Don't you ever say 'black on black crime' again

[Igel]

113. We hear about the need for handgun training before a gun is purchased.

It's something I can get on board with. "Well regulated" in the 1790s could be "provisioned according to rules" or "trained according to rules." ("Governed and controlled" wasn't an option.)

Sadly, we don't hear about the need for numeracy training before calculators and spreadsheet programs are purchased.

There was a dork here on DU years ago who constantly ran high-level stats using Excel using exit poll and election data. He was clueless as to when it was appropriate to use the stats or the valid inferences that could be drawn, but it didn't stop him from pontificating on his wonderful Excel skills. The more he was asked about the assumptions, the more he said, "But Excel!" Truly sad.


So the stats in the article are quoted correctly but then abused. Conclusions are drawn based upon variance from random chance, but the writer doesn't bother to point out what random chance would be--and the idea of margins of error? Ha! We're encouraged to be knee-jerk outraged over things we don't understand because people don't want to be embarrassed. The writer doesn't want to be ashamed of the stats, which reflect truly horrendously shameful behavioral norms. And so he decides to shame into silence with absurd statements nobody dares challenge.

Truly, some American minds need coddling.

What's sad is the level of hypocrisy involved. Because in other contexts, the disproportionate intraracial homicide rate is used as positive evidence to encourage change and help. Now it doesn't exist and it's racist to mention it; now it must be shouted because something must be done to resolve a racist injustice. The only thing the two views have in common is the attempt to shame.