(51) I'll refresh my 'articles' thread, up-top, with many more pieces.
Here, in an academic article, Bob Maranto, Pat Wolf, and myself look at how police departments can ACTUALLY REDUCE cop shootings - and why most of the #BLM lit doesn't touch on this...scholarworks.uark.edu/edrepub/136/
(52) In this piece, for @Newsweek, I point out we are not going to take ~450M legal weapons away from taxpayers, and suggest specific solutions to mass shootings...like watching those who say they might commit one, and not making those who do famous..newsweek.com/were-not-outli…
(53) In another @Newsweek article, I point out the Taboo Obvious: there is no One Team of bespoke-suit wearing whites oppressing everyone else, and causes like gay rights and Palestinian lib have literally nothing to do with one another...newsweek.com/nothing-unites…
Agree or nah?
(54) This piece was ~the end of an era: my final summary of exactly WHY the claim that any policy that produces a gap in performance between two large groups is "racist" is so wrong.
There is no rational explanation, under the "systemic racism" logical/logistical framework, for why Asians out-perform - not Blacks - but whites.
East Indians make 2-3x what WHITE people do. No one even disputes that. How is this just ignored?
(2) What I am saying here is extraordinarily simple.
If the claim is that ~all stat-sig performance gaps between groups are the result of "racism" or "racist policy" (Delgado 2001; D'Angelo 2018; Kendi 2018), massive minority groups out-performing the majority disprove this.
(3) If we want to move beyond silly theory to reality, and just say current racism - along with past racism, CULTURE, systemic variables like state welfare policy, luck...etc - determines how people/groups do, there isn't much to debate here.
But, since it already exists, this is important. "Everytown" numbers are complete hack-work, including basically any discharge of a firearm on or near a campus...by anyone...with any result.
There have been ~15 mass school shootings all time.
(2) One thing I'd like to see done about "mass shootings and the resultant panic" is honest coverage.
Media -especially conservative media!- should not name shooters and give them negative respect, should point out that these horrible incidents kill 20-40 people annually, etc.
(3) The template^ exists: it's how cases involving far-left, etc NON-narrative fitting madmen are often handled.
After the Waukesha killer ran over 62 people, he was described by his rap name, the story vanished in 3 days, and we weren't warned about Black extremists or cars.
This is my favorite example of the effects of ideological monoculture.
For literally almost a century, the questions used to measure authoritarianism and extremism - in well-done, honestly run studies - were focused exclusively on the right ("Should society regulate JEWS?!!")
(2) So, academics kept finding that ~all authoritarians were on the right.
Finally, 2-3 years ago, a scholar at Emory (?) re-jiggered the usual questions to ask about RIGHT-wing boogey-men (say "anti-maskers"). He found the obvious: many or most authoritarians are leftists.
(3) I keep finding the same sort of thing. In my audit studies paper, I noted that there has apparently never been a racism-testing "audit" study of minority businesses or gov't jobs...and apparently just 1 done in academia.
Wot does bias look like in these sectors? Who knows?!
A point not made often enough is that NO pre-pubescent, non-abused kid has a set sexual orientation, list of sexual preferences or kinks, sexualized gender identity, etc.
Everything from "common damn sense" to "most post-Freudians" tells us this.
It might be true that a "gender atypical" kid is more likely to grow up to BE gay, just as a "little heartbreaker" might grow up to be...popular with men.
But, many children will NOT grow up to be what the aunties predicted, and no child is those things in any real sense at 7.
(3) Any strong-form argument against this^ breaks down to: kids know who they are sexually and who they want to sleep with, they can make consent-necessary decisions about this, and these perceptions/desires will never change.
(2) To get this out of "Matt Walsh v. TRAs" territory, it's worth noting that there ARE hypothetical answers to this question.
Two might be "A woman is a human with a female brain" and "A woman is someone who follows the social norms that we all agree define femininity."
(3) Someone might even say "In situations where it is recognized that people observe 'avatars' of themselves, such as meditation or prayer, I SEE myself as a female human being."
But, these last three arguments bring us back into the empirical realm and face major problems.