lethal police force? I call bullshit.
3/2 Hell, even *accidental* off-duty shootings are counted: "Miller's husband accidentally shot her in the head when he was cleaning his gun. She was 22 weeks pregnant, and the child died after an emergency c-section. The killing was ruled accidental."
4/2 "Chief McNeese was on a hunting trip with a friend when he accidentally shot and killed his friend Whitman." Seriously?
5/2 "An officer responding to a burglary call at an apartment complex encountered Lett, and the two entered into a physical confrontation. The officer tried the Taser, but in the rain he only shocked himself. Lett had the officer pinned to the ground when the officer fired"
6/2 I hardly ever use the word 'grift' (as it's so overused and flung about so liberally by most on here), but I will use it in the case of BLM.
7/2 (I know..this thread has gone on a lot longer than I expected)
If you're curious, what I'm working on is another (and larger) media-police victims x race analysis
, after decades of relative stability, tolerance for racist speech continues to plummet, particularly among white liberals. Tolerance among white conservatives, meanwhile, has remained relatively stable.
1/n and white Democrats have retaken the lead !!! (*crowd goes wild*)
2/n Caveat: the General Social Survey shifted its methodology (to online polling) in response to COVID, which means it's more difficult to determine the extent that the 2018 vs. 2021 figures represent actual opinion change (vs. bias introduced by the new methodology). However..
3/n ...online surveys naturally afford greater anonymity, which should reduce social desirability pressures/increase honest reporting. So the fact that this response has *increased* among white Dems suggests that the change is either genuine or the result of sampling bias.
1/n Unless this is sampling bias, some signs that the Awokening has stalled--particularly among white independents. For instance, the share of white indeps that 'agreed' with the statement below *doubled* (33%->66%) between May and June (vs 59%->73% for white Reps).
2/n In contrast, the Awokening (at least on this question) persists among white Dems, with agreement *falling* (and disagreement increasing) 25%->14% across this same period.
3/n Similarly, the share that 'agree' that prejudice and discrimination holds back minorities fell nearly 25 points among white indeps (34%->9.2%) and 16 points mong white Republicans (31.7%->16.1%). Curiously, we also see a decline among white Dems (80.9%->64.7%)
1/n Should the American public be allowed to vote on the number of immigrants admitted into the US and from which countries? (note: interesting survey question, but its double-barrelled nature is a problem).
Overall, 47% of YouGov respondents say yes, while 53% say that..
2/n ..it shouldn't be up to voters to decide. Interestingly, though, white Democrats are far more likely to give a 'no' response than non-white Dems. Accordingly, if we remove white dems from the sample, the numbers flip: 54% in favor, 46% opposed.
3/n Also interesting (but not surprising): the more a person wants to increase (decrease) immigration, the more he/she is likely to oppose (support) allowing the public to vote on immigration numbers.
Glanced at the prologue and it jells with a theme I observed in my qualitative analysis of open-response entries: by and large, white racial resentment ≠ 'I hate black people'. It's more like...
2/2 ..'I'm tired of people lumping all whites into a single group and blaming me--and expecting me to pay--for the problems of others'
The proponents of the RR scale, though, think whites *are* responsible for the disadvantages of others. Hence, they interpret denials of..
1/2 No citation needed for this causal statement. Just skip right to the disparities and call them racism (and then lament that white people are resistant to interventions designed to promote this understanding).
2/2 What's frustrating is *not* that it's a bad paper (I found it interesting). It's that the findings are in no way dependent on the truth of this causal claim (though I suppose their normative framing and activist implications are). I thus don't know why it's relevant.
3/3 Addendum: I guess I just wish social science papers would just stick purely to the findings and leave it for others to derive their own implications