Quote:
Originally Posted by itshotinvegas
I'm wrong about decimal points. You got me. It does not change the core argument, the paper you linked about black males is not indicative of chance the protestors will die at the hands of the police. You think it does, but you have to assume the protestors have to be overwhelming male, first and foremost, and black, which is entirely is not even close to being demonstrated. You keep doubling down on your stupidity, and getting your gotcha's on irrelevant math mistakes. You've still not countered the initial point, 99.9999% or whatever will not die at the hands the police, and your only response gotcha gotcha you made a rounding error.
If we take the protestors to be 50% black, and of them an even split of men and women, 20% Latinx with an even split of men and women, 20% white and of them an even split of men and women, and 10% Asian, and of them an even split of men and women, then, using the numbers from the study, we'd expect about 0.036% of the protesters would be killed by the police, which is a number 3600 times larger than the number you first stated would be merely harmed by police. In contrast, using the 1/1000 number for the whole crowd is an overestimate by only a factor of 3. Your strawman about my claim was a much better estimate than yours!
Add to that, of course, is the fact that this is only people killed by police, while your original claim was "harmed." Killing a black man obviously harms far more people than just himself (such as his partner and kids and parents), not to mention that there are lots of other harms out there, such as beatings and disparate policing. It's actually a lot more people than 1/1000 who will be harmed by the police.