I'm responding to the article and what was reported there. It seems to be you that wants to find a racist to satisfy your moral outrage and make yourself feel better in some twisted way. Nothing I've said is saying racism in the system isn't there - in fact I've specifically and directly said that it is. I'm criticizing the science of this particular study. If you can't distinguish the two because you are blinded by ignorant self righteousness, that's on you.

[–] TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes... And your alleged intentions have clearly been well understood by everyone here...

Get over yourself; from your vocabulary it's clear you're not employed in a STEM field. You're just some armchair pundit who wants to manufacture doubt by suggesting ideological bias has been introduced in someone else's work because you don't like the results of their study.

Don't expect any further replies from me; it's clear exactly what you are, and you're not worth engaging with.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 0 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Haha. I was doing stem type work before it was called that! Not that I've done any real science for decades, but I certainly know the process. Ask yourself why you are so worried about covering for the bad science of this article that you'd take to insults instead of facing the clear facts? And no, I don't 'like' the results - I wish we didn't have racism in the system, but that's got nothing to do with it. As I've said multiple times and you seem incapable of absorbing, I'm not arguing against the paper because I don't think there's racism in the system, in fact I've said explicitly that I think there is. It's the bad science that actually hurts the effort to fix these things. So why are you arguing against me here? Do you think this paper was good science? Do you think we should ignore bad scientific method if it shows results we want to see? Or if it shows results we are pretty sure are right but it's methods are flawed? See - that's bad science, which any stem educated person would know.

[–] TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

You've already admitted you haven't read the paper... Only an article covering it... Take your bullshit and indignation somewhere else.

We're done here.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 0 points 12 hours ago

Honestly I was hoping someone with access to the paper might have explained the data gathering and it would turn out that that the research had actually done a much better job than what the article made it look like. Maybe that was lazy of me, my bad. But it seemed to instead trigger a bunch of people.