The Assault on Empiricism

Not the author, but even if 17 is undercounted, it seemed their argument was more about the perception that the number was closer to 1700; which is patently ridiculous. And the propensity for a single political team to believe that.

Or, just as ridiculously, something like 2/3's of republicans believe The Big Lie(tm). Granting that an American election could be stolen, we might put the odds closer to 1%, but there is a perception that it is closer to 99%.

I believe what the author is getting at is how far our perceptions our from actual facts on the ground reality. And further what is concerning that most people who are aware of this don't even seem to mind.

Personally, I'm not sure what else we would expect, apes gotta have faith in something after all.

The issue isn't whether this number is precisely correct, it's that there is simply no concerted effort by the activists to pursue it. Just like how advocates for the invasion of Iraq were perfectly happy to allow Americans in 2002 to dramatically inflate their own sense of danger from terrorism, activists have an "ends justify the means" mentality of not being concerned with data unless it supports their cause, independent of whether said data reflects truth.

The article links to the Washington Post's database, but a separate project that is run by activists who are relatively data literate is this one: https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

I've dug through their dataset, and it's not bad. They tend to be a little too biased in the sense where they default to assuming unarmed or "allegedly armed", assuming that police reports of suspects having a weapon aren't trustworthy, which is understandable, but unscientific.

Also, no flag for "resisting arrest". An unspoken reality in these activist circles is that getting killed by police when NOT resisting arrest is a relatively rare event.

One of the stark things that stands out when looking through these databases is how the media's narrative bias has made non-Black victims of police shootings invisible. Felons with a violent history who are killed by police while resisting arrest get more media attention if their Black than do Latino victims of police shootings that were completely unjustified. The average HN reader looking at this comment can't name a single Latino person killed by police in the last 5 years. This is absurd and unjust, because there's no way that every Latino killed by cops is done so in a just manner, and without media pressure, the cops who killed them won't be brought to justice. Likewise for the single most horrific police killing I've seen (other than Floyd), Daniel Shaver. The cop who killed him got off with an early retirement and full pension.

That should have said income inequality has been increasing

Life expectancy in the US has a massive drag due to the bottom decile (unlike in other countries) having garbage health care and eating habits. Also, the opioid epidemic (again, something limited to the US) dragged down life expectancy gains BIG TIME.

But fair points.

To explain my reasoning (the person responding to me seem to question my motives).

Categorizing things simply into "left/right" and saying "the left/right" does this or that... Grossly simplifies complex issues and paints a world in black and white that is really many shades of gray. I lived primarily in places with multiparty systems and while they can generally can be put on a rough spectrum from right to left, positions on particular issues can vary significantly from that.

Moreover, left and right are relative measures so when I read about some "far left" policy in the US, that often is considered a stance of the moderate right of centre parties here. Similarly some of the individual freedom stances of the "right" in the US have more overlap with parties on the left side of the spectrum here.

All that to say, that the world is more complicated than left and right and I expect a sociology professor to be aware of the nuance, instead of peddle to the politics.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not?

Crenshaw and others never claimed that CRT and other variants of Conflict Theory were empirical in nature.

In the early 2000s, while pursuing my engineering and applied economics degrees, I focused most of my electives in the social sciences, and actually had several courses in classes where various flavors of Conflict Theory were explored. Essentially, Marx was a Conflict Theorist who focused on class divisions while deconstructing the rather miserable conditions of living in the height of Europe's industrial revolution.

Kim Crenshaw's work was always presented as a lens in which to deconstruct and then analyze various societal conditions.

What I can definitely attest to is that Conflict Theory and it's offshoots are strongly post-modernist in flavor, in the sense where they view attempts at quantifying and measuring to be so strongly biased by the dominant groups of a given culture as to be useless at best and tools of oppression at worst. It's not that they aren't empirical, it's that they are actively hostile to empiricism and reject it.

One of my sociology professors (a true statistically literate prof who specialized in poverty dynamics) used to joke that the CT and CRT folks didn't do research, they just wrote essays that referenced essays that referenced essays.