Total posts: 516
-->
@Vader
Yeah. Me too.
I personally don't use these slurs, though.
Created:
-->
@Vader
You don't need to use the term "excessive personal attack hate speech".
You can just use and moderate using the term "excessive personal attack".
If someone keeps calling a homosexual a f*ggot or an African American a n*gger, and not saying much else, there doesn't seem to be a problem with you suspending/banning (whatever you think is appropriate) this person due to an "excessive personal attack". We don't need to discuss whether it's "hate speech". It's just an excessive personal attack that doesn't contribute to productive conversation.
'Invective' and 'vulgarity' are already covered in the SPES and would give justice to banning people for an "excessive personal attack"; you don't need to give political ideologues more power than necessary to abuse terms like "hate speech" -- that was Resurget's main point imo.
Created:
-->
@Vader
@ResurgetExFavilla
This is the section that throws up red flags to me. Hate speech is an ill-defined term which has often been used to silence people for political reasons. It seems completely unnecessary here, as vulgarity and invective are both banned. The inclusion of hate speech implies to me that the hate speech which is banned is something aside from invective or vulgarity, otherwise it would be redundant. The problem is that when I think of 'hate speech' that isn't covered under 'invective' or 'vulgarity', all that comes to mind is stuff that shouldn't be banned, and the banning of which acts as the camel's nose under the tent when it comes to censorship. The rest of it seems more reasonable, but that term in the wrong hands could lead to a stifling of free discussion and I don't see why it shouldn't be removed.TLDR: Either A. Hate speech is covered under 'invective' and 'vulgarity', in which case it is redundant and can be removed to avoid confusion, or B. It represents a new category of thing which is banned, in which case the term presents a dangerous slippery slope to censorship and should be removed to keep the site a place of open discussion.
100% all of this.
This has played out in ALL the online discussion websites I've been to. You have Progressive zealot moderators who use the anti-free speech term "hate speech" to justify banning right-wing people over comments like "African Americans have lower IQ than Whites" or "Lower Hispanic income is partially a result of heritability". In effect, "hate speech" becomes whatever these Progressives get upset over, and thus most Conservatives end up getting shafted.
As is clearly pointed out here by Resurget, there is no reason to have "hate speech" in the SPES. If you bake this into the SPES, you've giving Progressives like Ragnar and RM (if he ever gets in) ammunition to ideologically ban people who upset them.
Still, I think the SPES is a major upgrade that overall is better than what is currently in use. It just would be a lot better still if this anti-free speech "hate speech" was removed.
Created:
Indeed, far-right fascism and racism alike are viruses that need to be stamped out ASAP on any platform their rotten influence sprouts up.
This is you continuing to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are extremely racially hateful of White people and would be perfectly fine with hurting White people should you even get the power to do so.
Instead of engaging in any type of rational discussion, such as reading the OP or responding to either of my responses to your only substantial comment: Systemic Racism in U.S. criminal justice is a myth (debateart.com) ; Systemic Racism in U.S. criminal justice is a myth (debateart.com) , you instead decide to Ad hom and personally attack anyone who disagrees with you.
And as you continue to be belligerently racially hateful of White people, as you continue to try and harm any White person for the apparently horrendous crime of being White, as you continue to ignore and undermine any attempt at rational conversation, and as others and myself continue to point out your malicious racially hateful behavior, you expose yourself fully as the far-left, anti-White extremist that you are.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
. I want dfss posting at his best because I want my arguments to be tested by the best.I have never understood this about you. Why?Do you want to have some great over arching philosophy you can share with the world when you die?Do you just enjoy this? If so that is a good enough reason. Just asking.It seems like you are building a great philosophy for no reason. You Don't seem to care about obtaining power or influence.In 50 years, you'll be dead. You'll have a great philosophy that is accurate, but in no way practical to use, and you'll have wasted your time building this philosophy that has disappeared into the sands of times.
Yes it's enjoyable for me. I like making excellent arguments and doing better than other people, as does anyone else. It feels really good to know you're right about something.
It's also helping fight anti-white narratives that are crippling humanity. Anti-white narratives are hampering White people from doing another industrial revolution type event wherein the WHOLE world's standard of living increases. If people would just leave White people alone for 100 years, maybe they'd invent transhumanist/posthumanist technology that allows humanity to move past tribalism, because this whole swinging between Traditional Conservatism and Progressivism isn't going anywhere and is causing a lot of suffering.
In 50 years there's a chance I'll be dead, but I'm doing things right now to influence people/communities and change them for the better. When most people get power/influence, their hands are tied by investors or other influential people, and so you don't actually get to do what you want to do a lot of the time. But if you're convincing 100s of people, and some of those 100s are convincing 100s themselves, ideas start to spread really quickly -- I'm already being useful and impactful just by typing on the internet.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Bow do you expect to persuade people by insulting them? It doesn't accomplish anything but making them clam up and doggedly stick to their beliefs more.I genuinely like you and want to see you become .ore persuasive. This doesn't help. Studies show, asking for their premises and then disproving a premise, works better at changing minds.
If you're talking about Reece101, he's too stupid and cause-driven to understand anything political, so it's best to use him as a punching bad to make left-wing arguments look dreadful. He's a cause-type of person who would be a Communist, hardcore environmentalist or Nazi larper if you deconverted him from his anti-white rhetoric. These people are literally incapable of making good arguments that aren't blinded by their cause (i.e. social justice, class struggle, global warming, Nazi regime etc.) because their genetics don't allow it. They always have to attach themselves to some cause, fight who they perceive to be bad, and only make motivatedly-reasoned arguments.
With dfss, he's actually a surprisingly good poster and I'm kinda complimenting him here. I don't want him degrading into Reece101 levels. I want dfss posting at his best because I want my arguments to be tested by the best. He disagrees with most of what I say, but he's not a cause-driven person intent on ending White people, so we can actually have reasonable discussions. That's why I'm annoyed and calling dfss out on posting like a cause-type person -- he is capable of way better.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The only undisputed proof of systemic racism in the USA is the rates of single motherhood by ethnic group, a known precursor to criminal activity and lower wealth and education rates.
I would actually dispute that and argue it line-by-line lol.
I'm not entirely sure what argument you would present, but I'd imagine this gap has something to do with IQ correlated income gap between races, lower impulse control amongst certain races, maybe even a different breeding strategy between races etc.
If you want to post the argument, I'd address it.
But it's just too fucking hard to blame white privilege on that, so lets bury those facts.
Yes it's way too hard to blame "white privilege" for this. I'd even say it's wrong and malicious to do so, too.
Created:
It's time to address the arguments from your third source that weren't addressed here: Systemic Racism in U.S. criminal justice is a myth (debateart.com) .
Firstly, all of the sources referenced here don't connect their claims to prove systemic racism. For example, just because Blacks are arrested more, that doesn't mean they are being systemically discriminated against (it might mean they are committing more crimes) -- NONE of these sources actually connect their arguments to prove systemic racism. It was shown in my OP with point (1) that the victimization reports pretty much match the arrest rates (hence Blacks ARE committing more crime), which actually connects the argument to show that systemic racism ISN'T happening.
Secondly, I actually have the relevant counter-study for the point about NYC arrest rates. Despite Blacks being arrested more, this studied showed that there was no racial discrimination involved in the arrests An Economic Analysis of Black-White Disparities in NYPD's Stop and Frisk Program (nber.org) . This completely negates this particular study.
Thirdly, some of the sources actually conclude that Whites are arrested/accosted at higher rates for various crimes, but I won't be an idiot and argue systemic racism exists against Whites based solely on that.
Again, none of these arguments connect their data to demonstrate systemic racism. All they repeatedly do is say in various ways that 'Black people receive the death penalty more' without controlling for the relevant confounding variables (i.e. verbal IQ, nature of the murder, how Blacks present in courtrooms etc.).
I'm beginning to think you don't understand the limits of inductive reasoning, hence why you're falling for this illogical mess. For example, just because a bucket is full of water, that doesn't mean someone HAD to have filled it with a hose. It could have been left outside in the rain. Someone could have dunked it in a swimming pool. Someone could have filled it at a tap.
This part starts out by arguing that plea bargaining isn't real justice -- totally irrelevant to whether systemic racism exists.
The next point is about there being not many Black prosecutors. So, they've gone (1) not many Black prosecutors, therefore (2) that has to be systemic racism -- yes, it's actually that stupid of an argument.
All the other sources don't control for confounding variables. They just say 'Black people are more likely to be denied/get worse plea bargains' and don't at all reference the crimes they commit, the type of legal defense they have, their presence in court, verbal IQ etc. It's just the same bad logic over and over, point after point. I wish I was kidding.
Same faulty reasoning. Same inductive reasoning without controlling for relevant confounding variables.
What a complete waste of time this all was.
Yeah how about you just read my OP, posts to dfss in this thread, and my previous post to you. That does a way better job at negating your ridiculous, non-connecting arguments which attempt to affirm systemic racism via faulty inductive reasoning.
You don't understand inductive reasoning and how it is limited. You don't understand why confounding variables need to be controlled for. You are too uneducated on those things to have this conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Unblock RM so that you can help RM threaten and doxx people.
Also, remember to click all links RM sends to you via PM so that he can rip your IP and begin doxxing you, too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Who cares about Australia lol
Australia is just a myth, like Santa Claus and systemic racism.
Created:
Congratulations. You've made the worst post so far on this thread.From you, that's a compliment. You are a toxic user with a blatantly racist and far-right agenda here, I don't really need to worry how you see me. You thinking ill of me, on balance, is probably a good thing considering what you think is good is consistently evil.
Firstly, this is all slanderous Ad Hominem that is logically fallacious.
Secondly, you've dropped the argument I've levied against your post. My argument was that because you failed to actually read the OP (which was proven due to you making counter-claims already addressed in the OP), and the fact that all your claims were completely unsourced, you've made the worst post so far in this thread. Thus, it remains objectively true that your post was indeed the worst post in this thread, despite all the Ad homs that you've spewed here.
As for the proof you say I lack, it's out there and I already know each thing I post you won't address or consider, you'll just dismiss but for others reading this who are interested where to start, it's safe to ignore the entire OP that I was accused of ignoring, but waste your time reading it if you must.
Firstly, you're begging the question by arguing that because I won't address or consider what you might write, you shouldn't post it. This is begging the question because the conclusion (that I won't address or consider what you write) is imbedded in the argument. It's also hilarious that you somehow "know" I won't address or consider what you will write, despite you not actually writing it and giving me a chance to respond to it LOL.
Secondly, this is poisoning the well in that you've slanderously pre-attacked me before I made my argument -- another logical fallacy.
Thirdly, you've again begged the question in arguing that 'it's safe to ignore the entire OP' despite not having read it. Clearly, if you don't know what's in the OP, how do you know that it's safe to ignore it?
Instead, there's basically a ton of documentaries and stuff to digest the information from, far more than I am compiling here, I'm just giving you starting points.
Well you haven't posted "far more" than what you're compiling here, so you don't have those arguments. Let's look at what you actually posted here.
Firstly, this is a lazy and dreadful way of making an argument. You haven't extracted any of the arguments made in this piece. I'm going to be charitable and make your arguments for you, because you're obviously too incompetent to make them yourself.
Secondly, this article is rife with anecdotes. I assume people are smart enough to understand why the data and analysis I provided is superior to anecdotes, so I'll leave it at that.
Thirdly, the anecdote-heavy piece briefly references a poll saying that '75% of Americans say discrimination is a big problem' and that '57% understand that African Americans are more likely to suffer from police violence than other demographic groups'. As all the data I provided in the OP and addressed to dfss earlier in the thread shows, discrimination is not a problem Systemic Racism in U.S. criminal justice is a myth (debateart.com) . If people think this is the case, then they're simply wrong. As for the 57% stat, I've already shown in the OP (point 4) and in my response to dfss that police brutality does not effect Black people disproportionately. Thus, these surveys are a result of people believing wrong things, not actual systemic racism.
Fourthly, the piece briefly references Blacks having lower income households than other races. This doesn't prove that Blacks are systemically discriminated against by itself because it doesn't control for confounding variables (such as IQ, self-control etc.), and thus should be dismissed on that basis alone. Furthermore, the piece references high Black unemployment, but again that doesn't control for all the variables involved, so we can't conclude systemic racism from that.
Lastly, everything else I read was just some anecdote not backed by data. Thus, the article is junk and objectively worse than all the statistics, research and data I provided.
^ an unbiased documenting of active policy changes and rule changes that BLM and allied movements have caused the change of (so that it's less racist now than it used to be, not negating what it originally was and definitely not leaving the entire thing as a myth even today).
This whole argument begs the question in assuming that systemic racism exists, therefore it needs to be addressed. For example, the fact that Iowa might be moving towards more of a community policing approach isn't an example of systemic racism existing -- that's just a fact that Iowa is moving towards community policing. Another example is the fact that police are being retrained doesn't prove systemic racism exists -- that's just a fact that police are being retrained. NONE of what you cited here actually proves that systemic racism exists.
Also, the concept of "racist" is nonsense Racism is a nonsense, malicious term v2.0 (debateart.com) . What you should be proving to prove is there is racial bias against Black people, if you want to make the argument that you think you're making. You then need to show where racial bias exists in systems, rather than citing policy changes that beg the question.
^What's great about this is that it links to other sources and articles on the matter all of which are valid reads in their own right, making it an incredible starting point.
Firstly, you should have linked to the sources and relevant stats. Again, this is just you being useless and incompetent in forming arguments.
Secondly, it argues that because there are "racially disparate outcomes", therefore systemic racism exists. Again, just like before when the arguments you make don't control for relevant variables, this argument doesn't do that, either. For example, just because Usain Bolt comes first in a running race, that doesn't mean anyone slower than him was racially discriminated against -- this is analogous to the logic you are using.
Thirdly, I've already addressed many of the arguments it makes after that mostly in my OP, and some have already been addressed in the thread. Here is the list that you should have posted. I've quickly commented on things that have been already addressed:
- Policing and profiling (already addressed in OP and thread -- no racial bias found across plenty of studies)
- Misdemeanors, petty crimes and driver’s license suspensions
- The drug war (already addressed -- Blacks take harder drugs and they take drugs in riskier ways )
- Juries and jury selection (Grey Parrot addressed this in this thread -- Blacks are biased in favor of their own; no bias for Whites)
- The death penalty
- Prosecutors, discretion and plea bargaining (already addressed in thread -- none of these control for verbal IQ or how Blacks present themselves in court)
- Judges and sentencing (Grey Parrot addressed this in this thread -- Blacks are biased in favor of their own; no bias for Whites)
- School suspensions and the school-to-prison pipeline (already addressed in the OP -- Blacks behave worse at school and variables were controlled for)
- Prison, incarceration and solitary confinement
- Bail, pretrial detention, commutations and pardons, gangs and other issues
- The dissent — contrarian studies on race and the criminal-justice system
So, of the arguments this article makes (not you, you didn't do anything but post a link), and after loling at the fact you accused me of gish galloping despite your article doing the same here Systemic Racism in U.S. criminal justice is a myth (debateart.com) (which isn't valid, btw, since this is a thread and you can take as long as you want to respond -- just funny that you're wrong and hypocritical), I've already addressed anything that has a comment next to it. I'll respond to the others in my next post.
Start with those three and everything they link you to, then PM me if you're genuinely interested in the subject. It's best not to engage with far-right trolls here on the matter, they will just drag you down and wind you up.
More illogical Ad Hom.
Also, I can't PM you because you blocked me, idiot xD
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I guess the new 2021 word for it would be Uncle Tims?From Urban Dictionary:A white person that will kiss the ass of nonwhites & say something like black people are better or that they’re ashamed of their white privilege. Also known as white Uncle Tom.David: I’m gonna join Black Lives matter! Because I think black people are oppressed by my privilege & I'm ashamed!Edward: You’re an Uncle Tim.
You can call them that but it doesn't quite have the punch needed to effect mass political change (to do that, you need to evoke people's natural tendency to vote based on race lines, imo). Uncle Tims whilst funny and clever, is too cerebral and won't get White people fighting this racial discrimination en masse. For example, the average Red Neck doesn't necessarily understand the cleverness of 'Uncle Tims', but he/she will absolutely understand 'anti-white'.
I prefer to call them anti-white because it's true and activates the racial in-group of White people (which all races have btw). If these anti-whites push too far and are claiming things that Black people didn't do, or ignoring the crimes/faults/wrongdoing Blacks do, then you could begin to call them Black supremacists, too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Watch him call us out when we spam the forums with negative comments about his admin if he wins
Yeah absolutely, except that he's not going to win.
Nobody wants this overly sensitive DDoser and doxxer to have any kind of authoritative power over anything. Add to that the fact his political views are so hateful of conservatives and White people, and it's so obvious what would happen if he won that the majority of the site already isn't voting for him.
Created:
Posted in:
I can objectively prove every aspect of me calling you that, correct, you call me things like 'little boy' and 'worst post in the thread' and other such things solely to aggravate and get a rise out of me.
But they do LOL. You are proving that me calling you a 'little boy' and saying your post was the 'worst post in the thread' upset you. That's the point!
Why would anyone want the prez to be so thin-skinned that he gets his panties so badly bunched over those comments? Seriously hahahahahahaha
Created:
Posted in:
If you are going to dig up my past, I should let everyone here know who you used to be too right?
Only took him two minutes to threaten to doxx me LOL.
If you vote this insane authoritarian DDoser and doxxer into power, you deserve all the serious problems that result from that.
Vote Wylted or really anyone but this malicious crazy person lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
RatMan? More like Trash ManVOTE WYLTED FOR PRESIDENT OF DART (PART)
Yeah anyone but RM really. RM would push for heavy censorship and he'd probably start doxxing and DDOSing people again (just like he did on DDO).
It's also hilarious that he said that you're being toxic when he routinely slanders, Ad homs and abuses people on here. He's so thin-skinned that if you give back what he dishes out, he cries and reports you -- not a trait you want for a prez.
RM is exactly the kind of authoritarian tyrant who you don't want to give any power to.
My vote is with Wylted atm.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Here is the conclusion of a statistical study tracking Black Judge sentencing.[saving space]In short, white Judges are (relative) pussies when it comes to sentencing due to social stigmas and the weak moral convictions of most whites.
100% agree with this.
I'm going to deep dive into this later, but things are brighter than you suspect.I dunno, I've never seen such a large subsect of self-loathing people of any race or other social group at anytime in American history. Maybe gays around the AIDS stigma era in the 80's might be close for comparison.
Yeah the Whites that are racially hateful of White people certainly is a super peculiar phenomenon. They're pretty statistically significant and they certainly exist:
We actually (probably) have several of these people on this site. RationalMadman is 100% an anti-white Liberal/Progressive who might also be a Black supremacist (not surprising given where he lives -- probably doesn't want to get necklaced). If Oromagi, DoubleR and Reece101 are also White, they are also this kind of anti-white White people.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
fuck x 109Of a 738-word performance, 15% of all words singularly repeat 109 times. I agree with Mesmer, the only reason I mention you, my friend. None of the rest of this applies to you, but to the author of this useless post. Each one diminishes the author sufficiently to peg a relative illiterate.We get, it, bud. There is such a thing as excess, and it has been over-accomplished, but is that the flag you're going to wave? Really? Isn't there a certain lack of satisfaction from premature ejaculation?
100% all of this.
I also want to say that I've agreed with the last 3/4 posts you've directed at me in other threads. I didn't respond to them because I didn't want to clog up the threads with "I 100% agree", but I thought I should let you know.
Created:
Mountain out of a mole hill. All I did was post a link.
Oh yes. I'm sure in posting a link that disagrees with the conclusion of my OP, you weren't trying to make any argument or imply anything at all. I'm sure that when women wink at you in a bar, you do nothing because 'all she did was wink at me'.
Unfortunately, the paper doesn't control for the fact that Blacks are more likely to speed The Racial Profiling Myth Debunked | City Journal | Racial Research (city-journal.org) Racial differences in speeding patterns: Exploring the differential offending hypothesis - ScienceDirect, and speeding tends to happen during the daytime (usually when people are running late for work in the morning: Why Do Drivers Speed? | The Regulatory Review (theregreview.org) ) . Speeding was normalized in this paper, but that doesn't mean it was controlled for relative to time of day, and it should have been based on the evidence of the studies above.Even if it's true I don't see how that would much of an impact on the Figure 2 graphs in the "veil of darkness" study. The pull overs occurred during the evening after people got off work and such and it had 3 different times (presumably differing sunset hours due to change in the time of sunset over the course of the year). I would be interested in seeing the data from sunrise stops as opposed to sunset stops but I don't see that in the study.
I'm saying it's plausible that since Blacks speed more than Whites, if there is a difference in time wherein speeding is most likely done, this might explain some/all of the difference illustrated in the Texas graph. It's difficult to assess because there isn't data on the time people speed in America that specifically looks at an hour or so before and after dark. The data I found specifically said people usually speed during the morning rush to work, but doesn't comment really at all on any of the other times people speed, yet it remains plausible that people are speeding more an hour before sunset than an hour after because time of day DOES effect the amount of speeding (maybe to collect kids from school, get to the supermarket before everyone else -- we don't know).
That's why this speeding variable needed to be controlled for, or else they can't conclude that the results are indicative of racial discrimination.
A second variable that was not controlled for was the fact that Blacks tend to live in worse neighborhoods (something the left and right agree on, but happy to source if needed), and thus going out at night in 'the hood' or low SES place is usually not a great idea. So, having fewer proportionally Black people on the road after dark compared to White people due to this fact needed to be controlled for, but wasn't.There may be data on that, but I don't know where it is.
Yeah I don't know either.
But once again, this is another variable that needed to be controlled for, or else you can't conclude that data like the Texas Figure 2 graph demonstrates 'systemic racism'.
The overall point of me bringing up these uncontrolled variables is that your paper makes the inductive leap that (1) there is racial disparity in stop rates (veil of darkness argument), and so (2) therefore racial bias exists. You seem to go further and draw the conclusion that systemic racism exists (something the paper doesn't necessarily go so far as to claim). Keep in mind that the paper does go beyond most papers in controlling for variables, but even then it's still not controlling for relevant ones because the inductive leap has such a huge burden of proof. In short, you can't use this paper to conclude that systemic racism exists because of this inductive leap in logic.
I'm sure you're aware of the implicit association test. The data indicate that about half of whites favor whites over blacks, about a quarter of whites have no preference, and about a quarter of whites favor blacks over whites. In other words, by about 2 to 1, the number of whites who favor whites over blacks outnumber the the number of whites who favor blacks over whites. The decision of a white police officer to pull someone over is a subjective one that is made quickly, and I do not think it even possible for ethnocentric feelings to be eliminated from that decision. That there would be disparities in quick and subjective decisions like these is what I would expect. When a black person is in an environment with white police officers, well that these things are going to happen is just how it is.
Firstly, this doesn't actually (potentially) provide evidence that systemic racism exists. All this data could show is that some people have racial bias. So this is already a non-starter.
Secondly, this data (specifically the black-white data) contradicts the overall data on this topic. A meta-analysis of 17 studies found that White people (n=10,435) had a net effect of no discrimination. It also found that Black people (n=2,781) had a "small to moderate" bias in favor of their own race. These sample sizes are far larger than the Pew Study's White (n=328) and Black (n=370) numbers Black and White discrimination in the United States: Evidence from an archive of survey experiment studies (sagepub.com) .
Thirdly, you don't have to guess as to whether police officers are biased (based on your Pew Study) because we already have data on this. This study found that police officers were quicker to shoot AND more likely to incorrectly shoot White unarmed criminals than Black unarmed criminals exhibiting the same threatening behavior (here is the relevant data points, since it's paywalled: Imgur: The magic of the Internet ; Imgur: The magic of the Internet ) (sorry it's paywalled: The Reverse Racism Effect: Are Cops More Hesitant to Shoot Black Than White Suspects? | Request PDF (researchgate.net) ) If anything, this shows police are racially biased against White people more than Black people.
I do think there are myths about systemic racism in criminal justice. The myths are simply how substantial a factor is racism. That it is a factor, I do not doubt. Your position seems to be that it's no factor at all, and on the other extreme we have people saying that racism is the sole cause of the observed disparities in outcomes. I doubt either of these positions to be correct. What is more likely is that racism is a factor, and it is something we should try to mitigate, but we cannot blind ourselves to other causes for doing so permits social problems to fester.
This is an argument from incredulity as your doubting isn't sufficient reason to believe systemic racism exists to any degree. The default position should be complete indifference, and as demonstrated by all my arguments thus far (including the 5 from the OP), the correct position is to believe systemic racism is a myth.
Created:
Systemic racism in a justice system isn't only arrest rates.
Yes. That's why I had 4 sub-headings addressing things that weren't arrest rates LOL.
All you're doing is showing that you didn't read the OP.
It's both the complete disparity in opportunities some races have in society to escape poverty and a crime-filled environment through to the sentencing some ethnicities receive vs others for the exact same crime.Then, it's how both get treated and protected or neglected by COs post-arrest (which can onclude how readily vs hesitantly they're rewarded and reduced sentence for good behavior).
Firstly, you've failed to show evidence for any of this, so all of these points are bare assertions (logical fallacies).
Secondly, I specifically already addressed the sentencing disparity in point (5). You don't know that because you didn't read the OP past the heading of point (1).
Congratulations. You've made the worst post so far on this thread.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
What about White people get almost no time for keeping weed while black people get years?
[Citation needed]
Created:
Firstly, this is a lazy, garbage way of making arguments. I don't expect anything better from useless, genuine idiots like Reece101, but you've shown that you're capable of actually engaging with the papers themselves. This is quite disappointing.
Secondly, you haven't contended with any of the 5 points I made before this, so I guess you agree with all of them.
Thirdly, the paper's data you're referencing is actually really good and attempted to control for a lot of the confounding variables. It's a pity that you didn't give the paper the showcase it deserves. You should have linked the whole paper and cited the nationwide statistics, because they better make your argument (rather than the Texas only graph you linked).
Unfortunately, the paper doesn't control for the fact that Blacks are more likely to speed The Racial Profiling Myth Debunked | City Journal | Racial Research (city-journal.org) Racial differences in speeding patterns: Exploring the differential offending hypothesis - ScienceDirect, and speeding tends to happen during the daytime (usually when people are running late for work in the morning: Why Do Drivers Speed? | The Regulatory Review (theregreview.org) ) . Speeding was normalized in this paper, but that doesn't mean it was controlled for relative to time of day, and it should have been based on the evidence of the studies above.
A second variable that was not controlled for was the fact that Blacks tend to live in worse neighborhoods (something the left and right agree on, but happy to source if needed), and thus going out at night in 'the hood' or low SES place is usually not a great idea. So, having fewer proportionally Black people on the road after dark compared to White people due to this fact needed to be controlled for, but wasn't.
Created:
This isn't going to convince anyone -- completely worthless article.
Also, saying the f word a hundred times in an article doesn't make you even remotely funny.
Created:
Most people know that Blacks are arrested more often than Whites. Some people see this as systemic racism. Some people see this as Blacks being arrested more because they commit more crimes. I'm going to demonstrate that it's the latter using several arguments.
(1) Arrest Rates and Victimization Reports
We can confirm the validity of official arrest rates via the high degree to which they correspond with victimization reports. Using the National Crime Victimization Survey (for victimization reports) and the Uniform Crime Report (for official arrest rates), we can see that there is high correspondence (Last, 2015): 1.jpg (740×146) (thealternativehypothesis.org) . The fact that there is high correspondence is evidence that arrests being made are legitimate (i.e. not based on systemic racism, but rather actual crime).
(2) Black Misbehavior at School
Blacks get into trouble far more often at school than Whites do:
- Black preschoolers have an above average rate of suspension. Blacks make up 18% of preschools yet 50% of suspensions Education Department: Black preschoolers more likely to be suspended - CBS News
- Black females account for 12% of elementary school suspensions, but White females only accounted for 2% Schools’ Discipline for Girls Differs by Race and Hue - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
- A Department of Education report analyzed over 72,000 schools and found that Blacks were 18% of the population, yet 35% of people suspended once, 45% suspended more than once, and 39% of those expelled Black Students Face More Harsh Discipline, Data Shows - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
- After controlling for socio-economic status, Black middle schoolers were more likely to be suspended than White middle schoolers The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment (ccsd.net)
A potential counter-argument to this is that teachers have racial bias against Blacks. However, there is strong evidence against this. When comparing Blacks and Whites with the same number of previous behavioral problem, both groups were as likely to be suspended Prior problem behavior accounts for the racial gap in school suspensions - ScienceDirect . Also, Blacks and Whites were equally likely to face suspension if they were sent to the principal's office The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment (ccsd.net) .
Due to differences in Black crime rates reflecting the non-biased rate in which Blacks get in trouble at school, this adds evidence to the U.S. criminal justice system being legitimate.
(3) Dug Crime
Some people claim that Blacks do less drugs than Whites, but Blacks are arrested more, therefore systemic racism exists.
Firstly, Blacks are more likely than Whites to lie about using drugs, and this finding has been consistently found Supp82(3).book(jti065.fm) (nih.gov) Urinalysis Screened vs Verbally Reported Drug Use: The Identification of Discrepant Groups: International Journal of the Addictions: Vol 12, No 4 (tandfonline.com) "The Validity of Injection Drug Users Self-Reported Use of Opiates and " by Russel S. Falck, Harvey A. Siegal et al. (wright.edu) Drug Use among Juvenile Arrestees: A Comparison of Self-Report, Urinalysis and Hair Assay | Request PDF (researchgate.net) .
Secondly, Blacks are more likely to buy drugs outdoors than White people (which is riskier in terms of being caught) at 0.31 correlation versus White's 0.14. Blacks are about three times likely to buy from a stranger (0.3 versus 0.09). Blacks are also significantly more likely to buy away from their homes (0.61 versus 0.48) Racial differences in marijuana-users' risk of arrest in the United States - PubMed (nih.gov) . This riskier buying of drugs makes Blacks more likely to be caught.
Lastly, a report from the Justice Department found that Blacks are more likely to use drugs than Whites, use more dangerous drugs than Whites, and are more likely to take drugs in areas with high crime rates The Racial Disparity in U.S. Drug Arrests (ojp.gov) .
Based on the research, it is wise to assume that Blacks getting arrested more for drug use is a result of their higher drug usage (despite them lying about it), taking drugs in riskier areas, and buying drugs in riskier places.
(4) Police Brutality
It has become popular in some circles to claim that police are disproportionately brutal/murderous against Blacks. The data shows otherwise.
Using the National Crime Victimization Survey and the Uniform Crime Report like we did in point (1), we see that Blacks account for about 1/3 of rape and assaults, over half of robbery crimes -- the two data points agree (thus Blacks are being arrested as much as you would expect, given the amount of crime they do).
Also, using the Uniform Crime Report only, we see that Blacks are about 1/2 of the murderers, 38% of violent crime, and 29% of people arrested FBI — Table 43 . Given these facts, if police only killed criminals who posed a serious threat to society, and if these criminals were on average equally likely to be killed by police, we would expect people killed by police to be Black between 29% and 38% of the time.
Using other data points to see if people killed by police are Black 29-38% of the time, we have an analysis of Uniform Crime Report data which shows 32% of those killed by police were Black Police Killings of Blacks: Here Is What the Data Say - The New York Times (nytimes.com) . Another analysis of data found 30% Microsoft Word - Moskos 2015 why be a cop.docx (petermoskos.com) . Therefore, Blacks are indeed being killed at about the rate you'd expect based on the percentage of Blacks who are violent criminals (which means that based on this data, officers aren't being biased against Blacks).
(5) Unfair Sentencing
When controlling for how Blacks present themselves in courtrooms, how likely he/she will commit another crime in the future, Verbal IQ and self reported history of violence, we see that there is no unjust racial sentencing gap No evidence of racial discrimination in criminal justice processing: Results from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health - ScienceDirect .
Conclusion
For the above reasons, we should reject the notion of "systemic racism" in the U.S. criminal justice system as being a myth.
Arguments largely copied from Ryan Faulk and Sean Last's works. Credit should go to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
What no - all you've pointed out is that on the whole chimpanzees and humans are pretty similar - cool - i've already acknowledge that. by RAWLY looking at the difference between humans we can come to conclusions that are specific to HUMANS. You have not actually acknowledge my point.And yes actually - Chimpanzes and Humans are Eukaryotes, Vertibrates, and decended from Great Apes - so yes - we are pretty similar. We are different by that remaining 4%, similarly we can do the same for humans with the remaining uniquely human genetics, you have not actually addressed my point, your being repetetive.
Again, none of this addresses the point I originally made.
I will write it again in the simplest English I can muster:
(1) You argued that human races aren't categorically valid because 'there's more difference within than between'
(2) I used that logic to show it applies to (a) chimpanzees and humans, and (b) men and women
(C) Therefore, unless you want to agree that the distinctions between (a) chimpanzees and humans, and (b) men and women aren't categorically valid, you can't use the 'more variation within than between' to say that human races aren't categorically valid
Can't make is simpler than that.
Created:
In the UK, judges have officially more leniency than almost any other nation (not in practise alone, in the written word of what a Judge can do with the law) to interpret the written law in a way that contextually applies to a situation. This can both be seen as good and bad, depending on the integrity of the judge.Therefore, in practise Holocaust Denial is punishable in the UK, genuinely, but it starts with fines and warnings as opposed to jail sentences
Imagine getting fined and warned for exercising freedom of speech LOL.
This is just more extremist left-wing tyrants trampling people's speech. No wonder RM agrees with it.
Created:
Actually it was incorrect. I didn't use it even remotely to argue a point. Ad hominem is when the insult seemingly bolsters the case.
You attack my character instead of attacking my arguments. This is a textbook example of Ad Hominem and 3RUTAL was right to point it out.
Your description of Ad Hominem is wrong. It's not about bolstering the case. It's about using it in place of the argument. Look:
"Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument" Ad hominem - definition of ad hominem by The Free Dictionary
"marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made" Ad Hominem | Definition of Ad Hominem by Merriam-Webster
"Latin for “to the man”, is when an argument is rebutted by attacking the person making it rather than the argument itself." What is the Ad Hominem Fallacy? - Ethics Explainer by The Ethics Centre
At least you stopped posting about delusions of racism being fake.
It's a nonsense term lol: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term v2.0 (debateart.com)
Racial hatred exists. Racial bias exists. But "racism" is a nonsense term.
I wish there was a way to close a thread as the creator.I guess I'll judt turn off the notifications via the yellow unsubscribe button.
Thanks for your concession.
Run away now, little boy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nyxified
Firstly, I need to correct myself because when I wrote "Did you not read what I wrote?" that was unjust as I was addressing TheUnderdog with the post I was referencing, not you. My apologies for that mistake.
We can add to this fact that when police officers do kill Black people, it's often justified as the Black person has lashed out in his/her resistance of arrest. For example, Rayshard Brooks decided to resist arrest and steal an officer's taser and tried to shoot officers with it. This killing of Rayshard Brooks is 100% justified.Having a taser doesn't count as 'unarmed', but to be honest, I don't think murder should be the first option when there's several non-lethal places to shoot first and it's literally part of their job to be good at shooting things. I tell you that perceiving someone as 'violent' doesn't warrant ending their life, and you give me an example of someone shooting an officer with a taser. Even if it made sense, you know damn well that's not what I'm talking about.
It's pretty hard to use the "non-lethal" tools when Rayshard has literally stolen your non-lethal taser and fired it at you LOL.
Again, this whole 'oh you're just perceiving that taser shot at you'; 'that's not a real attempt at violence' is just you not understanding the real world. When you're by yourself and immobilized by a taser (which hurts, btw -- that's already violence), and a criminal is your vicinity, do you think good things are about to happen? Sometimes, very clearly, there are REAL threats that can be made against a police officer (firing a taser is absolutely one of them). So, sometimes, this isn't about "perception" or whatever 'everything is subjective' argument you want to make. It's just astonishing that you think having a taser fired at you shouldn't be counted as violence.
I used this example because there were still riots that resulted. This is exactly what you are talking about because people like you went out and rioted over this FALSE narrative that Rayshard was murdered in cold blood by the police, when this was very clearly an instance of a police officer's self-defense.
The killer of George Floyd said it was apart of his training. No officer at the scene stopped him for an insane amount of time despite his pleas.Philando Castile went out of his way to declare his firearm. It was later said that police are trained to liberally use their firearms.Jacob Blake was shot 7 times despite not being violent (according to bystanders), not having a weapon, and not doing anything wrong in spite of the fact police could've very easily used a taser and had done so minutes earlier.When Breonna Taylor was murdered, a policeman blindly shot an assault rifle into the house.Eric Garner, Elijah McClain, do you want me to keep going? Even if I agree the number is only 48, which you say as though it is anything less than an annual killing spree, which it isn't, I still think that maybe the police could use their non-lethal tools more effectively with regards to unarmed black people when they have tasers capable of completely immobilizing a person and are literally trained for months to do this.
Off the top of my head, George Floyd was unjustly murdered and Breonna Taylor was probably justly killed (just read the Wikipedia page on it).
But we don't need to get into these weeds. Hypothetically, let's just say that all these instances were unjust murders. You've failed to show that:
(A) That all 6 instances of these murders of Black people are due to systemic racism and not just individual racial hatred
(B) That systemic racism effects the other 41 MILLION Black people in America
(C) Therefore, systemic racism exists
These are necessary steps to make the systemic racism argument that you're making. You can't go from 6 Black people may have been killed because of their race, to America is systemically racist in one giant leap. This is why you shouldn't use anecdotes to portray ALL of America.
I could present to you a thousand instances and you'd still tell me it was 'isolated'.
I'm calling your bluff -- show me these "thousand instances" and I will absolutely change my tune.
I'd bet my life savings you won't.
The very system that is supposed to hold them accountable for the actions that disproportionately impact black people to an egregious degree chose not to do so. Not turning on body cams, planting drugs or weapons on people, using excessive force, the list of things that police officers routinely get away with that we make no attempt to persecute them for or enforce rules to prevent these actions goes on, and on, and on.
You need to demonstrate ALL of this, or else these are all bare assertions (logical fallacies).
If you're able to do that, you also need to demonstrate that this is 'systemic racism' and not individual instances of police being corrupt.
Good luck with that lol.
The fact black Americans are more likely to be pulled over, more likely to be harassed, less likely to be listened to by police, more likely to be perceived as violent? Black Americans are put through egregious, inhumane, and horrendous situations for the very crime of their race as the result of failing to keep in check the power of racist police officers. That's what systemic racism is.
It's just baffling that you determine all these claims to be "fact" yet don't provide a shred of evidence to back ANY of the claims.
Do you understand how ridiculous you sound? Do you understand how logically invalid your argument is here?
Congratulations, America! You ended slavery (ignoring how the British did it first) 'worldwide', and yet somehow that manages to be a) completely irrelevant to what I'm saying and b) even more irrelevant because it took you until the 1960s-1970s to acknowledge that black people deserve the same rights. Well done for refuting the thing I said about slavery (which I definitely said and if you ctrl+f you will definitely find me mentioning slavery [sarcasm])
But you did mention slavery Pettiness from extremists (debateart.com):
"the system borne from union-busting and slave catching"
I just felt the need to correct you on slandering the US with the 'slavery' charge when the US was the most charitable to slaves AND they helped to end slavery.
There are more options than 1. Let the (potential) criminal run away or 2: Murder them. Police are paid $60,000+ a year to understand that, and yet it seems they choose to forget much more often with blacks than with whites (28% of police killings in 2020 happened to blacks despite the fact they're 13% of the population).
This is a false dichotomy that fails to even come close to addressing the context in which most police shootings happen. Police use discretion and their training to produce WAY more options than your 1 and 2.
For example, we have a police officer here do neither 1 or 2 of your options (points a gun at a robber without firing or letting the robber flee): https://youtu.be/1mSAuPMCTks?t=30 . We could extract many more examples from this Youtube channel showcasing real footage of real police interactions that show your dichotomy is false.
The fact that more Black people get shot by police isn't proof of "murder". There are confounding variables that you've failed to account for that do explain this disproportion WITHOUT needed to resort to your 'systemic racism' garbage. We have the Rayshard Brooks example where he stole and fired the police officer's taser at them. We also have extensive empirical data analysis which very clearly shows there is no anti-Black bias in police shootings On Racial Bias in Police Shootings | Ideas and Data (wordpress.com) .
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
the attention-thirsty racist in denialAD HOMINEM ATTACK
This is the first time I've seen someone else use Ad hominem correctly on this website.
What a beautiful day.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
What is a half breed?
I assume by this he meant mixed race people. He didn't correct that, so I'll continue assuming that's what he meant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
One of the things I take issue with in our current political discourse is the propensity of self identified conservatives to claim that the left just wants to silence their voices. This is or at least was mostly in reference to social media but seems to have grown quite a bit over the past few months and has become a widely accepted narrative in conservatives circles.This narrative is of course false. The left is not trying to silence conservatives. No one is getting banned from Twitter over disputes about tax policy. This is about cracking down on hate speech
This is you begging the question.
"Hate speech" is one of the leftist political weapon designed to silence conservative views. For example, when people say that they want White nationalism, that intentionally gets conflated 'White supremacy' and 'racism' (former is a racial slur "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) ; latter is a nonsense, malicious term: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term v2.0 (debateart.com) ) , and thus positive talk White nationalism gets labelled "hate speech". Of course, the left makes sure that any other race's nationalism is NOT conflated with supremacy, for whatever reason (I go into detail with this example in this OP: "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) ).
When conservatives argue that race is a real concept, left wing people labelled that as 'racist' and thus 'hate speech'. When conservatives argue that there are difference in crime relative to race, that's also 'racist' and thus 'hate speech'. Differences in IQ? 'Racist' and 'hate speech'. Questioning race quotas for jobs? 'Racist' and 'hate speech'. Not wanting low-skilled people immigrating? 'Racist' and 'hate speech'.
So it's rather funny that the very thing causing a truckload of conservative silencing ("hate speech") is the very thing that you think is fine. Rather convenient for you that you get to beg the question and assume "hate speech" is a valid concept and doesn't cause a lot of silencing.
It's also as funny that some people on the left then decides to verbally berate and threaten violence against White people, all of cause being against "hate speech": anti white twitter - Bing images anti white twitter - Bing images anti white twitter - Bing images anti white twitter - Bing images anti white twitter - Bing images . So not only are White people SILENCED with terms like "hate speech", "hate speech" against White people is totally permissible.
It just so happens to be the case that the vast majority of hate speech in our political discourse these days is coming from the right, to the point where the FBI has even taken notice.
This is a bare assertion. You have failed to provide any evidence to support this. This also begs the question by assuming "hate speech" is a valid concept (as explained above).
I think the reason why is because right wing politics centers itself around culture issues and tribalism, leading to a sense of community in right wing circles that doesn’t exist on the left. But a sense of community in politics distorts the entire point. Politics is supposed to be about solving problems, not which side are you rooting for.
This is a human thing that all humans do. I explained this to you in this post (and some of the posts before it), showing that ALL humans are doing this: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) , yet you refused to respond to it because you got your fragile ego tied up in it.
The only way you can be this delusional about the left engaging in tribalism is if you refuse to look at the overwhelming data on the topic.
What this ultimately culminates in is a conflation of political beliefs with a sense of self identity
This is you being politically stupid and not understanding how humans operate, and so all the extensions you make from this are wrong (i.e. the rest of what you wrote in this paragraph).
People's sense of self constructs their political views because political ideology is heritable First Worldism Part 3: The Heritability of Political Views – The Alternative Hypothesis. If you want to engage in politics, you have to engage with this human nature. What you're doing is constructing "standards" that don't reflect the reality of human existence. When you decide to strip away the human elements and make these purely cerebral notions of "standards", you're no longer dealing politics for humans anymore. You're constructing political views for totally rational robots that are programmed to respond to logic. Again, humans are NOT THIS.
That's why you get Black CONSERVATIVES voting overwhelmingly (about 97%) for the DEMOCRAT candidate in the 2012 election Imgur: The magic of the Internet . You'd think that Black Conservatives would vote for the Conservative (Republican) candidate. You'd think this seems intuitive and correct. You'd think that's what a rational person would do. BUT. THEY. DON'T.
When we have your stupid notion that political beliefs and sense of self-identity should be separate, this result makes no sense, and that's because your notion of political beliefs (and politics) is WRONG.
Obviously conservatives will disagree.
Yeah great. Poison the well before you even hear the response.
Created:
Posted in:
Your notion absolutely works and is the best for a majority White nation.-. dude
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to explain why you disagree, rather than engage in virtue-signaling posturing.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I don't believe in banning any speech unless it would cause immediate harm like yelling fire in a crowded theater. I do however do not think they should be able to block access to a clinic or intimidate people going into a clinic. That is actually trying to restrict or intimidate people from seeking a service that is legal.
The problem is that when these far-left extremists get into power, they don't afford you the same free speech rights. Talking badly about their ideologies becomes illegal 'hate speech'. Saying that it's annoying that your workmates talk in a different language you don't understand is 'racist' and you need to lose your job. Verbally berating White people for the color of their skin is fine, but if you disagree with that and you're White and you need to check your 'White privilege'.
Your notion absolutely works and is the best for a majority White nation, because such a nation isn't hampered by identity politics and can actually discuss real issues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nyxified
My friend, if I have to be the one to inform you that nobody deserves to die unless their death is the only way to prevent significant harm or death of others, you are beyond help.
Did you not read what I wrote?
I literally describe a situation wherein a criminal stole a taser from a police officer and fired it at him. I will copy-paste the part again:
"We can add to this fact that when police officers do kill Black people, it's often justified as the Black person has lashed out in his/her resistance of arrest. For example, Rayshard Brooks decided to resist arrest and steal an officer's taser and tried to shoot officers with it."
This killing of Rayshard Brooks is 100% justified. I didn't mention any of the other people you mentioned. Yes, it's possible that Black people are unjustly shot at the hands of a White police officer, but that happens so infrequently that it's nowhere near the "systemic racism" that you people like to push.
I don't know how to explain to you that an officer perceiving an individual to be 'violent' does not warrant their execution.
When someone points and fires a taser at you, that's a real act of violence. There's no 'oh you're just perceiving that taser shot at you. That's not a real attempt at violence'.
What a ridiculous argument to make.
I can't wait for you to tell me that putting a knee on someone's neck for nine minutes as they beg for air is 'just' or 'preventing violence.' The deaths or injury of these men is not 'fake news'; I assure you that their tombstones are very real. I not only support those who want to tear down the system borne from union-busting and slave catching that routinely commits these murders with no consequence, but I am disgusted at those who can look at that system and claim that it is just.
Just like I predicted, you turned an isolated incident of a White police officer using too much force against a Black person into 'systemic racism'.
I've already sourced my argument which stated that there are 48 (unarmed) Black deaths per year at the hands of ALL police officers (regardless of race). Of the 48 PER YEAR that are shot, how many do you think would be unjustified AND done by White police officers? You've managed to (potentially) provide 3 examples, one of which I will automatically agree was unjustified (George Floyd, although he was a garbage human being). I don't know much about the other cases, but let's just grant you them for the sake of argument. That's THREE individual cases, and you've turned that into 'systemic racism'.
I am disgusted with YOU for turning ultra-rare individual cases into a hyperbolic exaggeration of 'systemic racism'
FYI America was responsible for ending slavery worldwide. Arabs History of slavery in the Muslim world - Wikipedia, Jews Jewish Dominance Of The African Slave Trade | Christians for Truth, Chinese Slavery in China - Wikipedia and quite frankly most of the world engaged in slavery up until America decided to end it. Furthermore, there's a good reason there aren't many African slave descendants still in the Middle East, Jewish occupied land and China: the slaves were worked brutally hard and often until they dropped dead (unlike in America). Yes, slavery was wrong, but America was the one that ended it. You blaming ONLY America for slavery and ignoring the fact that America ended slavery worldwide, is you being an anti-American idiot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(EITHER) conquer territory and make the inhabitants american citizens (OR) leave them the fuck alone and respect their sovereignty
Latter option is the best. America needs to stop playing the savior to the world and focus on getting its own country right. This is a fault that a lot of White nations make: they try to "save" other countries. Just don't. They don't like it when you interfere, and hell, they sometimes don't even like it when you actually help them.
There it is.
Feel free to correct anything you think is wrong.
(1) Would you call yourself an "isolationist" ?(2) Do you believe in "freedom of religion" ?
(1) I really don't think it's reasonable to be 100% isolationist, but certainly to a large degree. I want America to stop importing people who are a net drain on the economy and whom won't ever integrate. I think it's reasonable to allow immigration of people (regardless of race/religion) as long as they're highly skilled and/or highly intelligent. Although, America needs to keep its population majority White or else it will degrade into something like Brazil, and eventually South Africa.
(2) I think American citizens should be free to believe in whatever religion they want, so yes. I think that we should intentionally not import people whose cultures/religions are going to conflict heavily with the native population's.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
i find myself agreeing with his take on getting out of afghanistan but why should we take refugees?
All non-partisan people should agree that Biden is right in wanting to get out of Afghanistan -- 100% agree.
We don't need to take refugees. There's absolutely no good reason to, either.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Accountability and “I take responsibility” are the same things. Gimme a break
This is what the 'educated' left likes to do.
They'll take you into a funhouse wherein you'll argue over the shortest weeds that distract from the topic, and even if you follow them in there and win, you'll have to straighten the conversation because they'll dump a whole bunch of sophistry in there, too. These are bad faith actors 'educated' in distraction and sophistry.
The fact is that the Afghanistan withdrawal was botched. Joe Biden was the President of the United States when that happened. You can blame him for the botching because he was in charge. That's all. Whether it's "accountability" or "responsibility" doesn't matter in the grand scheme of the argument. What matters is that he screwed up and he should be blamed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nyxified
I don't think either of these are extremistsU.S. debt to GDP ratio was ~108% in 2020. While this is a problem, I don't see why we can't tax the 1% and use the money to overhaul our system of policing or anti-terrorism, since neither of those seem to be working.
The Liberal reaction is extreme in that they often riot, burn, loot and murder when Black Americans are justly killed for their violence against police officers.
How did you come to the conclusion that the United States policing system doesn't seem to be working? Sure, it's not perfect, but no police system will ever be because it's comprised of humans (who make mistakes). News reporting on "systemic police brutality" or whatever is just fake news designed to get you hot-headed and watching them more, so that they can run more ads and make more money.
The best "anti-terrorism" policy the U.S. could have would be to get out of the Middle East. Stop bombing Middle Eastern countries (and receiving costly terrorist attacks in response: 9/11 costing $3 trillion). Stop supporting Israel (0.38 trillion over the next 10 years). Just get out and leave them all alone.
Created:
Posted in:
Systemic racism is real but assimilation of Muslims towards a 'Western' culture is dependent on them and the community within that culture. It's neither a definitely yes or definitely no type thing. They do assimilate though, just not always.
These are all bare assertions.
Once again, you've failed to adequately support anything you say.
Cue the Ad homs...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Me: WE ARE ALMOST $30 TRILLION IN DEBT! This is a bigger issue than both of these combined!
Being $30 Trillion in debt is a problem and I can offer some solutions.
The cost of having African Americans in America costs around $1 trillion a year Fiscal Impact by Race in the United States - altCensored . A good policy would be to stop African immigration into the U.S. (or at least vet for the top Africans). We can also (and we are) look into automation and robotics to replace the low-skilled jobs that a lot of African Americans typically do, thus relieve the U.S. of some of the burden of importing the 3rd world to complete these jobs. A similar but lesser problem applies to Hispanics. A solution for Hispanics would be to deport illegals back to South America (this deportation is cost effective because you only need to transport them over the border). You could also limit Hispanic immigration, too. You furthermore replace any African/Hispanic immigration into the U.S. with an Asian and the U.S. would be financially better off.
The U.S. is planned to give Israel $3.8 billion per year for the next decade U.S. Military Funding to Israel - US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (uscpr.org) . There is no good reason to be doing this, and U.S. involvement in the Middle East inspires terrorist attacks against the U.S (as I previously cited, 9/11 cost $3 trillion, and $0.8 billion for the 1993 WTC attack). Getting out of the Middle East would save America a lot of money.
Those are a couple, easy to understand solutions to help with America's debt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Liberals: One black person dies from the cops a day. We must be tougher on who gets to be a cop.Conservatives: One person dies from a terrorist attack in the US every week. We need to be tougher on Muslim immigrants.Me: WE ARE ALMOST $30 TRILLION IN DEBT! This is a bigger issue than both of these combined!
I'm going to unpack the "Liberal" and "Conservative" views.
The "Liberal" notion that black people are dying unjustly at the hands of police is data ignorant and dead wrong. Blacks (whilst unarmed) are killed by police roughly 48 times per year. Compare this to the weather (187), accidental drowning (591) and other Blacks killing them (2,570) On Racial Bias in Police Shootings | Ideas and Data (wordpress.com) . A police officer killing an (unarmed) Black person is one of the LEAST likely ways a Black person dies. We can add to this fact that when police officers do kill Black people, it's often justified as the Black person has lashed out in his/her resistance of arrest. For example, Rayshard Brooks decided to resist arrest and steal an officer's taser and tried to shoot officers with it. Still, Black people rioted because despite lethal force being justifiable, this is somehow "systemically racist". Also, data clearly shows that white officers are more hesitant and less likely to shoot a Black criminal, so this "Liberal" notion is wrong on that front, too On Racial Bias in Police Shootings | Ideas and Data (wordpress.com) . So, Blacks/"Liberal" people threatening to riot whenever there is a justified police killing of a Black person (i.e. legal self-defence), is a gigantic problem that undermines the police force and criminal justice system.
As for the "Conservative" point of view, Muslims don't assimilate into populations. Muslims tend to want Sharia and a caliphate wherever they go Muslim Beliefs About Sharia | Pew Research Center (pewforum.org). When you bring Muslims into your country, you're bringing in a population that will contest your systems -- that's a real reason to oppose Muslim immigration. Take into account the fact that Muslims are usually a race differing to yours, and that they'll block up and vote based on their race, and that's another reason not to let them in. As for the impact of Muslim terrorist attacks in the U.S, there actually aren't that many in total Terrorism in the United States - Wikipedia . Two Muslim terrorist attacks have cost the U.S. significant amounts, around $3 trillion for 9/11, and $800 million in the other WTC attack The 10 Most Expensive Terrorist Attacks In History | TheRichest . You could argue that the fear is a factor, and that's difficult to quantitatively measure. If the U.S. would just stop bombing and attacking Muslim Middle Eastern countries, perhaps Muslims wouldn't feel inclined to retaliate with terrorist attacks. So, Muslim immigration is actually a problem for any (non-Islamic) country, and the "Conservative" viewpoint is an issue, too.
Thus, the "Liberal" issue is provably a non-issue. "Liberals" become a problem when they riot about this non-issue. The "Conservative" issue is real and is compounded by Muslims not integrating into your countries.
Created:
Posted in:
Right-wing disinformation from fauxlaw who can't even admit who he is while delivering the bullcrap.
Once again, you haven't at all engage with the content of this thread to show it's wrong/half-true. Instead, all you've done is Ad hommed (again) and attempted to distract from the topic with your conspiracy theory about fauxlaw. Even if this is fauxlaw, nobody logically cares -- it has nothing to do with the thread.
So thanks for conceding everything with your SJW crying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Blinkin, Biden's Sec of State, says now that "We gave Americans every opportunity to get out" of Afghanistan. Does he forget that just two weeks ago - Aug 16 - DOS told Americans in Afghanistan wanting to get out to "shelter in place," the same words used a year and a half ago to advise the best, then, advice to protect against Covid?Biden, allegedly the President, promised just four days ago, to evacuate all Americans from Afghanistan.Leadership is not a power trip. Leadership is not a privilege. Leadership is an accountability. It is an obligation to do as promised.Joe Biden, and his team, are a total failure.You may now wear your mask for another reason: To muffle your blind opinion that this is a capable presidency.oops.
This is all correct. He's absolutely botched this Afghanistan withdrawal and that has major repercussions.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
I’ve always wondered that.
Yeah you need to establish that scientists are indeed "overwhelmingly on the left" before you can make an OP like this. Anyone responding to your question begged premise needs to rethink just how crappy and illogical your OP is.
So feel free to do that, champ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Before I address your insubstantial response, it should be noted that you conceded the fact:
- That your initial argument against the OP was a strawman (despite you calling it a strawman lol)
- You're a massive hypocrite who whines about being called SJW because it's a "term of denigration", yet readily use terms like "white supremacist" which is also a term of denigration
- That you readily engaged in Ad Hominem (logical fallacy) to attack people involved in the argument, rather than the argument itself (that groypers have shown some "conservatives" to be grifters, including Ben Shapiro)
- You're still a massive hypocrite who whines about being called SJW because it's a "term of denigration", yet you're fine with calling Nick Fuentes "The 18 year old pimply faced incel cunt" (which, if we're extremely generous, might be slightly construed as terms of denigration)
Now that we've got your concessions out of the way, we can address the rest of what you wrote:
My point had nothing to do with who Nick Fuentes is.Your point wasn't addressed to me or to this topic. You were addressing conservatives and appealing for further radicalization. FOX News, Ben Shapiro, Donald Trump- they are now the RINO left and will be purged when the great storm comes. All of which seems pretty non-sequitur.You invited us (and me particularly) to say what we want about little boys who hate so much they drop out of school and try to kill their country. So I did.
Yes, my point wasn't addressed to you.
Your framing of "further radicalization" is a bare assertion and should be dismissed as the logical fallacy it is. Furthermore, I never argued "they are now the RINO left and will be purged when the great storm comes" LOL xD. That's purely your strawman of my position and is the 2nd time you've built an egregious strawman in this thread.
I said was that Groypers exposed Ben Shapiro as a grifter, Fox News doesn't do anything to push conservative policy, and I never said anything about Trump lol. I also said you should stop supporting these grifter types . That was all. Should saying something pro life be classified as "mysoginist hate speech towards women"? (debateart.com) The fact that you built such an egregious strawman out of that exposes you as horrendously bad faith and frankly just an easily proved liar.
Your final two sentences are purely Ad Hominem and completely worthless to the point I made. The point I made was that Groypers exposed "conservatives" like Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh as grifters. It doesn't matter at all who Nick Fuentes is, relative to the point I made. But I know SJWs like you are so bent out of shape so easily that you couldn't resist Ad Homming Nick, despite me predicting that you would and telling you why that would be illogical to do so Should saying something pro life be classified as "mysoginist hate speech towards women"? (debateart.com) .
Created:
Posted in:
Sounds like a bunch of excuses for your videogame addiction. It can't stand against reason and logic, so you resort to Ad hom and the classic 'I don't care'.
But keep playing your skinner-box videogame. Keep getting milked by predatory developers that are monetizing your addiction and suffering. Keep telling yourself that you don't have to justify any of it to anyone. You're such a good lil pay-piggy.
Created: