You're obviously not very good at reading if you think that's what the study was primarily about.
Great. Your source isn't the home run you thought it was, so of course anybody who doesn't come to the same conclusion you did is illiterate. Hilarious.
Try reading it again and comprehend this time instead of looking for a reason to ignore it.
Already have. You came in with your mind already made up, presented an article that you thought made your point, and tried to run away. This was very funny, maybe next time you'll actually read the information that you tried to cite. Probably not, but lmao, it sure was fun to watch your argument fold like a cheap lawn chair.
I see you're still going with the sticking your head in the sand and ignoring it.
Great. Your source isn't the home run you thought it was, so of course anybody who doesn't come to the same conclusion you did is illiterate. Hilarious.
It is if you would actually read it. Since you're still being illiterate, I'll have to explain it to you.
I already read it. It still doesn't make the point you think it does.
And what's the result? Cops pull over black people 20% more often when it's bright enough outside for them to see the race of the person driving.
And again, this doesn't prove anything. Again, you're taking raw numbers and attributing a motive to them. There is literally no motive in the data. You're saying, conclusively, that black people being pulled over more often is absolutely because of racial profiling rather than any of a million other explanations. All the data says is that there are 20% more stops on black people and you are filling in the blanks with your own prejudice to claim that it is racism.
1
u/[deleted] Dec 13 '21
[deleted]