how??? cuz Gay wouldn't agree to the severance pay amount of someone who worked under him, that he sexual harassed... lol, yep that's dirty huh. smh. *get a grip*
he nuked his own career & seized the situation on the Gay, to twist his own nefarious deed as her fault. well if he actually felt some type of way about his own actions & willing to take accountability for them, he would took $25,000 less of what Gay agreed to pay to the lady out his own pocket & added to the severance package, not deflect on it. he did it, not Gay not the University, either 🤨
@@ajwaddanwarr3409 *NO he wasn't* *he did Dr. Gay sooooo dirty* *to hide his dirt* *it's o. k.* *KARMA* *DR GAY DIDN'T SEXUALLY HARRASS THAT YOUNG LADY* *he did* *and why should Harvard pay for his transgressions* ??? *HUH* ??? *make that make sense, pls* *DON'T WORRY I AIN'T WAITING FOR NO NONSENSE, ANSWER* !!! *he was mad Gay approved the severance pay to young lady but it was* 25k *less than the total amount* *WHY DIDN'T he COME OUT his OWN POCKETS W/ his OWN* 🪙 COINS* & *MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE OF THE* 25 *K* ? *w) a salary of* 600 *K* *a yr* + *other grants* & *etc, that's chump change* *since he felt some type way* *he did it* *not Gay, not Harvard* *privileged ignorant narcissism* *that's why when the women dean's were doing the senate hearings on protest, he became very loud* & *vocal against Gay* *deflecting* & *grifting* 101. *now* *l👀k* @ *him* *and montz docu, made absolutely no sense* @ *all* *BOTTOM LINE* *he was given everything* & *blew it* *and wants everyone* & *everrrrything* *to be accountable* *BUT* *himself* & *he's the only one that did it* *he did it to himself* *KARMA* *SAD*
I appreciate that Roland took the time to do the research and to participate in this lecture. If this lecture was a research, paper, however, I wish that he would have allocated his time rather differently! That is to say, he spent plenty of time on his introduction, discussed the methods that he used, spent some time on his results, but then spent virtually NO time in his conclusion! Man, that part of this lecture is MASSIVELY consequential for the discussion surrounding police violence. With the recent killing of George Floyd, there were anti-police protests ACROSS THE WORLD, and yet Roland's data shows that, in the United States at least, whites are more likely to be killed by police than blacks. By contrast, the popularly held belief, however, is that police are killing blacks FAR more than whites. Even if many people engage in motivated reasoning and do not want to hear the truth behind this data, there are definitely some malleable minds who will hear the truth behind the data and say to people at work, on the bus, or at dinner conversations: "Actually, I've seen the numbers, and while blacks are more likely to face non-lethal violence from police, they are less likely to be killed by police than whites in America." I'm glad that people like Sam Harris are broadcasting this information ( ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vmgxtcbc4iU.html ), but we need more people to do it. This is, of course, not to say that we don't need to continue to reduce inter-ethnic prejudice in the world, because it is human nature to fear that which is different from us, and/or that which we do not understand, and there is still a small-but-consequential number of people who perpetuate baseless hatred. What we also need, however, is to prevent ourselves from succumbing to misguided hysteria based on inaccurate perceptions. We can help to do this by proliferating accurate information, as was presented by Roland in this video, because the mainstream media and culturally memetic wisdom do not seem overly interested in doing so at this moment in history.
You have to be trolling. Yes white people die more by police but I think you fail to realize that for every 1 person of color their are about 4 white people. If you take the percentages of whites who died from police and the percentage of blacks who died from police, you would see that blacks are dying at a higher rate when compared equally. Ill break it down this way for you, if you have someone who makes a 3 pointer every 2-5 shots or 40%. Surely they aren't a better shooter than someone who makes 1-2 shots even though they've made more 3 pointers. Theyve made more shots but are less likely to make that shot. Does that make sense cause you wrote a whole novel and you're not even providing people with correct information.
@@itsdemonz9814 Hello. Nope, no trolling here; my only intention is to do what I can to make the world a better place; hence why I put as much time as I do into these comments. Yes, what you're referring to is absolute versus relative numbers, which can appear to skew percentages. In Sam's analysis, however, this is accounted for by using per capita calculations on peoples' contact (and by contact, I am referring to traffic stops, arrests, and/or any contact with the police that is related to police attempting to carry out their duties). Sam also notes that at the time of his analysis, only certain cities in the United States were divulging their police contact data, so this is far from a comprehensive, nationwide picture, but the data provided from these cities runs counter to the popular narrative that black people are more likely to be shot by police than white people. As Sam states, black people in these cities are, however, more likely to have non-lethal violence used on them during police contact than are white people. If it hasn't already, then what I have written is probably not going to convince you. Thus, if you have time, then I encourage you to listen to Sam Harris' podcast at the link that I provided in my previous comment. For convenience, I'll include it again here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vmgxtcbc4iU.html . It's not white nationalism or any such nonsense, but it is an honest, intellectual dive into the numbers in order to give a clearer picture of what's actually happening during police stops in these American cities.
@@itsdemonz9814 The original commenter wasn't referring to absolute numbers of killings. Absolute numbers can be interesting, but you correctly point out the problem with absolute numbers. Fryer's research is looking at police behavior with persons they come into contact with (of differing races) and engage in some kind of force against. He finds that, when it comes to non-lethal uses of force, non-white civilians are more likely to be affected. In the case of LETHAL uses of force, he finds no difference.
My neighbor has a gun at his home. . He does not keep a bullet in chamber. However, the magazine is fully loaded. We have places in the city near me called " combat zones". It's where your chance of having a crime perpetrated on you is much higher, especially at night. I asked him if he would keep the chamber unloaded while concealed carry in combat zone. He said for his safety he would have a bullet in the chamber. Not talking about " others", what could the people in the combat zones do to make those areas safer for everyone?
@@JeffPenaify a white woman accused of him of sexual misconduct and he lost tenure. It’s an apt comparison considering it was an explicit attack by the woke mob using Jim Crow tactics to silence black enemies of the movement.
@@JeffPenaify You can see a short docu on the subject here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-m8xWOlk3WIw.html . The producers of the docu are obviously on Fryer's side, but it's a place to start.
These data are provided by police departments, not a single officer. Importantly, he shows that non-lethal use of force is higher for non-whites. In lethal use of force, he finds no difference. No doubt the data are biased, but it's the best data available of its kind.
When you have to ask for biased coverage, something is wrong. If there was nothing to find, you'd think they would say: We invite this inquiry and we hope the press covers this honestly. They didn't say that there is no evidence they simply said it hasn't been produced yet. If you were innocent, wouldn't you say, "The GOP will find no evidence?" Seems like corruption of objectivity following political corruption for profit.
That's precisely what he said. He's married to Franziska Michor, a Harvard mathematician with a PhD in evolutionary biology. You can check her out on Wikipedia.
He says there's a significant racial bias in police violence, but not police shootings or taserings. What about police killing? (which doesn't always involve shooting, as we have seen recently with George Floyd).
I'm working my way through Fryer's police violence paper now. I don't think there's a data entry for the type of killing inflicted on George Floyd or Tony Timpa (killed by Dallas TX police in 2016).
@@yohnnyfive6310 Thanks for this info. I'll remember this for future reference. If you're interested, Profs John McWhorter and Glenn Loury have interesting discussions about crime, race, and policing on a YT channel called bloggingheads.tv. In a recent video, McWhorter mentioned the Tony Timpa case (five years after it happened). It's nice to see that this information _sometimes_ makes its way to larger media plarforms.
And as you do that research also look up if any of the unarmed black people who were shot by police were resisting arrest or were fighting cops. Just because someone is unarmed doesnt mean they are innocent and cops just shot em for nothing
@@andy1181-l3mLiberals wanted police body cams until the reality started becoming obvious. I have watched hundreds of body and dash cam recordings showing suspects resisting and brandishing a weapon. Most of the time the suspects were ⚫. NYPD, LAPD, Riverside PD and Chicago PD, just to name a few, have their own RU-vid channels and upload critical incidents involving police, such as officer involved shootings.
