Have you noticed how there is an ongoing assault on objective reality? I'm not talking about the conspiracy theory that we're living in the matrix. I'm talking about the push from the radical left to prioritize "personal truth" over facts. The most prominent example right now is the assault on biological sex. If a man wakes up one morning and decides he identifies as a woman, radical gender activists tell us that, for all intents and purposes, he is. From the moment of his self-identification, he should be allowed access to private women's spaces and to play on their sports teams. To object to this makes one a bigot and a transphobe. Why? Because if he fancies himself a woman, we must respect "his truth" or, as they would say, "her truth."
While polls have shown most people believe one's biological sex trumps "gender identity," transgender ideology continues to be infused into pop culture, becoming increasingly mainstream and impossible to avoid. Younger generations even see "misgendering" someone as a criminal act.
If there were the only arena where subjective personal truth has become problematic and, indeed, dangerous to society, it would be bad enough. But that's not the case. In a recent interview with Bari Weiss of The Free Press, Harvard Economics Professor Roland Fryer revealed that "all hell broke loose" after he published a study in 2016 that found there was no racial bias in police shootings.
According to the study, police were actually much more likely to employ nonfatal force, such as manhandling or physical altercations, with blacks and Hispanics than those of other races. The data also showed that, in contrast with white suspects, officers were 23.8% less inclined to shoot black individuals and 8.5% less likely to shoot Hispanics.
"I collected a lot of data, we collected millions of observations on everyday use of force that wasn't lethal," he explained. "We collected thousands of observations on lethal force. And it was in this moment, 2016, that I realized people lose their minds when they don't like the result. "
Related: More Bad News For The COVID Boosted
Fryer explained that while there was "some bias in the low level uses of force," his research "didn't find any racial bias in police shootings." He also indicated that he was surprised by this result because he expected the data would reflect there was a bias.
"I had eight full time [research assistants] that it took to do this—over nearly a year. When I found this surprising result, I hired eight fresh ones, and redid it to make sure. They came up with the same exact answer and I thought it was robust, and then I went to go give it, and my God, all hell broke loose. It was a 104-page dense academic economics paper with a 150-page appendix, okay?"
Fryer explained that it took four minutes after he posted the paper to get an email disputing the findings. Even worse, Fryer recounted how colleagues warned him against publishing his findings on officer-involved shootings, saying it would ruin his career. Despite these people acknowledging the validity of the data, they suggested separating the findings on shootings and publishing them at different times.
"I said to them, 'If the second part showed bias, do you think I should publish it then?'" he continued, "And they said, 'Yeah, then it would make sense.' And I said 'I guarantee I'll publish it. We'll see what happens,'"
And what happened? He had to live under police protection for more than a month
"I had a seven-day-old daughter at the time. I remember going and shopping for— because you know when you have a newborn you think you have enough diapers you don't—So, I was going to the grocery store to get diapers with the armed guard. It was crazy. It was really, truly crazy."
“We didn’t find any racial bias in police shootings.”
— The Free Press (@TheFP) February 15, 2024
Economist Roland Fryer tells @bariweiss at @uaustinorg about the 2016 paper on policing bias that led to his need for an “armed guard” for over a month and the academics who told him not to publish. https://t.co/dklaGtiMxT pic.twitter.com/95FbOe3jhJ
Imagine needing armed protection because you contradicted the preferred narrative. That tells you just how dedicated the radical left is to what they want to hear instead of the facts. Their advocacy of "personal truths" over objective facts has ensconced them in their own echo chambers, where whatever they want to believe is never challenged.
