Trevor Phillips

gunner · Mar 19, 2015

Was the head of 'equality' and 'race' for the Labour government of Tony Blair. It is NO secret that part of the 'new Labour' project was to, in Phillips (and Blair's) words: "Modernise Britain". In plain speak, to make the UK more racially and ethnically diverse. IMO, a form of social engineering, to change the demographics not by natural progression, but government policy. What makes Phillips views so compelling, is that he was the lead--in many of the projects and initiatives; and now says he thinks we got it wrong. The country went to far, and created another beast. The beast, that people are afraid to speak of anything that might offend someone. He freely admitted, UKIP has grown out of what he initiated.

We must listen to Trevor Phillips and his inconvenient truths about race - Telegraph

Things We Won't Say About Race That Are True - Channel 4

Trevor Phillips is the bravest man in the universe, writes RICHARD LITTLEJOHN | Daily Mail Online

"A Fact Cannot Be Racist," Says Trevor Phillips | LBC

Some points (proven statistically) From the program:

The list is:

1) Most black murder victims are killed by blacks

2) Street grooming gangs come from the Pakistani Mirpuri community

3) Romanians are far more likely to be pickpockets

4) Alcohol-fuelled crime is committed by white Britons

5) Black Britons are twice as likely to be sentenced for violent crime

6) Smart parents put their kids in class with Asians

7) White (and poor) is the new black

8) Irish people run the building trade

9) Jewish households are twice as wealthy as the rest

10) Indian women are eight times as likely to be chemists

I've got to say, it was one of the most invigorating documentaries I've watched for a very long time.

Infinite Chaos · Mar 20, 2015

gunner said:
-- I've got to say, it was one of the most invigorating documentaries I've watched for a very long time.

Was this Channel 4? I meant to watch or record this, might catch it on 4 on demand later today.

gunner · Mar 20, 2015

Infinite Chaos said:
Was this Channel 4? I meant to watch or record this, might catch it on 4 on demand later today.

Yes mate. Well worth a watch.

gunner · Mar 20, 2015

This is why there are things we don’t say about race (even when they are true)

This is why there are things we don

No surprise the Guardian are feeling uncomfortable, with some truths. The failure of Multiculturalism, for one. This piece shows they just didn't get what Phillips was attempting. The fact that people are afraid to talk about such issues, does absolutely nothing to solve an issue.

Andalublue · Mar 21, 2015

gunner said:
This is why there are things we don’t say about race (even when they are true)

This is why there are things we don

No surprise the Guardian are feeling uncomfortable, with some truths. The failure of Multiculturalism, for one. This piece shows they just didn't get what Phillips was attempting. The fact that people are afraid to talk about such issues, does absolutely nothing to solve an issue.

Oh, I think that article nailed a number of issues. Has anyone made this point better?

Thus emerges the myth that these gangs got away with it because people were scared to investigate for fear of being labelled racist. If officers across the country were really in fear of this, the stop and search figures would be inverted, with black and Asian people less likely to be stopped than white people. Why would it possibly be that in every other aspect of the criminal justice system the evidence is that black and Asian people are more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted and to receive a prison sentence than white people? Yet somehow, for these particularly grotesque crimes, Asians were given an easy ride. There’s been much conjecture on the possibility that “political correctness” prevented their crimes being detected, but absolutely no evidence.

I'm going to hold fire on Trevor Phillips until I've watched the programme. Which I'm going to do, when I can find a site to stream it - so far no luck.

DarkWizard12 · Mar 21, 2015

mbig · Mar 21, 2015

gunner said:
.....

I've got to say, it was one of the most invigorating documentaries I've watched for a very long time.

And I've hot to say I've always found this Taboo subject about the most fascinating.
Knowing there is an Un-PC truth out there that the vast Majority of people are in denial about is amazing to me.

This is really just an extension of the Evolution debate for me but others Freak out. Like all other animals, we really do have Race/subspecie, we just can't say it for political reasons.
Perhaps America's Foremsot expert on Evolution and Speciation:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/asia/...king-than-everyone-else-4.html#post1061879221

Even Liberal Left Slate magazine had come around in an article titled Liberal Creationism.
https://www.google.com/search?q=lib...9.5850j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
But after you click, you'll see it was Retitled, 'Created Equal' despite it's completely Contrary content, due to Liberal Reader outrage.
And Briefly..
it really is 'Liberal Creationism', in that now - liberals - like other doctrinaires YEC/creationist Christians, are demanding Evolution stopped with the appearance of H sapien 100,000+ years ago, despite many Evolving separately on different continents, and having obvious Morphological differences that WOULD be delineated as subspecie/Race in Any other animals.

Similarly, No Less than James Watson!, co-Nobel winner (with Crick) for discovering DNA, was finished off for pointing out a simple Race truth.

Gene Expression: James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences

[.......]
It's difficult to name many more important living figures in 20th century biology than James Watson. He ushered in the current age of molecular biology with his achievements in 1953, he built up one of the world's greatest biological research facilities from damn near scratch, and he is a former head of the Human Genome Project.

Given such an august curriculum vitae, you would think that this man perhaps understands just a few things about genetics. But given only the condescending media coverage, you'd think this eminent geneticist was somehow "out of his depth" on this one.

In his interview with the Times on Oct. 14th, we learned that:

... [Watson] is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really", and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address.

These thoughts were a continuation of an important theme in his new book 'Avoid Boring People':

... there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.
`
Although Watson's book had already been out for a month with these more euphemistic, but still obvious, comments on race and intelligence, no one expressed any outrage. In fact the reviews were reverential and universally positive.

The explicit reference to intelligence and people of African heritage in his interview was clearly a violation of a much more formidable taboo. Still I am not aware of there being much noise about it until Oct. 17th when the 'Independent' caused an immediate stir by calling attention to the remarks: Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners - Science - News - The Independent

There's no point in rehashing the rapid sequence of events in detail: several of Watson's sold-out speaking engagements were cancelled, many critical articles appeared in the British press, trailed by the American press a few days later, hundreds of blogs were fuming with negative commentary, including ones by the editors of Scientific American and Wired Magazine, a number of associations issued statements condemning his words, and soon he was suspended from his chancellorship at Cold Spring Harbor. Watson cancelled his already ruined book tour and flew home to tend to the Destruction. It was too late; the Eminent biologist retired in Disgrace on Oct. 26th.

One thing, though, was Conspicuously missing from this whole irritating denouement: any semblance of Factual refutation. There is good reason for this: Everything Watson got in trouble for saying was entirely correct!
[........]

cont'd soon.

mbig · Mar 21, 2015

cont'd

gunner said:
This is why there are things we don’t say about race (even when they are true)

This is why there are things we don

No surprise the Guardian are feeling uncomfortable, with some truths. The failure of Multiculturalism, for one. This piece shows they just didn't get what Phillips was attempting. The fact that people are afraid to talk about such issues, does absolutely nothing to solve an issue.

No surprise indeed, and of course the Deception/False equivalence/Strawman "Not ALL/even most of young Black men are criminals" by Guardian.
Yes, the same, but even worse strawman than this Centuries Tritest: "Not all Muslims are terrorists".

Guardian article above said:
The fact is, in all cases it’s just a small minority of any given group who are criminal. But the danger in all this is that if we keep repeating, and reporting, that Chinese do trafficking, or Turks trade in heroin, then in the absence of other information these entire ethnic groups can quickly become criminalised in the public perception.

This “ethnic profiling” is felt particularly sharply by Britain’s black population. Since the 1970s it has been reported that young black boys are more likely than other ethnic groups to commit street robbery. This is correct. But does this mean all young black men are criminals, or even most of them? Certainly not. Yet, as has been well recorded, black people are SIX times more likely to be stopped and searched by police than white people...

Wait, did Lefty rag just say they commit Six times more Robberies than Whites but being stopped Six times more than whites is 'unfair'?
Is that not exactly Proportionate?
And did they really say that we should Not Report crimes in the proportion that they are committed? (to give a false impression of equality/"just a few bad apples")

Consistent with UK stats (of course) (and elsewhere), in the USA, Blacks are 7 times more likely to commit Murder, and 8x more likely to commit Robbery. Coincidence I guess.

In America 1/3 of young Black men, are or have been in the Penal system.
Hey, that's not "all" or "even most", but it's a Wildly significant minority, especially considering only one in ten crimes gets an arrest.
It's Deceptive/False quivalence to write these off as similarly Tiny problems among All races.

Oh Yeah, it's coincidence, strictly socio-economic:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...-prison-racism-w-180-a-11.html#post1061397827
The 'Coincidence' part must be they have Lower Average IQs..... and have Higher Average Testosterone until their early thirties. See above.
Surely those Evolutionary racial traits have nothing to do with criminal behavior/arrest/conviction.
Wait, another 'coincidence'!
If the higher T part were true, young Blacks would be better at sports.

Not to make this a 'white/black' thing..
East Asians, who have a higher IQ than Whites or Blacks, also have Lower Testosterone than either.
They commit crime at 1/4 the rate of whites.

I know many of you will be upset by the above, but I hope you got a Cold Bucket intro.
I gave a gentler one here FIVE years ago:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/science-and-technology/71748-looming-un-pc-crisis-human-genetics.html

"...we can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals.
The few who really understand the genetics will gain a more enlightened, live-and-let-live recognition of the biodiversity within our extraordinary species—including a clearer view of likely comparative advantages between the world’s different economies...."

Yes Paul, there's Nothing more "invigorating" than learning, and then being speak the Truth: especially when it's contrary to what people want to hear.
And the EU, especially Scandinavia, is the bastion of quashing free speech, or even keeping stats that would be revealing.

Infinite Chaos · Mar 22, 2015

Evidence from the analysis of genetics indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. Link.

I knew IQ would rear its head. Take your pick: Science vs politically motivated racial studies - we're all defined by our skin colour OR we are defined by culture and upbringing.

I'm done here - I'll still watch this programme but now that IQ and Bell-Curves have been introduced this is either a discussion of your politics vs your understanding of genetics and I think the political noise will win the day on a political forum.

Andalublue · Mar 22, 2015

Infinite Chaos said:
I knew IQ would rear its head. Take your pick: Science vs politically motivated racial studies - we're all defined by our skin colour OR we are defined by culture and upbringing.

I'm done here - I'll still watch this programme but now that IQ and Bell-Curves have been introduced this is either a discussion of your politics vs your understanding of genetics and I think the political noise will win the day on a political forum.

It's a shame Trevor Phillips didn't show the same degree of understanding of how the racialist mind might use this material as you've just done.

gunner · Mar 22, 2015

Andalublue said:
It's a shame Trevor Phillips didn't show the same degree of understanding of how the racialist mind might use this material as you've just done.

Andy, you've just done the very thing that Phillips says is what has been wrong in our society, of late. Saying everything is RACIST! No wonder we don't tackle issues with this kind of mentality. If you watch the program, he does cover this point (misuse of stats ).

Andalublue · Mar 22, 2015

gunner said:
Andy, you've just done the very thing that Phillips says is what has been wrong in our society, of late. Saying everything is RACIST! No wonder we don't tackle issues with this kind of mentality. If you watch the program, he does cover this point (misuse of stats ).

I would watch the programme if I could watch the programme.

Where the hell did I say that everything was racist? Where the hell did I suggest that Trevor Phillips programme or theory was racist? I was commenting on IC's observation of the way in which certain forces would use this material, and indeed have begun to do so in this very thread. Phillips, and you, seem to be calling for an end to seeing taboos in political discourse, yet you seem to want to have a discussion on this subject while banning the use of certain terms. Is that consistent?

gunner · Mar 22, 2015

Andalublue said:
I would watch the programme if I could watch the programme.

Where the hell did I say that everything was racist? Where the hell did I suggest that Trevor Phillips programme or theory was racist? I was commenting on IC's observation of the way in which certain forces would use this material, and indeed have begun to do so in this very thread. Phillips, and you, seem to be calling for an end to seeing taboos in political discourse, yet you seem to want to have a discussion on this subject while banning the use of certain terms. Is that consistent?

Phillips said because this information can be used, in all manner of ways, is not a reason to stop discussing the issue. Nobody to my mind, is saying certain topics are taboo. The complete opposite, actually. For example, you hate the fact that it is mainly Pakistani Muslims carrying out grooming. Thus, rather than discuss the issue, you like to bring in other types of offence, by other groups. It's called avoiding the issue. Again, hopefully for the last time, this is what Phillips was saying!

Andalublue · Mar 22, 2015

gunner said:
Phillips said because this information can be used, in all manner of ways, is not a reason to stop discussing the issue. Nobody to my mind, is saying certain topics are taboo. The complete opposite, actually. For example, you hate the fact that it is mainly Pakistani Muslims carrying out grooming.

I posted from that Guardian article yesterday the perfect response to that nonsense. I'd better repeat it:

Thus emerges the myth that these gangs got away with it because people were scared to investigate for fear of being labelled racist. If officers across the country were really in fear of this, the stop and search figures would be inverted, with black and Asian people less likely to be stopped than white people. Why would it possibly be that in every other aspect of the criminal justice system the evidence is that black and Asian people are more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted and to receive a prison sentence than white people? Yet somehow, for these particularly grotesque crimes, Asians were given an easy ride. There’s been much conjecture on the possibility that “political correctness” prevented their crimes being detected, but absolutely no evidence.

Thus, rather than discuss the issue, you like to bring in other types of offence, by other groups. It's called avoiding the issue. Again, hopefully for the last time, this is what Phillips was saying!

Okay, here's what I'm struggling with in this thread, Paul. What exactly IS the issue we're dealing with here? What point precisely are we meant to take away from Phillips little disquisition? What specific issue is it I'm avoiding? Tell me straight, and don't use academic euphemisms and obfuscations.

William Rea · Mar 22, 2015

To me, it sounds like just another media luvvy shilling a commercial TV programme. I'll shrug but, watch it and come back.

mbig · Mar 22, 2015

gunner said:
Phillips said because this information can be used, in all manner of ways, is not a reason to stop discussing the issue. Nobody to my mind, is saying certain topics are taboo. The complete opposite, actually. For example, you hate the fact that it is mainly Pakistani Muslims carrying out grooming. Thus, rather than discuss the issue, you like to bring in other types of offence, by other groups. It's called avoiding the issue. Again, hopefully for the last time, this is what Phillips was saying!

For the record, and all but Paul, my 'racialist' mind already and recently gave my opinion Several Times on the reason for the Pakistani Grooming frequency, and it's NOT mainly Race:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...hildren-turkish-school-13.html#post1064429933
(which also contains the two other Links/Recent examples)
Stating it was a Religio-Ethnic crime visited on not just Non-Muslim whites, but on other Non-Muslim Asians.

mbig said:
....
Showing there IS a Religious/Ethno-religious element to these Grooming cases.
We do NOT see this SYSTEMATIC activity from other non-Muslim Asian immigrants, in fact, THEY (Hindus/Sikhs) TOO are victims of the Muslim 'Rape Jihad.'
Spare us the 'Racism'.

Yes, of course Every group has Pedos/rapists etc, but this wildly Unbalanced, Inordinate, and Systematic Behavior, is Not mere criminality, but Religio-Cultural Jihad:
Debasing and raping the Other culture's young women.
NOT so much aberrant sexuality that exists in Muslim/other countries too, and as in ie, Catholic Priests etc, here, but more Routine in War, primitive cultures, and... [otherwise Normal] Hostile immigrants.
Yes, a kind of domestic/stealth ISIS.
THAT is the difference.
Not hypocrisy, but explaining the Difference to the Die-hard/Baffle-em-with-BS Left.
.....

IOW, all cultures have aberrant sexuality, and the Grooming cases are Not inherent in the Genes of Asians, but committed in part as domestic Religio-Ethnic warfare against non-Muslims AND Muslims of other religions.

It should also be noted I am Not "Using" the information of Trevor Phillips, HE is just confirming, in small part, what I have posted for a Decade. That's the exciting thing: to see a dent among the MS/MSM. Obviously, and again, Not all of his stats are Genetically determined/infuenced by race/genes.

Of course, the same thing happened on Islam didn't it.
Many PC here/in this section, were in Denial for Years against all those 'bigoted' posts, but have now come around, with only a few hard Leftists maintaining Islam doesn't have inordinate problems. While Others have passed me and my former cohort in their objection/solutions to that religio-political system!
Hell, we even had one poster give a grudging formal apology to that cohort.

It will happen on Genetics too.
Again from the Economist, Nov 2009.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/science-and-technology/71748-looming-un-pc-crisis-human-genetics.html

Human geneticists have reached a private Crisis of Conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. The crisis has.. alarming political ones. In a nutshell: the new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than Feared about human Evolution and Inequality, including Genetic Differences between classes, ethnicities and races
[....]
The trouble is, the resequencing data will reveal much more about human evolutionary history and Ethnic Differences than they will about disease genes. Once enough DNA is analysed around the world, science will have a panoramic view of human genetic Variation across Races, ethnicities and regions.
[....]
We will also identify the many genes that create Physical and Mental Differences across Populations, and we will be able to estimate when those genes arose. Some of those differences probably occurred very recently, within recorded history. Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending argued in “The 10,000 Year Explosion” that some human groups experienced a vastly accelerated rate of evolutionary change within the past few thousand years, benefiting from the new genetic diversity created within far larger populations, and in response to the new survival, social and reproductive challenges of agriculture, cities, divisions of labour and social classes. Others did not experience these changes until the past few hundred years when they were subject to contact, colonisation and, all too often, extermination.
...
The few who really understand the genetics will gain a more enlightened, live-and-let-live recognition of the Biodiversity within our extraordinary species—including a clearer view of likely Comparative Advantages between the world’s different economies....

gunner · Mar 23, 2015

Andalublue said:
I posted from that Guardian article yesterday the perfect response to that nonsense. I'd better repeat it:

Okay, here's what I'm struggling with in this thread, Paul. What exactly IS the issue we're dealing with here? What point precisely are we meant to take away from Phillips little disquisition? What specific issue is it I'm avoiding? Tell me straight, and don't use academic euphemisms and obfuscations.

The issue of being afraid (for numerous reasons) to NOT talk about certain issues. The list was very clear. Just of the top of my head; how many times have you deflected away from the stats that show, "mainly Pakistani men are part of grooming gangs"?

gunner · Mar 23, 2015

William Rea said:
To me, it sounds like just another media luvvy shilling a commercial TV programme. I'll shrug but, watch it and come back.

A media "luvvy" that held a very prominent position in the New Labour movement. So, one would hope that he at least an inkling and working knowledge, of how he helped shape policy. And to be fair, he has the temerity to admit he was wrong.

Andalublue · Mar 23, 2015

gunner said:
The issue of being afraid (for numerous reasons) to NOT talk about certain issues. The list was very clear. Just of the top of my head; how many times have you deflected away from the stats that show, "mainly Pakistani men are part of grooming gangs"?

I haven't. You seem to hear what you want to hear Paul. In those cases we've seen recently, men of predominantly Pakistani origin have been responsible for grooming vulnerable kids for sex. I want to see them gaoled for as long as the law will allow and I want to see public officials, including police officers, disciplined for failing to act on information that they most certainly had for quite some time. Which bit of that is deflecting?

Now, speaking of deflecting, how come you seem disinclined to answer my questions? Here they are again, in case you'd forgotten:

1) What exactly IS the issue we're dealing with here?
2) What point precisely are we meant to take away from Phillips little disquisition?
3) What specific issue is it I'm avoiding?

Ben K. · Mar 23, 2015

Andalublue said:
I posted from that Guardian article yesterday the perfect response to that nonsense. I'd better repeat it:

Okay, here's what I'm struggling with in this thread, Paul. What exactly IS the issue we're dealing with here? What point precisely are we meant to take away from Phillips little disquisition? What specific issue is it I'm avoiding? Tell me straight, and don't use academic euphemisms and obfuscations.

You stated that Trevor Philips didn't think of the consequences of stating facts. You don't need to watch the doc, the LBC link has a video where he responds to this point.

It's a shame Trevor Phillips didn't show the same degree of understanding of how the racialist mind might use this material as you've just done.

This sort of stuff reminds me of Climate Change sceptics, who intrinsically deny the facts because they worry about the potential political outcome.

I think race has been brought up to much out of what he said. He specifically says the conclusion to draw for Jewish success in the western world is not necessarily genetic predestination. I don't think the Irish have a genetic predisposition toward lego after all.

Andalublue · Mar 23, 2015

Ben K. said:
You stated that Trevor Philips didn't think of the consequences of stating facts. You don't need to watch the doc, the LBC link has a video where he responds to this point.

Well, I'm confused by it, and I guess I'll remain so until I get to see it. I just want to know what his motivation is for making these statements of 'racial truths'. What does he intend to be done with all this information about the pick-pocketing antics of the Romanians, or the wealth of the Jews? Is is simply important that we know these factoids?

This sort of stuff reminds me of Climate Change sceptics, who intrinsically deny the facts because they worry about the potential political outcome.

Knowledge isn't without consequence and learning should also engender responsibility as well as knowledge, shouldn't it?

He specifically says the conclusion to draw for Jewish success in the western world is not necessarily genetic predestination.

So what conclusions are we to draw from all this ethnographic insight? What are we meant to do with our newly acquired wisdom?

Ben K. · Mar 23, 2015

Andalublue said:
Well, I'm confused by it, and I guess I'll remain so until I get to see it. I just want to know what his motivation is for making these statements of 'racial truths'. What does he intend to be done with all this information about the pick-pocketing antics of the Romanians, or the wealth of the Jews? Is is simply important that we know these factoids?
[/qoute]

Facts are always important, it's irrelevant what his motivation is. He claims that he's worried Britain is sleep walking into de facto segregation by ignoring them - that it promotes myth making.

Knowledge isn't without consequence and learning should also engender responsibility as well as knowledge, shouldn't it?

Click to expand...

Statistics and politics are two different things. Both require two different streams of education but the statistician does not need political training to perform his job.

So what conclusions are we to draw from all this ethnographic insight? What are we meant to do with our newly acquired wisdom?

Click to expand...

You do research.

You can't draw a conclusion from a fact alone. His primary argument is that the facts can't be admitted to evidence into drafting a theory because of innate disdain toward the fact. It's dismissed out of hand due to discomfort.

Just watched the doc, my favourite quote vis-a-vie Terry vs. Ferdinand:

The real taboo isn't black ****, but black boss

Click to expand...

Andalublue · Mar 23, 2015

Ben K. said:
Facts are always important, it's irrelevant what his motivation is. He claims that he's worried Britain is sleep walking into de facto segregation by ignoring them - that it promotes myth making.

Oh okay. I don't think intention/motivation is irrelevant. If he does it solely to incite violence, then I'd have a big problem with it. Wouldn't you? Not that I'm suggesting that for a second.

I think the idea that the UK is sleepwalking into segregation is a very reasonable concern, although how his 'racial truths' help avoid that I'll remain sceptical about until I see it.

Statistics and politics are two different things. Both require two different streams of education but the statistician does not need political training to perform his job.

You do research.

You can't draw a conclusion from a fact alone. His primary argument is that the facts can't be admitted to evidence into drafting a theory because of innate disdain toward the fact. It's dismissed out of hand due to discomfort.

Okay, I'm getting my head around it now. I think I'm going to stop pre-empting the viewing now.

Just watched the doc, my favourite quote vis-a-vie Terry vs. Ferdinand:

Saw the quote, didn't understand it.

Ben K. · Mar 24, 2015

Andalublue said:
Saw the quote, didn't understand it.

You need context. He interviews les Ferdinand about the incident then segues into asking how many times he's been offered a managerial position. He states that the broader question of why black players with good records don't get managerial jobs should get more press than a single incident - ie the stats of this question are more indicative of a systemic problem than a single racial incident.

Andalublue · Mar 24, 2015

Ben K. said:
You need context. He interviews les Ferdinand about the incident then segues into asking how many times he's been offered a managerial position. He states that the broader question of why black players with good records don't get managerial jobs should get more press than a single incident - ie the stats of this question are more indicative of a systemic problem than a single racial incident.

Oh, I see. Yes, very much so. Stats in themselves are very useful, but you said earlier:

Statistics and politics are two different things. Both require two different streams of education but the statistician does not need political training to perform his job.

I disagree. A statistician does not perform her/his task in a vacuum. While you don't need any political acuity to do the maths, you do need some when deciding what stats to collect, what metrics to use and how to analyse the results. Those are all a part of a statistician's profession and they need to be able to do the entire job. If it were just a question of numbers then we wouldn't need statisticians at all.

Trevor Phillips

gunner

Infinite Chaos

gunner

gunner

Andalublue

Hello again!

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot

mbig

onomatopoeic

mbig

onomatopoeic

Infinite Chaos

Andalublue

Hello again!

gunner

Andalublue

Hello again!

gunner

Andalublue

Hello again!

William Rea

mbig

onomatopoeic

gunner

gunner

Andalublue

Hello again!

Ben K.

Andalublue

Hello again!

Ben K.

Andalublue

Hello again!

Ben K.

Andalublue

Hello again!