Total posts: 2,768
-->
@TWS1405
So, if social trends make jumping off a cliff popular, is everyone going to choose to do it? I believe the Tide Pod challenge proves how stupid some people can be, but they are in the minority.
You are confusing “social trend” as in socioeconomic trends, employment rates, changes in the environment you’re part of, and the challenges individuals face; with “social trends”, as in various behaviours that individuals wish to copy. This is a silly objection.
Not everyone in poverty has such low standards that they would just jump at the chance to choose ingesting a highly addictive drug that will destroy their life.
Correct - but a straw man - as I never suggest they did, and nothing I said implies it must.
Redlining doesn’t equal holding a gun to someone’s head and forcing them to choose to ingest an illegal drug.
Correct. but a straw man - as I never suggest they did, and nothing I said implies it must.
Racial inequality doesn’t hold a gun to anyone’s head forcing them to choose to ingest an illegal drug. So on and so forth.
Correct. but a straw man - as I never suggest they did, and nothing I said implies it must.
Let me remind you of what I actually said:
Let me remind you of what I actually said:
However - social trends are clear, poverty and economic factors are indeed associated with high level of drug use, and substance abuse - so redlining, and racial inequality raised unemployment and increases poverty disproportionately in black communities; that alone puts those communities at higher risk for substance abuse.
The issue specifically, is that economic hard ship, stress, extreme poverty, lower education, destroyed community and associated depression and helplessness make the escape of drugs more appealing.
Drug use is, of course, a choice, but the idea that a middle class family of three in the suburbs with no financial troubles, and a person in extreme poverty, at high risk of violence, little education, in a broken community, have an identical equal choice - and that it’s equally easy for both of them to make the same - flies in the face of everything we know about addiction.
It is of course possible for things to be a choice; but also choices that are harder by a variety of external factors. Environmental stressors like poverty, unemployment, broken communities, poor education, abuse, etc - all change how easy or hard that choice is, and helps lead to more people making the wrong one.
Simply pretending that this is not the case, as you do, is complete nonsense, fundamentally just another one in a long line of “nuh-uhs” that you using to ignore and reject fact based data.
The reality of this is that the response crack epidemic, visited upon broken, high unemployment high poverty black communities - to criminalize drug use and treat the epidemic as a crime problem - is what lead to mass incarceration. It’s common knowledge that the penalties for drugs that mainly blacks used were many times harsher than ones that whites used, disparities in enforcement lead to a clearly disproportional racial disparity in incarceration.
This is a clear - almost cut and dry - issue or racist policy causing the issue. One that is emphasized by the opioid crisis - which you ignored in your response - where the crisis is being treated as a health issue, not a crime issue. If possession of opioids was treated as harshly as possession of crack - if identical policing strategy of at risk communities was similar, and prosecutors, plea systems, courts, and juries were equally biased against those abusing opioids as they were during the 90s for blacks - then we may have seen the same mass incarceration for whites - this is to juxtapose (note the correct usage of the word btw) these two response to point out that if the response to the crack epidemic was similar to the opioid epidemic, it may not have been quite as bad for mass incarceration.
This is just another in a long line of dismissive, silly “nuh-uh” responses where you don’t really offer anything, other than an obtuse, inaccurate and barely logical objection that can be shown to be a clearly insufficient objection.
The whole premise of your replies here, seem overtly targeted to portray complex social issues solely as problems that are inherently caused by and perpetuates solely the black community due, implicitly to some failure of character or constitution.
This is where accusations of racism come from, and given your responses - is actually fair criticism.
We can talk about the pervasiveness of “acting white”, the origins of mass incarceration can explanations for crime rate, or the break down of black families - those are all fair topics - and ones explored at length on the left, and you could bring up on instagram or Twitter without real objection.
The objection here is not the topics you discuss - though it’s clear most of them are wrong to a greater or lesser degree.
The objection is the pervasive implication that underpins everything you’ve said - that it’s black people who are to blame for where they are, and the constant implication that there is something that is just not as good in blacks as in whites.
There is an implication that blacks degenerated into welfare because they were offered federal money - but not white women, apparently. That they “bitch and whine” about slavery, that black people today don’t have pride or determination, and that despite being at the bottom of a deep economic and social hole broadly dug for them over the last two centuries by white people - that the reason they are not yet out of that hole is because they’re not trying hard enough.
None of this is explicit - but are all definitive implications of the arguments you are making, and the things you are saying; negative value statements underpinning everhing you’re saying - those implications - is why people appearing to be branding the things you’re saying as racist.
Drug use is, of course, a choice, but the idea that a middle class family of three in the suburbs with no financial troubles, and a person in extreme poverty, at high risk of violence, little education, in a broken community, have an identical equal choice - and that it’s equally easy for both of them to make the same - flies in the face of everything we know about addiction.
It is of course possible for things to be a choice; but also choices that are harder by a variety of external factors. Environmental stressors like poverty, unemployment, broken communities, poor education, abuse, etc - all change how easy or hard that choice is, and helps lead to more people making the wrong one.
Simply pretending that this is not the case, as you do, is complete nonsense, fundamentally just another one in a long line of “nuh-uhs” that you using to ignore and reject fact based data.
The reality of this is that the response crack epidemic, visited upon broken, high unemployment high poverty black communities - to criminalize drug use and treat the epidemic as a crime problem - is what lead to mass incarceration. It’s common knowledge that the penalties for drugs that mainly blacks used were many times harsher than ones that whites used, disparities in enforcement lead to a clearly disproportional racial disparity in incarceration.
This is a clear - almost cut and dry - issue or racist policy causing the issue. One that is emphasized by the opioid crisis - which you ignored in your response - where the crisis is being treated as a health issue, not a crime issue. If possession of opioids was treated as harshly as possession of crack - if identical policing strategy of at risk communities was similar, and prosecutors, plea systems, courts, and juries were equally biased against those abusing opioids as they were during the 90s for blacks - then we may have seen the same mass incarceration for whites - this is to juxtapose (note the correct usage of the word btw) these two response to point out that if the response to the crack epidemic was similar to the opioid epidemic, it may not have been quite as bad for mass incarceration.
This is just another in a long line of dismissive, silly “nuh-uh” responses where you don’t really offer anything, other than an obtuse, inaccurate and barely logical objection that can be shown to be a clearly insufficient objection.
The whole premise of your replies here, seem overtly targeted to portray complex social issues solely as problems that are inherently caused by and perpetuates solely the black community due, implicitly to some failure of character or constitution.
This is where accusations of racism come from, and given your responses - is actually fair criticism.
We can talk about the pervasiveness of “acting white”, the origins of mass incarceration can explanations for crime rate, or the break down of black families - those are all fair topics - and ones explored at length on the left, and you could bring up on instagram or Twitter without real objection.
The objection here is not the topics you discuss - though it’s clear most of them are wrong to a greater or lesser degree.
The objection is the pervasive implication that underpins everything you’ve said - that it’s black people who are to blame for where they are, and the constant implication that there is something that is just not as good in blacks as in whites.
There is an implication that blacks degenerated into welfare because they were offered federal money - but not white women, apparently. That they “bitch and whine” about slavery, that black people today don’t have pride or determination, and that despite being at the bottom of a deep economic and social hole broadly dug for them over the last two centuries by white people - that the reason they are not yet out of that hole is because they’re not trying hard enough.
None of this is explicit - but are all definitive implications of the arguments you are making, and the things you are saying; negative value statements underpinning everhing you’re saying - those implications - is why people appearing to be branding the things you’re saying as racist.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Likewise with welfare - the argument that welfare was a primary reason, again, not fully born out in the data. White people on welfare are subject to the same fatherlessness pressure for welfare, and have not seen equivalent increases. Key aspects of welfare that could really have driven fatherlessness directly were so short lived as to only have a short impact (Google man-in-the-house), fatherlessness (see the heritage data) began rising in the non-white population in 1950 - predating the issues with welfare.
The big issue with it, is whether it’s correlation or causation. Are people on welfare because they are single parent families and thus qualify for welfare - or are they single parent families as a result of them being on welfare. The data doesn’t really support the latter conclusion - as it implies divorce and separation - and as divorce rates are relatively close between white and black women - despite single parent families really tracking up much higher in black woman than white since 1970.
http://www.stateofourunions.org/2009/si-divorce.php
While separation rates could indeed be higher due to welfare - you run afoul correlation = causation again. Are the specific conditions that cause marital issues in these circumstances similar to the ones that lead to one qualifying for welfare? Or does the conditions provided by welfare lead to marital issues? You can’t simply assume a causal link. What about the other way around - does welfare encourage people to have kids to make money? Hard to say - but given that the black birth rate fell through the floor - halving between 1960 and 1980 - it’s hard to find any data that matches that conclusion.
This is not to say that welfare has no impact at all; one should not dismiss correlations - but the data clearly shows it’s much more complex that that, and that the impact of welfare and separation rates don’t add up due to correlations in some examples - but not in others. So while absolutely, welfare and the nature of it can have an impact - the idea that it is what caused the problem - as you suggest - isnot supported by the data. Now - I’m sure you can find multiple opinion pieces to quote to say that it does - but hey, I can find opinion taking any position on any issue. Being able to find a link - is not at all impressive, especially when you appear unable to link or tie together data to support your position.
Here specifically is where the biased inferences creep in - firstly you said the civil rights era (circa 1960s) we’re proud, and determined (implying todays are not) - and you also blame LBJs war in poverty and welfare (circa 1960s), for making women marry the government and causing rising fatherlessness (circa 1960s).
Given that the black population of the 1960s is the same as the black population of the 1960s; the inference you make here is that the Proud, determined population then got married into government welfare - despite having pride and being determined.
Your response was just another nuh-uh - that because you didn’t state it, it’s a straw man. Unfortunately - just because you didn’t explicitly contradict yourself does not mean your argument doesn’t contradict itself. And just because you didn’t explicitly say the black population of the 1960s is the same as the black population of the 1960s that they aren’t the same - they are.
Note: you don’t offer a counter here, it’s just a blurted out denial - it’s a silly denial.
I don’t really have much of an issue with attributing cause of the crime rates - yours are clearly inaccurate - but attribution itself is not a big deal.
The issue, specifically is drawing causal inferences and attribution that imply value of worth - is what I’m explicitly objecting to.
If you attributed things to welfare or rises in single parenthood - it wouldn’t be that big a deal - it would be largely wrong, but it’s not an objectionable argument.
When you imply that there’s something wrong with the black population - because they don’t have pride and determinism and aren’t helping themselves - or implying worth because whites didn’t “bitch and moan” about white slavery - or imply that black populations fell into lazy welfare traps - but whites didn’t (which are the implication of your argument regardless of whether you have explicitly said them) - these implications are unsupported by data - imply value that isn’t present in the data - and are wholly negative.
The big issue with it, is whether it’s correlation or causation. Are people on welfare because they are single parent families and thus qualify for welfare - or are they single parent families as a result of them being on welfare. The data doesn’t really support the latter conclusion - as it implies divorce and separation - and as divorce rates are relatively close between white and black women - despite single parent families really tracking up much higher in black woman than white since 1970.
http://www.stateofourunions.org/2009/si-divorce.php
While separation rates could indeed be higher due to welfare - you run afoul correlation = causation again. Are the specific conditions that cause marital issues in these circumstances similar to the ones that lead to one qualifying for welfare? Or does the conditions provided by welfare lead to marital issues? You can’t simply assume a causal link. What about the other way around - does welfare encourage people to have kids to make money? Hard to say - but given that the black birth rate fell through the floor - halving between 1960 and 1980 - it’s hard to find any data that matches that conclusion.
This is not to say that welfare has no impact at all; one should not dismiss correlations - but the data clearly shows it’s much more complex that that, and that the impact of welfare and separation rates don’t add up due to correlations in some examples - but not in others. So while absolutely, welfare and the nature of it can have an impact - the idea that it is what caused the problem - as you suggest - isnot supported by the data. Now - I’m sure you can find multiple opinion pieces to quote to say that it does - but hey, I can find opinion taking any position on any issue. Being able to find a link - is not at all impressive, especially when you appear unable to link or tie together data to support your position.
Here specifically is where the biased inferences creep in - firstly you said the civil rights era (circa 1960s) we’re proud, and determined (implying todays are not) - and you also blame LBJs war in poverty and welfare (circa 1960s), for making women marry the government and causing rising fatherlessness (circa 1960s).
Given that the black population of the 1960s is the same as the black population of the 1960s; the inference you make here is that the Proud, determined population then got married into government welfare - despite having pride and being determined.
Your response was just another nuh-uh - that because you didn’t state it, it’s a straw man. Unfortunately - just because you didn’t explicitly contradict yourself does not mean your argument doesn’t contradict itself. And just because you didn’t explicitly say the black population of the 1960s is the same as the black population of the 1960s that they aren’t the same - they are.
Note: you don’t offer a counter here, it’s just a blurted out denial - it’s a silly denial.
I don’t really have much of an issue with attributing cause of the crime rates - yours are clearly inaccurate - but attribution itself is not a big deal.
The issue, specifically is drawing causal inferences and attribution that imply value of worth - is what I’m explicitly objecting to.
If you attributed things to welfare or rises in single parenthood - it wouldn’t be that big a deal - it would be largely wrong, but it’s not an objectionable argument.
When you imply that there’s something wrong with the black population - because they don’t have pride and determinism and aren’t helping themselves - or implying worth because whites didn’t “bitch and moan” about white slavery - or imply that black populations fell into lazy welfare traps - but whites didn’t (which are the implication of your argument regardless of whether you have explicitly said them) - these implications are unsupported by data - imply value that isn’t present in the data - and are wholly negative.
The difference is the culture. Any measure of success among those in the black community was frowned upon
Wow. So first round blame was fatherlessness due to welfare, then this was bought about “black culture” - given the links you shared, more thug centric toxic masculinity culture - now it’s all caused by acting white.
Make up your mind!
That being said, let’s look at your link; a link that studies friendship groups in schools - shows that black students with a GPA of 4.0, have the same number of friends - on average - as someone scoring around 2.8 gpa.
From this - you assert, without any other justification or data - that this means that “any measure of success among those in the black community is frowned upon” - and is also such a profound harm to the black community that no-wait-actually- this is the issue why black people aren’t successful!
What an unbelievable reach your making there
What an unbelievablely wildly extreme, broad and hardcore conclusion to infer from such a small piece of data. The data you cite clearly does not justify the wild conclusion you’re trying to draw from it.
Make up your mind!
That being said, let’s look at your link; a link that studies friendship groups in schools - shows that black students with a GPA of 4.0, have the same number of friends - on average - as someone scoring around 2.8 gpa.
From this - you assert, without any other justification or data - that this means that “any measure of success among those in the black community is frowned upon” - and is also such a profound harm to the black community that no-wait-actually- this is the issue why black people aren’t successful!
What an unbelievable reach your making there
What an unbelievablely wildly extreme, broad and hardcore conclusion to infer from such a small piece of data. The data you cite clearly does not justify the wild conclusion you’re trying to draw from it.
What data, exactly, am I using. Since I flat out gave no direct cited source,
You literally cited multiple sources throughout the is thread. Don’t be a fool.
But if you want to claim you haven’t provided any sources - I am happy to state, based on your own replies to me - that this means you haven’t proven any of your claims right?
But if you want to claim you haven’t provided any sources - I am happy to state, based on your own replies to me - that this means you haven’t proven any of your claims right?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
ME - Also, there is no racial skew in crime statistics.
This is factually untrue - ironic given that this post is about rejection of facts.
And yet you failed to prove it untrue.
Of the top of my head…
Don’t care what’s off the top of your head, what you think, feel or believe. The only thing that matters is what you can prove. And thus far, you really haven’t proven a damn thing.
As some background here - I said there was a skew in crime data - you denied it. I cited several publicly available, widely accepted statistics - wrongful convictions rates, drug stop data, and police miscounduct.
Did you Google them?
Did you look at the data I’m talking about?
Did you engage in any sort of intellectually honest discussion on those data points?
No - you just denied everything - you even removed the specific examples I used from your quote. This doesn’t strike me as intellectually honest.
Let’s take a moment to point out the constant ridiculous hypocrisy in your replies here for a moment.
You don’t cite links and underlying sources for data - and you claim it’s okay because it’s common knowledge: I do the same; and you claim it’s my opinion, you won’t search, and you pretend the data doesn’t exist.
You claim you haven’t provided any data sets, and no information; and that is apparently okay - and yet the moment I cite a very specific piece of data that demonstrates my point that is easily googled, but no link - I am admonished as not having proven anything.
This is just plain hypocritical intellectual dishonesty. Pick a rule and stick to it.
Like I said - you didn’t bother to Google the examples I used for racial skews, I can cite:
Racial skew on arrests:
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/02/california-police-black-stops-force
Racial skew on wrongful conviction:
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race_and_Wrongful_Convictions.pdf
Various related racial bias in police miscounduct:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/15/police-misconduct-among-leading-causes-false-convictions/5795715002/
There are many other examples of subtle and unsubtle bias against African Americans for similar crimes, everything from charging rate, loading up criminals with more charges, and more likely to end in the death penalty:
https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/for-the-record-unjust-burden-racial-disparities.pdf
The Bias is across the board; and does inherently skew the numbers, no matter how much you wish to, ironically, you denied this fact-based data.
In addition, I used some broad facts, like mass incarceration timing, and that crime rates have fallen across the board.
Your response was:
Did you Google them?
Did you look at the data I’m talking about?
Did you engage in any sort of intellectually honest discussion on those data points?
No - you just denied everything - you even removed the specific examples I used from your quote. This doesn’t strike me as intellectually honest.
Let’s take a moment to point out the constant ridiculous hypocrisy in your replies here for a moment.
You don’t cite links and underlying sources for data - and you claim it’s okay because it’s common knowledge: I do the same; and you claim it’s my opinion, you won’t search, and you pretend the data doesn’t exist.
You claim you haven’t provided any data sets, and no information; and that is apparently okay - and yet the moment I cite a very specific piece of data that demonstrates my point that is easily googled, but no link - I am admonished as not having proven anything.
This is just plain hypocritical intellectual dishonesty. Pick a rule and stick to it.
Like I said - you didn’t bother to Google the examples I used for racial skews, I can cite:
Racial skew on arrests:
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/02/california-police-black-stops-force
Racial skew on wrongful conviction:
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race_and_Wrongful_Convictions.pdf
Various related racial bias in police miscounduct:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/15/police-misconduct-among-leading-causes-false-convictions/5795715002/
There are many other examples of subtle and unsubtle bias against African Americans for similar crimes, everything from charging rate, loading up criminals with more charges, and more likely to end in the death penalty:
https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/for-the-record-unjust-burden-racial-disparities.pdf
The Bias is across the board; and does inherently skew the numbers, no matter how much you wish to, ironically, you denied this fact-based data.
In addition, I used some broad facts, like mass incarceration timing, and that crime rates have fallen across the board.
Your response was:
Those are NOT "statistics," that is opinion based off something you read and try to recollect.
Which is just again, rampant unjustified denialism. My stats were spot on:
That crime rates have fallen dramatically since the 1990s.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/
Mass incarceration ramped up from around 1975:
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18613/chapter/4#35
Violent crime rate lead the rise in incarceration:
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-economic-benefits-of-reducing-violent-crime/
All of these key stats are exactly correct - despite you denying them.
In addition, we have stats of out of wedlock births.
https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/marriage-americas-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty
Note: you further erode your argument that you have lots of data given the weak data set you present in your defence here, your brookings data was incredibly incomplete - and looks like you found the first link you could Google, rather than a scouring for a decent data source.
That crime rates have fallen dramatically since the 1990s.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/
Mass incarceration ramped up from around 1975:
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18613/chapter/4#35
Violent crime rate lead the rise in incarceration:
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-economic-benefits-of-reducing-violent-crime/
All of these key stats are exactly correct - despite you denying them.
In addition, we have stats of out of wedlock births.
https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/marriage-americas-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty
Note: you further erode your argument that you have lots of data given the weak data set you present in your defence here, your brookings data was incredibly incomplete - and looks like you found the first link you could Google, rather than a scouring for a decent data source.
You said “Mass incarceration was a direct result of the 72% out of wedlock birth rates leading to the home to prison pipeline”
Data shows this is factually and blatantly untrue. The data shows that the peak of 72% was in 2008, with high rates plateauing in the mid 1990, before rising again to the peak of 72% - a shade over a decade ago: this is as I said - you denied this fact based data.
This data also shows the current wedlock birth rate is at an all time record low. - the data is as I said - you denied this fact based data.
It also shows that white out of wedlock rates are the same today as they were for blacks in the late 60s - the data is as I said -you denied this fact based data.
This data disproves your contention that mass incarceration was a direct result of the 72% unwed rate - given that mass incarceration took off in 1974, and the unwed rates did not even get close to 72% until the 90s - twenty years later and while there is no drop in wedded birth, there is a massive drop in crime rate. Data disproves your contention.
This data also disproves your contention that these rates are driven by fatherlessness - given that crime rates and fatherlessness rates don’t correlate with violent crime after 1995, and doesn’t correlate well with murder after 1970. The data refutes your position.
This is not to say that fatherlessness is not a factor - it is; but the data is way more complex than that. For example - whites have an incarceration rate of 1/106 (<1%, blacks 1/15 (6.6%) https://nij.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh171/files/images/2019-07/records-figure2-big.jpg despite having out of wedlock rates of about 2-2.5x, the incarceration rate is 6x higher. There’s way more to it than you suggest. Given the above - it could be argued that as the violent crime rate drops of more than 50% can’t be attributed to fatherlessness - it could also be said at least half the crime rate rise wasn’t inherently due to that, likewise out of the remaining incarcerations at least half are due to other differences if you use white incarceration as a baseline - meaning at least 75% of the total incarcerations are potentially attributable to other things. Obviously it’s more complex than that - but like you said: data doesn’t lie: and thus given your argument - my conclusion must be true, right?
In addition, your contention that as well as being driven by fatherlessness - it’s driven by “black culture” - given that what you refer to as “black culture” hasn’t existed until fairly recently, crime has been dropping since what you call “black culture” was around. The data doesn’t even correlate here. The data refutes your position.
This data also shows the current wedlock birth rate is at an all time record low. - the data is as I said - you denied this fact based data.
It also shows that white out of wedlock rates are the same today as they were for blacks in the late 60s - the data is as I said -you denied this fact based data.
This data disproves your contention that mass incarceration was a direct result of the 72% unwed rate - given that mass incarceration took off in 1974, and the unwed rates did not even get close to 72% until the 90s - twenty years later and while there is no drop in wedded birth, there is a massive drop in crime rate. Data disproves your contention.
This data also disproves your contention that these rates are driven by fatherlessness - given that crime rates and fatherlessness rates don’t correlate with violent crime after 1995, and doesn’t correlate well with murder after 1970. The data refutes your position.
This is not to say that fatherlessness is not a factor - it is; but the data is way more complex than that. For example - whites have an incarceration rate of 1/106 (<1%, blacks 1/15 (6.6%) https://nij.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh171/files/images/2019-07/records-figure2-big.jpg despite having out of wedlock rates of about 2-2.5x, the incarceration rate is 6x higher. There’s way more to it than you suggest. Given the above - it could be argued that as the violent crime rate drops of more than 50% can’t be attributed to fatherlessness - it could also be said at least half the crime rate rise wasn’t inherently due to that, likewise out of the remaining incarcerations at least half are due to other differences if you use white incarceration as a baseline - meaning at least 75% of the total incarcerations are potentially attributable to other things. Obviously it’s more complex than that - but like you said: data doesn’t lie: and thus given your argument - my conclusion must be true, right?
In addition, your contention that as well as being driven by fatherlessness - it’s driven by “black culture” - given that what you refer to as “black culture” hasn’t existed until fairly recently, crime has been dropping since what you call “black culture” was around. The data doesn’t even correlate here. The data refutes your position.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
On that note, I do not care what you think, feel, or believe. The only thing that matters is what you can prove. And so far, you haven’t proven a lick of anything. You just keep claiming the data doesn’t support my positions without citing any credible sources that prove me wrong, as you claim.
Okay - so this is another “nuh-uh” Arbitrary rejection of my point.
Recall: my point, broadly, is that you are citing a bunch of data, putting forward conclusions that are not supported by that data - drawing value statements from that data that could arguably (or in the case of the above - actually) be called racist - and then when you’re challenged on it - citing the data.
There is so much wrong with this part of your reply here, that dovetail with all the errors you’ve been making thus far in multiple points.
The first thing is that you appear fixated with me giving you links or data in order to show you’re wrong - but I’m not really challenging your data; I’m not saying your statistical description of the world is inaccurate- I am challenging the conclusions you’ve drawn from them; and the logic of you defending your conclusions by citing the accuracy of the data they’re based on
These are critical logical issues, and can be pointed out by logic. How do you expect me to find a link in the internet that proves that you, in this argument on this website are not arguing logically?
Arguments don’t work that way - and as shown above; you’ve managed to “nuh-uh” your way through every logical criticism so as to pretend none exist. And as yet - other than demanding me show data to prove you made a logical error; or otherwise telling me I’m wrong - you haven’t really been able to defend these aspects of your arguments with anything more detailed or specific than some hand waving.
The second issue - and what makes this much more absurd - is that I have actually cited data - together with reasoning why your conclusions are false. I have assuredly provided that justified argument as to why your interpretation is wrong - together with facts and data.
I’ve explained what you cherry picked (specific data that omits other lacking correlations), and why - I’ve cited specific, well accepted, stats that are trivial to Google - in the same way you just spooled off data points with no link. I’ve explained how the wider data points render some of your conclusions overly simplistic, and I’ve pointed out some of your conclusions are simply unsupported.
Your reaction throughout your reply here has not been to defend your position as much as it has been to find some silly reason to deny everything I’ve been saying, this is neither valid, nor particularly coherent.
Recall: my point, broadly, is that you are citing a bunch of data, putting forward conclusions that are not supported by that data - drawing value statements from that data that could arguably (or in the case of the above - actually) be called racist - and then when you’re challenged on it - citing the data.
There is so much wrong with this part of your reply here, that dovetail with all the errors you’ve been making thus far in multiple points.
The first thing is that you appear fixated with me giving you links or data in order to show you’re wrong - but I’m not really challenging your data; I’m not saying your statistical description of the world is inaccurate- I am challenging the conclusions you’ve drawn from them; and the logic of you defending your conclusions by citing the accuracy of the data they’re based on
These are critical logical issues, and can be pointed out by logic. How do you expect me to find a link in the internet that proves that you, in this argument on this website are not arguing logically?
Arguments don’t work that way - and as shown above; you’ve managed to “nuh-uh” your way through every logical criticism so as to pretend none exist. And as yet - other than demanding me show data to prove you made a logical error; or otherwise telling me I’m wrong - you haven’t really been able to defend these aspects of your arguments with anything more detailed or specific than some hand waving.
The second issue - and what makes this much more absurd - is that I have actually cited data - together with reasoning why your conclusions are false. I have assuredly provided that justified argument as to why your interpretation is wrong - together with facts and data.
I’ve explained what you cherry picked (specific data that omits other lacking correlations), and why - I’ve cited specific, well accepted, stats that are trivial to Google - in the same way you just spooled off data points with no link. I’ve explained how the wider data points render some of your conclusions overly simplistic, and I’ve pointed out some of your conclusions are simply unsupported.
Your reaction throughout your reply here has not been to defend your position as much as it has been to find some silly reason to deny everything I’ve been saying, this is neither valid, nor particularly coherent.
No. It is just because they are ignorant and make asinine claims that I am wrong without substantiating that claim. Sort of like what you have been doing.
Another “nuh-uh”. Again - I’m explaining the issue in your argument - you’re repeatedly asserting I’m wrong.
Again, you have not shown/proven a damn thing. It’s all subjective conjecture on your part.
“Nuh-uh”
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
It is common knowledge that fatherlessness is a root cause of criminality among young black men. Moreover, the FBI UCR, DOJ, BJS, and NCVS..
Again - another “nuh-uh” response that completely evade the point.
How exactly does citing data prove that conclusions you draw from data are valid? How does citing the UCR or the FBI, demonstrate the conclusions you draw from their data is justified and valid? That is the specific point I made that you’re responding to, and your answer is unrelated to it.
Indeed your response is just repeating the same error I pointed out again and again - instead of showing it is not an error.
Even take your claim about fatherlessness. It’s a key predictor - but it’s not the over-aching causal factor - given that crime rates have halved, but fatherless rates have climbed - that the US have the highest fatherlessness rates in the world - but not the highest crime rates. Incarceration rates for blacks is about 7 times higher than whites (1/106 vs 1/15) - despite having rates of 55% vs 21% (~2.6x) living without one parent. This is not to mention attribution of cause of that fatherlessness rate.
It’s not the data that is the problem, it’s the inferences you draw from it.
See, here is a perfect example where you claim my position is not supported by the data without giving me any data to the contrary.
Again - a boiler plate “nuh-uh”.
Please explain how it’s possible for me to provide data, links, or external information that shows you are saying stuff - but not providing support for it?
I am pointing out a deficiency in your argument where you haven’t provided data - that’s not something I can cite external links to.
And then again - how can I disprove something you have claimed multiple times that you haven’t even provided!
Recall however, that I’m pointing out that comparisons you are drawing - pride, determination, etc - are not supported by any data you’ve cited. You went on to post a bunch of links - none of which showed any data that supports your contention of pride and determination changing either.
This is specifically the issue - you’ve made negative accusations: and haven’t supported them with data you claimed to have.
No, we would not. You clearly do not know much about slavery, historically speaking that is.
I didn’t say that white slavery didn’t exist - I suggested that if whites were in exactly the same position - how they would be affected would likely be similar. So the nature of your reply is wholly misunderstanding the point
Given that whites having been slaves doesn’t result in the exact same position - your link blasting means little. For example, white slaves weren’t a member of an effective racist industrial ethnostate for hundreds of years in which they were enslaved, beaten, deemed inferior; freed: then subjected to systematic oppression by the state due to their race for the next 100 years, then for another 30 years of economic oppression based on their race.
But saying this; I think you said the quiet part loud:
There are no historical references to whites bitching and moaning about their enslavement by blacks as blacks in America to present day
So let’s ignore attitudes towards the Moores and Islamic caliphates - which Europe totally never fought any wars against:
This statement clearly demonstrates your prejudice.
That you consider complaints about the impacts of racism and slavery as “bitching and moaning” - and that your presenting white reaction as more positive than black reaction clearly draws a value implication that the blacks are just bitching and moaning, and implying whites just sucked it up, or let it slide.
This hugely negative implication here is just plain overt racism.
Me: That’s kind of the point I’m making; we all have to take individual responsibility for our actions, we all have to be held properly accountable for our misdeeds; but it is an absolute and undeniable fact that our thinking, behaviour and our decision making are hugely influenced and shaped by external factors outside our control. When there are trends in external factors - there are associated trends in the population.You: link without context.
My argument is that our behaviours are heavily influenced and shaped by factors outside all of our control; and trends in external factors mean trends in the population - you do not object to this, you offer no counter argument: you even agree with it in your section about external factors.
You don’t explain what the link is for, what argument it makes and how it pertains to my position. If you are unable to make an argument on your own, I will gladly accept your concession.
I have no prejudices. I love and appreciate all good law-abiding emotionally and intellectually intelligent people equally; and I hate and loath all unlawful and grossly ignorant people equally.
To paraphrase the 109th rule of Acquisition - proudly processing how unprejudiced you are, and an empty sack is worth the sack.
Here is an example I alluded to towards the beginning of this response. When I engage in these discussions I juxtapose sociology, psychology, social-psychology, juvenile psychology, criminology, and raw data sources (e.g., FBI UCR, DOJ, BJS, NCVS, etc.).
Let’s ignore that I am not 100% sure you know what Juxtapose means given the way you’re using it: I can’t tell whether you’ve done any of those things - as you have just wildly asserted it, rather than actually provide any sort of analysis.
Repeatedly telling me that your argument incorporates all these key points, and incorporates a multitude of different aspects - but never actually providing the argument or the data, generally implies that you don’t actually have a reply. This is yet another “nuh-uh” reply.
You do not know me, my education, my professional experiences, nada. You have absolutely zero frame of reference to come to this asinine absurd position on me, my person, and what you “think” my biases and prejudices are.
I base this off your arguments, the things you say, the links you provide, and the inherent, implicit (and occasionally explicit) things you say. One cannot hide one one feels for long in an argument, and prejudice and bias leaks out - no matter how hard one may try.
To quote(ish) Spock from the old series episode “Mirror, Mirror” - it is easier for a civilized man to act the barbarian, than a barbarian to act like a civilized man”
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
So firstly - apologies for the delay. Making a clear, detailed and reasoned response to a disjointed set multiple post replies, takes far more time than offering a minimal objection, denial, “nuh-uh” that offers no real argument.
[They] deny that those truths as being remotely attributable to black Americans
Let’s applaud the fact that you’re mostly agreeing with my main premise. That the difference isn’t that we disagree with the data, but it’s attribution.
In order to justify that you didn’t start off in a false premise - you’re saying that when you said “they deny facts”, or are “resilient to fact based truth” you didn’t mean they deny facts, and didn’t mean they are resilient to fact based truths - but have different ideas about attribution. When you cite multiple pieces of crime data - saying that it doesn’t lie - your sharing it in the complete knowledge I accept that data completely?
What you’re doing, in your haste, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater - you clearly had a false premise, and to try and defend it, you make everything you’ve said thus far sound kinda dumb as a result.
Me: Data does not lie, [but all the ways you can interpret the data can].You: “Here is your problem, I have not disclosed any dataset, source of data, etc. for you to evaluate to come to this patently fallacious assertion”
So, I’ve already covered that the statement is a gaslightingly false lie of epic proportions in post 268 - you have given plenty of data throughout. In this single sentence, you make two other hugely false claims.
Firstly you suggest that the “conclusion”, that data can be misinterpreted, or that false conclusions can be drawn data, or that how one uses data can biased - is a “fallacious assertion.” This is laughable: my conclusion here is really just a description of basic formal logic. Rejecting basic logical truths it is absurd.
Secondly - you suggest that this conclusion is drawn from your argument - it’s clearly not a conclusion, leave alone one based on your argument - but an unambiguously general statement - not based on any specific data you raised, but pointing out the limits of veracity that can be drawn on data itself.
Negative tone and language? Please. Grow up. You cannot “hear” tone, and my language is straight forward. Grow thicker skin.
Huh? What does having thick or not think skin have to do with anything I said? Do you think my accusation applies to my feelings? Or to me?
This is really a “nuh-uh” response - taking an argument and explanation; and simply rejecting without reason. This is made more problematic given that I did actually clarify the specifics of what I meant:
You can absolutely “hear” tone in many cases, and language absolutely matters in terms of the conclusions and point you try and make.
If you scored low on an IQ test: that would be data. Saying that you were less intelligent would be language. Saying that you were stupid is tone. The data doesn’t lie - but that wouldn’t mean calling you stupid was accurate in this scenario.
Given that you regularly seem to use words, phrases and language implying negative value on black people; and that you straight up use phrasing and language that hugely implies that you black people are, in some specific ways lesser - such as talking about white people not moaning about their own slavery, or talking about the lack of pride, etc. This is all tone and language.
So in this “nuh-uh” reply - where you make literally no argument other than to assert that I am wrong - seems to be suggesting that in a post where you complain about being called a racist - we are somehow not allowed to talk about the of the key elements of statements that allow us to determine racism?
No, [proof of my conclusion] is from the data. If a black man commits a crime and both the forensics and the witness affirm that, then clearly, they did it.
Starting off with an aside, as I broadly agree with the data - the above actually demonstrates the issue quite nicely. The data only shows conviction rates. Does it show how many times witness lies, there is minimal or circumstantial forensics? Conviction data shows only convictions - not guilt - guilt is inferred from that data. Data relating to wrongful convictions demonstrates that conviction data isn’t necessarily data of actual guilt. This is my point, and one you inadvertently demonstrate.
Secondly, this is another “nuh-uh” reply. One that isn’t really talking about the same thing. You are talking about the data - still - I was talking about the conclusions you infer from it; talking about lack of pride; accusations that whites didn’t moan that they were enslaved, concluding it’s “black culture”, or that blacks don’t have pride any more - the negative language, injecting the lesser value - that doesn’t come from the crime stats; that’s added by you.
Your response here is exactly what I keep saying - you appear to have difficulty separating the data, with the conclusions you draw from it: because in a critique of your conclusions, you again - point to the data…
Recall - this whole exchange came about with me saying the disagreement is about why there are racial differences in crime rate - which was followed by you asserting there were racial differences in the crime rate. Why does citing a stat demonstrate the reason for that stat?
Like I said - you conflate the what’s with the whys - and thus far nothing you have said gives me confidence that you even understand the difference
I can accept [your definition of racism] as the basic information of racism.
Ok
This definition [of white supremacy] I cannot accept how worded
Ok - let’s call mine diet white supremacy then.
Also, it doesn’t matter how many times you claim I am conflating X Y and Z; it won’t make it any truer. Especially without any object fact based data substantiating that claim.
How exactly can one substantiate the claim that you are conflating data with a conclusion you draw from the data with “fact based data”, what statistics can I cite to show your argument conflates two things? What external source can I link here that will demonstrate that you’re confusing two things? This is absurd! It’s like you’re just picking from a list of objections you can make without any attempt to show those objections are valid
Recall - I suggest you are conflating data with the conclusions you are drawing from it. Specifically - I suggested we disagree that on deeper explanations of the racial differences in data - you responded by citing that racial differences exist - as if that proved your explanations.
The reality is, I’ve demonstrated what I mean. I’ve pointed out your various conclusions that are inferences of the data, and pointed to propensity to cite the data your inferences are supported by as justification for the inferences.
That one does not prove the other is a matter of logic - specifically pointing out that you have not supported your conclusion does not need me to supply “fact based data” - that’s not how an argument works.
No, you cannot draw racist or white supremacist conclusions from fact-based truths. Truth does NOT equal racism or white supremacy
This is another “nuh-uh” - no justification. Just foot stamping.
I made an argument, with a justification and logical explanation in my previous post to explain how you can - denying it’s true is not an argument.
Of course you can; I explained why in my last post. Draw value or worth conclusions from a data point:
You take something is true; like blacks commit more crime - and you use this to infer a value. Blacks are just worse than whites because they commit more crime. One is a fact, the other is a value statement that pulls in value assumptions about blackness. There. I made a truth racist.
Created:
1. No
2. No
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So again, I'm not saying they won't vote for him, I'm just saying that he won't have the same kind of pscophantic support Trump did, which will be needed to accomplish what Trump couldn't.
The level of psycophantic support; as in, like the weird QAnon stuff - almost certainly not. But that’s not really a key requirement.
If they would cheer if desantis deployed the military, banned books, started legally enforcing ideologically pure standards, enacted nationwide voting restrictions, replaced the government and military with cause loyalists - the effect would be much the same.
Saying that, I think you’re right in that people who replicate Trump fail - because he was this weird unhinged crazy and no one nailed the exact recipe - but Desantis is not Trump, nor Trying to be Trump, he is very much in the Trumpy lane, and as long as he is not the one to take Trump down - I think he can absolutely get the same level of psychophancy - by owning the libs, or perhaps not initially, but for sure after a period of time if he tried.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
I just had to post this nugget again before finalizing the remainder!
Me: Data does not lie, [but all the ways you can interpret the data can]
I have not disclosed any dataset, source of data, etc. for you to evaluate to come to this patently fallacious assertion.
Again, I have given you NO DATA SETS! None!
I have not given you enough of my objective opinion to draw this conclusion
In your OP, and subsequent posts you have listed, in no particular order: a multiple series of crime stats, have talked about rape, murders, population percentages of blacks, vs the black proportion of murder rates. You talked about wedded birth rate stats. You quoted the FBI, posted a doj link about violent crime. You’ve mentioned crime stats on black athletes, you cited statistical links between juvenile violence and absentee fathers. You cited links blaming culture - not race; and dozens on dozens on dozens of links to a variety of opinion pieces in response to other peoples criticism. You’ve cited the police homicide database, police justified shooting information. You have spend dozens of posts outlining your opinion and justifications.
Despite you saying you have not provided any dataset, source of data, etc for me to evaluate - your responses here have shared, at length, both datasets and sources of data. Even after the original comment that data doesn’t lie - which my comment was in response to - you go onto cite what some of that data is.
Despite you saying you have not provided any dataset, source of data, etc for me to evaluate - your responses here have shared, at length, both datasets and sources of data. Even after the original comment that data doesn’t lie - which my comment was in response to - you go onto cite what some of that data is.
You have absolutely given me more than enough links, argument, data and information throughout the entire course of this thread for me to accurately assess and critique your argument and justifications.
On what planet do you live on for you to state, with a straight face, that you haven’t provided any dataset or source of data in a thread where you’ve constantly talked about the data you use to draw your conclusions, and have posted more links to articles that you claim justify your position than any of us - including yourself it seems - can ever hope to read.
This is just insanity! If you genuinely believe that you haven’t provided any data set of source of data on this thread - where you have constantly provided datasets and sources of data - you are an absolute moron.
Even were you right - and you hadn’t provided any dataset of source of data - do you think it’s a valid argument and defence to say that my criticism of your position is invalid because you haven’t provided absolutely factual justification of any part of your position? Your basically trying to get out of criticism by saying your argument here is completely unsupported by data. That’s worse: you get how that’s worse, right?
So which is it; that you have provided enough of a data set for me to critique your interpretation of it: or your argument here is completely unsupported by data.
You can’t act like it’s shreodingers data - that exists when you want to criticize my argument; but doesn’t exist when I criticize it.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
I have to post this one first, as it’s too funny not to:
“Well, as one academically trained in criminology”
“Other knowledge that I possess having researched, read, and kept myself informed about black American history “
“I have all the criminological and scholarly resources at my fingertips”
“I never get involved let alone make any initial position that I cannot back up. I can back it up. I have all the criminological and scholarly resources at my fingertips. And no, I am not talking about the internet. I’ve kept every book used getting my criminology and criminal justice degree, and I have amassed a personal library of over 1200 books, much of which cover psychology, racial issues, sociology, juvenile delinquency, and black American history. I [know] what I am talking about; and I only divulge information that I deem necessary at the time. I am not going to show all my cards before not seeing any of yours.”
And finally, the claim:
I assure you the data does support my position. Studies go back to the 80s on this matter, and many blacks as of late have been openly speaking about these truths.
Let’s look at your links, provided as data.
So let’s be clear - you said in the civil rights era, blacks people had determination and pride. Inferring that they did not now. So let’s review your links that you claim show your position. Do they show the values of pride in 1960, and compare them to now, or at compare times?
Self-Perceptions of Black Americans: Self-Esteem and Personal Efficacy on JSTOR
Self esteem high, and self efficacy lower - one data point in 1988 - does not support your argument. Contradicts pride (self Esteem), and doesn’t provide a comparator for determination. You probably didn’t read this one.
The Legacy of Self-hatred in the Black Community - The Black Detour
Blog post opinion piece that you didn’t read - no mention of pride or determination; not about “self hate” as in hating ones self - but “hating one’s own kind”. Doesn’t support your point; the opinion traces causes of black hatred of other blacks to white racism.
Restoring self esteem and black pride - Consciousness.co.za Magazine
Another magazine opinion piece - not data. Traces cause of lack of self esteem to generational racism. You clearly didn’t even read this:
“I recently asked myself what steps we were taking as Africans to restore the self esteem of our people. These are people who’ve dealt with racism, western imperialism and marginalization; being told that they are less off and undeserving of proper human status.”
Why I hate being a black man | Orville Lloyd Douglas | The Guardian
Another opinion piece. Not data. Not about pride in the sense of pride in one self, but not liking how he is perceived. Traces hate about how they are viewed being black to perception of blackness of other people and continuing racism.
You clearly didn’t read this either:
“Who would want to have this dark skin, broad nose, large thick lips, and wake up in the morning being despised by the rest of the world?”
Charles Barkley and the Plague of 'Unintelligent' Blacks - The Atlantic
Opinion piece. Not data. Not about pride. Not really about pride. I don’t think you read it.
It also includes this hugely ironic gem:
“This version of history is a mistake. It allows the Charles Barkleys of the world and the racists who undoubtedly will approvingly quote him to pretend that they are exposing some heretofore arcane bit of knowledge”
Black men, we need to acknowledge that we are the problem. Let's talk toxic masculinity. - The Black Youth Project
This is not about pride or determinism but toxic masculinity. It’s an opinion piece - not data. And you again, clearly did not read it:
“I understand what we are taught at such a young age because I was taught it as well. Black men are told that we are meant to be intelligent. We are told to defend ourselves at all costs. We are told to be strong in our rationale, that compromise is synonymous to surrendering, and empathy equates to being weak. This kind of toxic thinking has limited Black men to a level of closed-mindedness and insecurity”
These links were shared by you - to support your position on a claim you made about blacks in the 1960s.
You cite one actual study, which shows high self esteem (disproving your claim about pride), and giving no comparison to anything in the 60s.
You then cite 5 opinion pieces that are not data that have nothing to do what you’re trying to show none of which you can have read, as none of them really support the point on pride and determinism in black populations your trying to make, 4 of them offer absolutely brutal take downs on the impact on daily white racism on the overall psychii of black people and how they view their own blackness, and trace they’re issues they’re talking about to perception of blackness by others.
1 of which even calling out people enthusiastically citing Charles Barkley to support racial points they want to make - I can’t even make this up.
This sourcing, and these links are so objectively terrible in supporting your point and argument, that I call absolute bullshit on you being a trained anything, there is absolutely no way, that any professional with experience in dealing with citations and information sourcing to support an argument would or could ever do such comprehensively bad job in citing data.
The idea that you know your stuff, a point you feel compelled to point out comically often - in lieu of actually showing the data you claim and continually tell me that you won’t provide all your source because reasons? - is laughable.
No professional would claim they have data to support their position, then cite a single study from 88, that kinda half has one data point, then four opinion pieces that completely obliterate their own position; and then quote one source that explicitly calls our people quoting that one source.
This is objectively hilarious.
So let’s be clear - you said in the civil rights era, blacks people had determination and pride. Inferring that they did not now. So let’s review your links that you claim show your position. Do they show the values of pride in 1960, and compare them to now, or at compare times?
Self-Perceptions of Black Americans: Self-Esteem and Personal Efficacy on JSTOR
Self esteem high, and self efficacy lower - one data point in 1988 - does not support your argument. Contradicts pride (self Esteem), and doesn’t provide a comparator for determination. You probably didn’t read this one.
The Legacy of Self-hatred in the Black Community - The Black Detour
Blog post opinion piece that you didn’t read - no mention of pride or determination; not about “self hate” as in hating ones self - but “hating one’s own kind”. Doesn’t support your point; the opinion traces causes of black hatred of other blacks to white racism.
Restoring self esteem and black pride - Consciousness.co.za Magazine
Another magazine opinion piece - not data. Traces cause of lack of self esteem to generational racism. You clearly didn’t even read this:
“I recently asked myself what steps we were taking as Africans to restore the self esteem of our people. These are people who’ve dealt with racism, western imperialism and marginalization; being told that they are less off and undeserving of proper human status.”
Why I hate being a black man | Orville Lloyd Douglas | The Guardian
Another opinion piece. Not data. Not about pride in the sense of pride in one self, but not liking how he is perceived. Traces hate about how they are viewed being black to perception of blackness of other people and continuing racism.
You clearly didn’t read this either:
“Who would want to have this dark skin, broad nose, large thick lips, and wake up in the morning being despised by the rest of the world?”
Charles Barkley and the Plague of 'Unintelligent' Blacks - The Atlantic
Opinion piece. Not data. Not about pride. Not really about pride. I don’t think you read it.
It also includes this hugely ironic gem:
“This version of history is a mistake. It allows the Charles Barkleys of the world and the racists who undoubtedly will approvingly quote him to pretend that they are exposing some heretofore arcane bit of knowledge”
Black men, we need to acknowledge that we are the problem. Let's talk toxic masculinity. - The Black Youth Project
This is not about pride or determinism but toxic masculinity. It’s an opinion piece - not data. And you again, clearly did not read it:
“I understand what we are taught at such a young age because I was taught it as well. Black men are told that we are meant to be intelligent. We are told to defend ourselves at all costs. We are told to be strong in our rationale, that compromise is synonymous to surrendering, and empathy equates to being weak. This kind of toxic thinking has limited Black men to a level of closed-mindedness and insecurity”
These links were shared by you - to support your position on a claim you made about blacks in the 1960s.
You cite one actual study, which shows high self esteem (disproving your claim about pride), and giving no comparison to anything in the 60s.
You then cite 5 opinion pieces that are not data that have nothing to do what you’re trying to show none of which you can have read, as none of them really support the point on pride and determinism in black populations your trying to make, 4 of them offer absolutely brutal take downs on the impact on daily white racism on the overall psychii of black people and how they view their own blackness, and trace they’re issues they’re talking about to perception of blackness by others.
1 of which even calling out people enthusiastically citing Charles Barkley to support racial points they want to make - I can’t even make this up.
This sourcing, and these links are so objectively terrible in supporting your point and argument, that I call absolute bullshit on you being a trained anything, there is absolutely no way, that any professional with experience in dealing with citations and information sourcing to support an argument would or could ever do such comprehensively bad job in citing data.
The idea that you know your stuff, a point you feel compelled to point out comically often - in lieu of actually showing the data you claim and continually tell me that you won’t provide all your source because reasons? - is laughable.
No professional would claim they have data to support their position, then cite a single study from 88, that kinda half has one data point, then four opinion pieces that completely obliterate their own position; and then quote one source that explicitly calls our people quoting that one source.
This is objectively hilarious.
“I could go on and on, in addition to numerous books to suggest as well. Many of which I have in my personal library.”
You sound like Captain Raymond Holt talking about his wife. No one who has numerous books in their library and argues online talks about the books in their library, they cite them.
These claims of having data and sources, and being trained is clearly made up nonsense.
These claims of having data and sources, and being trained is clearly made up nonsense.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
There’s two elements to my argument that the data doesn’t support your conclusions.
The first is that you’re drawing causal conclusions, and making a number of value statements that aren’t supported by the data you’re holding up; and your making broad value judgements that clearly aren’t part of the data sets you use. This is 95% of my argument above, and is pointing errors in your logical errors on your argument and reasoning. As such, for these, data citations aren’t relevant.
I do cite specific statistics (but don’t link a source) that whites also have access to the same welfare, that mass incarceration began in the mid 1970s, crime rates have massive dropped since the 90s, that black out of wedlock births are at a peak of 72% today but wasn’t in 1975, and that white out of wedlock births are at about the same level today as blacks in the late 1960s. These should be relatively uncontroversial pieces of data, no?
I figured that since you didn’t cite any specific data links yourself, that we would rely on self googling to confirm or reject any specific data we weren’t sure about.
By all means let me know which piece of data I mentioned which you believe is not true, or not accurate. I’m assuming that you must have specific concerns about a piece data I mentioned- because given the title of this thread it would be ironic if you were found to rejecting valid, factual data.
The first is that you’re drawing causal conclusions, and making a number of value statements that aren’t supported by the data you’re holding up; and your making broad value judgements that clearly aren’t part of the data sets you use. This is 95% of my argument above, and is pointing errors in your logical errors on your argument and reasoning. As such, for these, data citations aren’t relevant.
I do cite specific statistics (but don’t link a source) that whites also have access to the same welfare, that mass incarceration began in the mid 1970s, crime rates have massive dropped since the 90s, that black out of wedlock births are at a peak of 72% today but wasn’t in 1975, and that white out of wedlock births are at about the same level today as blacks in the late 1960s. These should be relatively uncontroversial pieces of data, no?
I figured that since you didn’t cite any specific data links yourself, that we would rely on self googling to confirm or reject any specific data we weren’t sure about.
By all means let me know which piece of data I mentioned which you believe is not true, or not accurate. I’m assuming that you must have specific concerns about a piece data I mentioned- because given the title of this thread it would be ironic if you were found to rejecting valid, factual data.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The gist of your post to summarize, and I’ll use an analogy here, is that Trump carried the Republican Party about 70% of the way before being stifled by his own incompetence, so now a capable fascistic leader just needs to carry the party the other 30%, give or take. The problem I see is that much of that 70% collapses without Trump.
I disagree.
Trumps achievement was the extreme radicalization of the Republican base. To such an extreme that they will support almost anything.
They are not going to magically become reasonable if trump disappears; and given that they are large enough that to become elected, not being an extreme radical is often detrimental to the election prospects of politicians on the right wing.
Without Trump - what is required is simply someone to opportunistically exploit and extend that extremism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Perhaps the US boned. It’s not guaranteed; but to debone itself politics, and peoples approach to politics must stop being about winning at all costs, that beating the other guys to achieve power is the ultimate purpose of all elections, and remove the opportunistic populism in politician discourse and replace it with a focus not on who is out to hurt or destroy you, but how to best use (or not use) government to make peoples lives better.
The problem is with the outrageous populism on the right - is that it poisons the discussion on both sides, and shifts the left to needing to beat republicans at all costs too; which has its own problems.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Black culture is the problem
Given that you’ve blamed the problem on “lbj”, black mothers wedding the government the collapse of the black nuclear family - despite no causal correlation - you’re now going for black culture. This doesn’t seem to be a coherent position, more than you’re flitting around a bunch of things that you haven’t really thought through.
Which black culture exactly - can you define and measure it? starting when and where? Can you correlate crime trends with the rise and prevalence of black culture - what statistics support this claim? Given that you’re claiming all this started happening before mass incarceration - before any of what is often pointed to as “black culture” was around, and that violent crime rates have halved despite there being some growth (especially in media and social media), of various black cultures that are widely criticized. This doesn’t really correlate, and is not something fact based.
Also, there is no racial skew in crime statistics.
This is factually untrue - ironic given that this post is about rejection of facts.
Of the top of my head, wrongful conviction rates, and police misconduct rates are disproportionally higher for minorities than whites; and blacks are stopped for suspicion of drugs more than whites despite having a lower chance of being discovered with drugs. This is data, that demonstrates there is assuredly a skew in many crime statistics. Saying this, this is more of a side bar for a throwaway caveat, rather than a key point I’m making.
The second is pure BS. You do not know what I "already have" or don't have where analysis of the data is concerned. And I do not cherry pick data; and I have not given a full description of any argument as well. You're making a lot of [ass]umptions with no facts, rather all subjective conjecture.
Not really - let’s ignore the entirety of your posts on this forum, which I took a look at when framing my response.
In my reply here, I point out all the omissions and cherry picking in correlation. There is an absolute buttload more; but the above is enough to show that you’re not looking at all the data.
Central to my point, based on the examples in this thread and your original point, was what you said and your framing of it - clarified above - this is enough for me to form conclusions about exactly what it is your saying
You claim that my interpretation is ”BS” - but the more and more you actually explain, the more and more it’s specifically clear that I was absolutely spot on with my assessment.
As shown, you’ve used sloppy logic, poor correlations, and partial cherry picked data sets to draw conclusion that you then used to make a huge number of broad value statements about a given race that is not - at any point - clearly supported by any data you presented.
In retrospect, I probably warranted going much further than I did in my OP, which mostly gave you the benefit of the doubt - given that your argument and position is even worse, and even more based on bias once you started opening your mouth above.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
The issue I brought up has nothing to do with anyone "materially object(ing) to murder and violent crime rate”…
Well, you yourself just began your premise here on a false assumption of what I proffered as my initial position.
So I’m not going to quote ladder here - there’s too much; but I am going to deal with all of the general points your making.
My post is based on your words: “white guilt liberals and democrats deny these [crime stat] truths”. That’s the premise of the post title, and the central theme of the op. Almost straight after you say your point has nothing to do with people rejecting the data, you explain that your point is, in no small part, that everyone is rejecting the data. You go on in your reply to profoundly assert the data doesn’t lie, and talk about the data and statistics - seemingly with the implication that I’m rejecting the data.
That is indeed your premise - both explicit and implicit, your reply here is underpinned by it, your original post stated it. And it’s inherently untrue as I outlined.
There is nothing subtle about it. I call it like I see it and the criminological data doesn't lie.
Data doesn’t generally lie. Data is just data. Interpretation of the data, the choice of datasets you include, the conclusions and causal links inferred from them, and the value judgements you make, and the tone you use when conveying them - those lie. Those can lie an awful lot.
And this is the issue, you seem to be unable to draw a distinction between the data you are using, and all the things you’re piling onto it. Your argument here appears to treat those both as the same thing - that if the data is accurate, then your speculative assertions about cause, the implicit value judgements you appear to be baking in with all the negative tone and language - are also accurate and valid. They are not.
Sure, the data is largely - but not entirely accurate - no one contests that a great deal. But what you’re concluding from it, the subtle negative blame laden language, and other subtleties - that’s all from you, not from the data.
My post is based on your words: “white guilt liberals and democrats deny these [crime stat] truths”. That’s the premise of the post title, and the central theme of the op. Almost straight after you say your point has nothing to do with people rejecting the data, you explain that your point is, in no small part, that everyone is rejecting the data. You go on in your reply to profoundly assert the data doesn’t lie, and talk about the data and statistics - seemingly with the implication that I’m rejecting the data.
That is indeed your premise - both explicit and implicit, your reply here is underpinned by it, your original post stated it. And it’s inherently untrue as I outlined.
There is nothing subtle about it. I call it like I see it and the criminological data doesn't lie.
Data doesn’t generally lie. Data is just data. Interpretation of the data, the choice of datasets you include, the conclusions and causal links inferred from them, and the value judgements you make, and the tone you use when conveying them - those lie. Those can lie an awful lot.
And this is the issue, you seem to be unable to draw a distinction between the data you are using, and all the things you’re piling onto it. Your argument here appears to treat those both as the same thing - that if the data is accurate, then your speculative assertions about cause, the implicit value judgements you appear to be baking in with all the negative tone and language - are also accurate and valid. They are not.
Sure, the data is largely - but not entirely accurate - no one contests that a great deal. But what you’re concluding from it, the subtle negative blame laden language, and other subtleties - that’s all from you, not from the data.
There is no white supremacy or racism in presenting fact based objective truth.
Racism, broadly speaking, is the belief or opinion that one race is inferior to another in some respect. White supremacy, broadly speaking, is where racism is used in some fashion to justify specific racist policy and dominance of white people. That’s my own words, it doesn’t catch everything - but it’s what I mean when I am talking about racism and white supremacy in this context.
Now, your issue is the same as before - you keep conflating the validity of data with the validity of the opinions you inelegantly draw from it.
In this respect, you can indeed show the “truth” of some statistic or data point - and draw racist or white supremacist conclusions from it by injecting a bunch of value inferences that don’t appear in that data point.
For example, when you suggest black people “don’t have pride any more”, that blacks no longer want to succeed; or implying that the current plight is down to their own choice - that’s not supported at all by the data. Again, that’s all you. That sort of negative tone, and language is drawing subtle broad inferences, and implying broad value or moral judgements
Those last bits, are what can make opinions based on accurate data racist; if that is then used to justify policy that, say, maintains the race gap, and is used to justify the idea that it’s okay that whites are at the top and blacks are not because of something inherent to them - that then migrates into white supremacy.
Now, your issue is the same as before - you keep conflating the validity of data with the validity of the opinions you inelegantly draw from it.
In this respect, you can indeed show the “truth” of some statistic or data point - and draw racist or white supremacist conclusions from it by injecting a bunch of value inferences that don’t appear in that data point.
For example, when you suggest black people “don’t have pride any more”, that blacks no longer want to succeed; or implying that the current plight is down to their own choice - that’s not supported at all by the data. Again, that’s all you. That sort of negative tone, and language is drawing subtle broad inferences, and implying broad value or moral judgements
Those last bits, are what can make opinions based on accurate data racist; if that is then used to justify policy that, say, maintains the race gap, and is used to justify the idea that it’s okay that whites are at the top and blacks are not because of something inherent to them - that then migrates into white supremacy.
And nowhere in any proposition or follow-up comment have I asserted there is some genetic factor involved making blacks lesser than whites, or any other race.
If you pay attention. I am laying out options; not specifically accusing you of holding one position or other. The choices really are an issue of believing that there is an innate cause or an external cause: and with the former, genetics is typically all there is, whether you like it or not.
For example, given what we know of human genetics, there is every reason to expect that white people were in the exact reversed positions; with whites having been enslaved, a black racist government that enacted racist laws, lynching of whites, segregation etc, all in identical conditions - we’d be talking about white violent crime in this thread.
That’s kind of the point I’m making; we all have to take individual responsibility for our actions, we all have to be held properly accountable for our misdeeds; but it is an absolute and undeniable fact that our thinking, behaviour and our decision making are hugely influenced and shaped by external factors outside our control. When there are trends in external factors - there are associated trends in the population.
My framing of the potential causes is to highlight hie various positions end up falling down into types particular claims, that end up falling down onto personal prejudice. Many individuals attempt to hide this inherent prejudice through making higher level or indirect claims that obfuscate the inherent basis for the position: when politicians do it, for example, it’s called a dog whistle.
For example, given what we know of human genetics, there is every reason to expect that white people were in the exact reversed positions; with whites having been enslaved, a black racist government that enacted racist laws, lynching of whites, segregation etc, all in identical conditions - we’d be talking about white violent crime in this thread.
That’s kind of the point I’m making; we all have to take individual responsibility for our actions, we all have to be held properly accountable for our misdeeds; but it is an absolute and undeniable fact that our thinking, behaviour and our decision making are hugely influenced and shaped by external factors outside our control. When there are trends in external factors - there are associated trends in the population.
My framing of the potential causes is to highlight hie various positions end up falling down into types particular claims, that end up falling down onto personal prejudice. Many individuals attempt to hide this inherent prejudice through making higher level or indirect claims that obfuscate the inherent basis for the position: when politicians do it, for example, it’s called a dog whistle.
“Before civil rights black Americans had pride, self-respect, and determination to succeed in America…. <snip> …. Blacks wanted to succeed then, but after civil rights, everything changed”
I try and be charitable in text, not always successfully - as it’s often easy to misread context and tone. But this is fairly cut and dry.
Pride, self respect, determination; are personal attributes associated with positive value. Self-respect, determination, pride - that doesn’t come from data - its not practically possible to measure the subjective nature of things like self-respect in broad population statistics.
No, this is you looking at the data and inferring - due to your own biases and prejudice - a negative value trait in a group of people. It involves asserting broad stereotypes about parents, and individuals, their motivations (or lack thereof) that are broadly negative and again, not supported by the data.
If people are painting you as racist for statements like this, that’s why - it’s not rejecting the data, it’s rejecting your implicit broad value statements.
Pride, self respect, determination; are personal attributes associated with positive value. Self-respect, determination, pride - that doesn’t come from data - its not practically possible to measure the subjective nature of things like self-respect in broad population statistics.
No, this is you looking at the data and inferring - due to your own biases and prejudice - a negative value trait in a group of people. It involves asserting broad stereotypes about parents, and individuals, their motivations (or lack thereof) that are broadly negative and again, not supported by the data.
If people are painting you as racist for statements like this, that’s why - it’s not rejecting the data, it’s rejecting your implicit broad value statements.
“[LBJ welfare programs] forcing unwed black girls and women to marry the government if they wanted money to raise their children. This forced the fatherlessness upon a segment of the black community”
There are broad correlations in unemployment, poverty, welfare, incarceration rates, and a few others, with rise of single family homes. That’s the data. Your reply is inferring causation from that correlation, and then completely speculating an underlying cause; it’s not even a particularly good inference; given man in the house rules (which forced unwed women to not have a man in the house) were state level, and ended in 68; and that the welfare rules otherwise didn’t promote fatherlessness as much as promoting not getting married (rules for married couples, and rules for unmarried or unrelated individuals were different), and would not necessarily have had little impact on people already unwed. So this assessment seems largely speculative, driven by correlation = causation.
Ignoring all the huge variety of specific economic factors here; it doesn’t even make sense with respect to what you said mere sentences before:
You stated, that black people in the 1960s had strong families, had pride, wanted to be successful, and had determination - despite being victims of racism; but this assessment is very much at odds with the suggestion that these exact same people would happily give up, break up their families, and live on handouts when offered.
So it seems your argument doesn’t fully believe in the positive attributes you assigned to blacks in the 1960s; given that your follow up implies they leapt at the opportunity for handouts, and instead serve only to imply negative attributes in blacks today.
I can follow up, the same welfare was also available to whites up for arguably longer; who also had stable families structure - one set of stable families with pride and determination deteriorate into mass incarceration because of welfare but the others didn’t?
These sort of statistical comparison shows that the data you’re using is incomplete given the conclusion - or your conclusion is inherently based on an inherent bias that somehow one is better at dealing with things than others.
Ignoring all the huge variety of specific economic factors here; it doesn’t even make sense with respect to what you said mere sentences before:
You stated, that black people in the 1960s had strong families, had pride, wanted to be successful, and had determination - despite being victims of racism; but this assessment is very much at odds with the suggestion that these exact same people would happily give up, break up their families, and live on handouts when offered.
So it seems your argument doesn’t fully believe in the positive attributes you assigned to blacks in the 1960s; given that your follow up implies they leapt at the opportunity for handouts, and instead serve only to imply negative attributes in blacks today.
I can follow up, the same welfare was also available to whites up for arguably longer; who also had stable families structure - one set of stable families with pride and determination deteriorate into mass incarceration because of welfare but the others didn’t?
These sort of statistical comparison shows that the data you’re using is incomplete given the conclusion - or your conclusion is inherently based on an inherent bias that somehow one is better at dealing with things than others.
“I am so tired of hearing about the crack epidemic as an excuse for the failures of a segment of the black community. People CHOOSE…”
Let’s ignore that I mentioned a dozen or so things; and you simply picked one; and let’s ignore that you just blamed the underlying cause on LBJ - let’s say it slowly and clearly - attributing the underlying cause of social trends, is not excusing individual behaviour.
You’re right - crack is a drug, using drugs is a choice. However - social trends are clear, poverty and economic factors are indeed associated with high level of drug use, and substance abuse - so redlining, and racial inequality raised unemployment and increases poverty disproportionately in black communities; that alone puts those communities at higher risk for substance abuse.
When a new, super cheap drug, comes out on the market, and is sold to them; it’s reasonable to expect areas with higher unemployment and economic hardship to be worst affected.
So you have a drug problem, how does society deal with it. Take opioids as an example, you recognize the issue with substance abuse is a health issue, you see the deaths, homelessness and harm done to individuals having issues with opioid addiction, and you focus health resources - addiction treatment - government policy is compassionate, and drug abuse is recognized: as a socioeconomic issue due to long standing economic and social problems in various communities.
Imagine, if instead of that; opioid abuse is viewed as a crime problem, painted as criminals that were damaging the country - laws were changed to make inordinately steep penalties for possession or supply of opioids were meted out, and three strikes policy means that you could go to prison for decades for it. In locales with high poverty and high drug use - this would destroy families, increase poverty more, increase police involvement, increase arrests, and lead to overwhelming mass incarceration - for a health problem.
That was all external, and racially disproportionate reactions to poor and economically insecure people choosing drug, and that racist reaction significantly harmed the environment as compared to if it had been treated like opioids are now.
You’re right - crack is a drug, using drugs is a choice. However - social trends are clear, poverty and economic factors are indeed associated with high level of drug use, and substance abuse - so redlining, and racial inequality raised unemployment and increases poverty disproportionately in black communities; that alone puts those communities at higher risk for substance abuse.
When a new, super cheap drug, comes out on the market, and is sold to them; it’s reasonable to expect areas with higher unemployment and economic hardship to be worst affected.
So you have a drug problem, how does society deal with it. Take opioids as an example, you recognize the issue with substance abuse is a health issue, you see the deaths, homelessness and harm done to individuals having issues with opioid addiction, and you focus health resources - addiction treatment - government policy is compassionate, and drug abuse is recognized: as a socioeconomic issue due to long standing economic and social problems in various communities.
Imagine, if instead of that; opioid abuse is viewed as a crime problem, painted as criminals that were damaging the country - laws were changed to make inordinately steep penalties for possession or supply of opioids were meted out, and three strikes policy means that you could go to prison for decades for it. In locales with high poverty and high drug use - this would destroy families, increase poverty more, increase police involvement, increase arrests, and lead to overwhelming mass incarceration - for a health problem.
That was all external, and racially disproportionate reactions to poor and economically insecure people choosing drug, and that racist reaction significantly harmed the environment as compared to if it had been treated like opioids are now.
“Mass incarceration was a direct result of the 72% out of wedlock birth rates leading to the home to prison pipeline. The family structure was already collapsed prior to incarceration due to the lack of a nuclear family.
Mass incarceration began in the mid 1970s, this is when incarceration went from stable, and began increasing. The 72% out of wedlock number has only been hit in the last decade. Kids born out of wedlock did get a bit worse, but actually collapsed in the mid 1970s, coinciding with mass incarceration and obviously. You also don’t see equivalent mass incarceration levels snowballing with whites despite equivalent levels of single parent homes today vs blacks in the late 1960. The wedlock birthrates for all races today are at all time lows - despite violent crime halving in the last few decades and incarceration rates largely levelling. If this was the actual issue and actual cause - there would be a correlation here too.
This is what I mean by cherry picking - you’re only using the data that confirms the prejudicial conclusion you wish to make; when you look more broadly at wider data to support the correlation - the correlation falls apart.
This is what I mean by cherry picking - you’re only using the data that confirms the prejudicial conclusion you wish to make; when you look more broadly at wider data to support the correlation - the correlation falls apart.
Created:
-->
@thett3
But the OP didn’t say that—you just assumed that he thinks that. He’s actually said the opposite in this thread, that he thinks it’s a cultural problem. Immediately assuming that someone else thinks racial differences in crime rates are due to genetic reasons the moment they point them out reveals the biases in YOUR thinking not the OP
Actually - if you re-read my post; broadly speaking - I cover that no one materially objects to the specific crime rates, but object to presentation of the whys.
I give two options that cover the broad explanations - innate factors, and external factors; and explained that attempts to tie murder rates to innate factors is thinly veiled white supremacy - which I stand by. If you look at my post I explain exactly why that is.
Now, I don’t actually state or make accusations that he believes one or the other: I am merely justifying and advocating for the intellectual position he’s complaining about the OP.
However, when presented with what is largely a binary options - when someone professes that one option is totally false, then it’s implicit that they support the other.
I typically try not to put words in peoples mouth, and caveated the options in my original post. Perhaps given that you’ve spent the past 3 posts accusing me of holding a position that I said I don’t - this is just projection.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Of course it doesn’t read as sympathetic - how could it, you’re poisoning the well by stating it’s the opinion of a white southerner responding to criticism about segregation and lynching. Knowing that necessarily injects a bunch of assumptions about the motivation and beliefs of the person writing it.
The sympathy isn’t from my post: it’s from the stuff you’re adding.
Your interpretation would completely change if you modified the wording to reflect the views of, say, a historian in the 1990s commenting on a particular comment about the causes of post reconstructional racism in the south. You can use my post in that context too - and it sounds completely reasonable when you do.
I’ve already explained this - and you just appear to be obtusely regurgitating the same nonsense as if saying it enough times makes my rebuttal go away.
In addition to the person you state writing completely poisoning the well, the inherent nature of the comparison isn’t directly equivalent either; you are more directly tying causal factors to why the specific social policy happened; rather than talking at the level of why broad support was entrenched in the population.
If you actually draw an accurate comparison to what I said, at the same level as I was talking about - the argument is completely reasonable - and becomes completely unsympathetic.
This was, again, in my previous post: but for some odd reason, you completely ignored it.
I could throw in the main difference that I have unequivocally stated that I am not in anyway morally condoning murders or violence; and nothing I said was intended to or written to morally absolve any individuals of crime - I went into great detail to explain that understanding root causes is critical to understanding why things happen - not to excuse what happened.
If white southerner in the 1950s added that clarification to the letter - that his intent was to attribute cause of why segregation and lynching happen, not to justify it, that those engaging in it are morally for the horrors - then you would absolutely not believe that letter was sympathetic.
Of course, I posted this exact thing earlier, but given that it fully explains why your interpretation is wrong, and fully clarify that I absolutely did not mean and don’t not mean and never meant what you claim I do - you apparently chose to ignore it too.
I could also add the places where the nuance of what I talked about was specific to racism, and what you filled the blanks with implicitly changes the tone: like talking about North/south bigotry; I was talking specifically about racism - the absence of any historical race based undertones of the relationship between white North and south - just talking about it in that context changes the tone of the post and sounds like a canard - which it is, because this aspect isn’t exactly comparable; likewise when seeking to explain why people supported these policies - instead of talking generically about social trends, and the implicit social underpinnings of racism - you decided to throw in a bunch of confederate talking points - of course if you do that you’re going to make it sound pro-confederate.
I am not, nor ever will condone or excuse murder and I will never morally absolve people from the choices they make. The people who commit violent crime absolutely must be pushed - but we need to understand the causes of general crime trends, and understand the key socioeconomic driving factors of them; rather than stop when we can attribute fault at the racial group level because it satisfies whatever prejudice the OP holds.
This position is absolutely and completely reasonable, and completely logical - which is likely why you’ve decided to ignore three times now, and persist instead with this ridiculous straw man where you seem to be bent on screaming that my intent is to excuse murders - despite me repeatedly telling you that my argument in no way should be used to imply that I excuse murders.
This is not an issue with me or my argument - this is purely and simply an issue with you: for some reason you have decided that’s intent is to excuse or justify violent crime - and are just reading that bias into what I’m writing.
That all comes from you. Nothing about it bears any relation to anything I said, anything I clarified or anything I believe.
Created:
-->
@thett3
If you’re just going to simply repeat the completely and utter systematic misrepresentation of my original post, after I have explicitly corrected you on what my post actually meant, there’s not much more I’m able to say.
If you actually read my post, or my follow up; there is no point, at all, in any way shape or form where I justified, excused or suggested criminals aren’t at fault.
Such an absurd misrepresentation is simply something you invented, and as you’re attacking the misrepresentation renders it a straw-man.
This interpretation isn’t based on anything I said; but your own interpretation based upon some unwillingness to be able to tell the difference between “group behaviours generally have socioeconomic causes” with “people who engage in those behaviours are not morally culpable”
This is of course nonsense. They are two completely different and largely unrelated concepts.
If you happened to chose to actually read my post, or it’s follow up; instead of leaping to wild conclusions and assuming I’m saying something completely different to what I actually said; you should recognize that the main theme of my posts can be summarized as followed:
When analyzing behaviours of groups, with a view to understanding trends - it’s not valid to leap to the assumption those groups trends are caused exclusively or primarily by innate properties of the group themselves - as opposed to wider socio-economic conditions they are exposed to.
When the innate proprieties of racial groups are asserted as causal factors for group trends, this is often not something based in fact or data - but cherry picked narrow interpretation used to justify one’s own biases - and if used to make value judgements on the basis of race, that whites are better than blacks because blacks have innate criminality, and should be treated accordingly - it is thinly veiled white supremacy.
If we want to try to correct or limit those behaviours; we have to understand the underlying socioeconomic causes of them - otherwise we’re dealing only with symptoms.
Nothing about any of that makes any moral justification or excuses any behaviour of any individual engaging in this behaviour at all.
This is simply, again, your own grotesque misrepresentation of literally everything I’ve said.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Change a few words and it sounds like an article posted in a southern newspaper in the 1950s responding to criticism of segregation and lynchings.
Actually not really; for it to be the type of thing you would expect from a southern newspaper writing about segregation and lynching, one must read it as making excuses for or trying to justify individual actions and behaviour. IE: these things are okay, because they were caused by x. Given that I am clearly and unambiguously not making any excuses or laying justification for anything, nor can anything I said be interpreted as condoning or justifying any individual actions - reading it that way, or attempting to read it that way is not an honest interpretation of my post.
Perhaps, like many others on the right - you are implicitly conflating attempts to understand underlying factors that drive human behaviour, with some demand that individuals engage in particular behaviour not be accountable for it, or that suggesting that external factors play a part in the trends of choices people make mean that when someone makes a choice, that choice is somehow okay, or justified, I’ve seen this constantly for the last 25 years - and it still gets me how silly this line of thought is.
We can indeed paraphrase my post talking about the southern white racists of the 1950s:
What caused tolerance for segregation and lynchings - racism; should we dismiss all southern whites and say OmG SoUtHeRn WhItEs ArE jUsT RaCiSt; should we start threads that blame southern whites as just being bad people - that southern conservatives won’t acknowledge their racism, that they. don’t teach their kids right, and are racist because they’re inferior to northern white and their racism cannot be changed or helped? Of course not. Various socio-economic, and socio-political factors led to southern whites oppressing others, and generally holding those views it’s not an inherent trait of southern whites, but a product many factors that drove white behaviour.
It’s best to understand the root causes of social issues, because otherwise any suggested policy necessarily treats symptoms and not causes.
Does identifying the underlying cause of southern white behaviour in the 50s excuse or justify their actions? Does it absolve white murders and lynchings? Does it mean segregation was not something that was bad, or was justifiable? No; of course not - and you would have to dishonestly read into the post to take that from it.
Likewise - does understanding the cause of racial disparities in violent crime justify violent criminals, excuse their actions or otherwise require criminals and murders to be viewed sympathetically in some way - no. Of course not.
The reality - yeah; you can absolutely use this exact same post to explain that the existence of extreme white racism in the south was not because southern whites were at the genetic or biological level inherently racist compared to some other group; and that those underlying issues and factors must be corrected in order to correct the ultimate group behaviour that results.
That’s not really an unreasonable statement; and it’s absolutely not a statement that excuses the individuals that were racist, nor the actions they committed. In the same way that nothing about being honest about root causes (rather than fixating only on one level to satisfy one’s own biases or preferred prejudice) requires you to be okay with violence, or murder, or to excuse individual actions that those root causes lead to.
So in actuality when you apply my post and logic to southern racism, segregation and lynching - it’s actually rather a reasonable interpretation - provided you don’t decide to pretend or act as if I am attempting to justify or excuse the group behaviours that can be explained through external factors when I am clearly not.
Perhaps, like many others on the right - you are implicitly conflating attempts to understand underlying factors that drive human behaviour, with some demand that individuals engage in particular behaviour not be accountable for it, or that suggesting that external factors play a part in the trends of choices people make mean that when someone makes a choice, that choice is somehow okay, or justified, I’ve seen this constantly for the last 25 years - and it still gets me how silly this line of thought is.
We can indeed paraphrase my post talking about the southern white racists of the 1950s:
What caused tolerance for segregation and lynchings - racism; should we dismiss all southern whites and say OmG SoUtHeRn WhItEs ArE jUsT RaCiSt; should we start threads that blame southern whites as just being bad people - that southern conservatives won’t acknowledge their racism, that they. don’t teach their kids right, and are racist because they’re inferior to northern white and their racism cannot be changed or helped? Of course not. Various socio-economic, and socio-political factors led to southern whites oppressing others, and generally holding those views it’s not an inherent trait of southern whites, but a product many factors that drove white behaviour.
It’s best to understand the root causes of social issues, because otherwise any suggested policy necessarily treats symptoms and not causes.
Does identifying the underlying cause of southern white behaviour in the 50s excuse or justify their actions? Does it absolve white murders and lynchings? Does it mean segregation was not something that was bad, or was justifiable? No; of course not - and you would have to dishonestly read into the post to take that from it.
Likewise - does understanding the cause of racial disparities in violent crime justify violent criminals, excuse their actions or otherwise require criminals and murders to be viewed sympathetically in some way - no. Of course not.
The reality - yeah; you can absolutely use this exact same post to explain that the existence of extreme white racism in the south was not because southern whites were at the genetic or biological level inherently racist compared to some other group; and that those underlying issues and factors must be corrected in order to correct the ultimate group behaviour that results.
That’s not really an unreasonable statement; and it’s absolutely not a statement that excuses the individuals that were racist, nor the actions they committed. In the same way that nothing about being honest about root causes (rather than fixating only on one level to satisfy one’s own biases or preferred prejudice) requires you to be okay with violence, or murder, or to excuse individual actions that those root causes lead to.
So in actuality when you apply my post and logic to southern racism, segregation and lynching - it’s actually rather a reasonable interpretation - provided you don’t decide to pretend or act as if I am attempting to justify or excuse the group behaviours that can be explained through external factors when I am clearly not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Desantis.
The Republican Party has cultivated a political class and base in which total victory of the republicans and acquisition of total power is the only acceptable and only valid outcome of any election; and for which there is near total acceptance of any possible action that maintains, cements or empowers that result.
They have cultivated a self contained bubble where everyone outside is trying to destroy them, and so the nature of political discourse is about destroying the opposition - not about the actioning or discussion of policy that will make anyones lives actually better; and is currently going through a period where absolute loyalty to a figurehead is the primary measure of political suitability.
The issue with Trump, is that his level of narcissism, and qualities that resonate in this crowd vastly exceeds his intelligence, and the intelligence of those around.
I was never that worried about Trump, as much as I have been as to whether an intelligent, Trump like figurehead would come next, and utilize these cultivated aspects of the party into means to really cease power.
The issue is that the Republican Party is now functionally fascist. The cultivation and loyalty of Trumps base, and the sheer unhinged nastiness is identical to the late 1920s Germany, there are some subtle differences; the open hostility to democracy is implicit in action - not explicit; and the populist target of ire and rage that is exploited for power is not the Jews; but spread over a number of groups.
They want to gain and maintain power; and to do that they will need the military and police, and potentially armed outside groups to be loyal to the leader. They need to have wide support for violent suppression of unrest, support for democratic restrictions that will ensure their victory, and enough tools of the state, judges, etc to exercise and maintain that control.
They’re not that far off actually; but If Desantis is able to rally Trumps base - he has the intelligence and knowledge to cross the hurdle. But saying that, Trump is not far off.
I can very much imagine a theoretical 2028. 4 years of desantis unpopular Republican policies; replacing the deep state and military with loyal republicans. Replacing the judiciary with ultra loyal republicans. Suppressing votes, supporting citizen militia intimidating the vote, machinery of various states still Republican. Loses the election - declares victory, states won’t certify democrat wins, mass unrest put down by loyal police and loyal military, martial law, political opponents harried - and eventually openly suppressed, non sympathetic media shut down - and is able to maintain grip on power, suppression and law changes continue to be harsher, less transparent and better suppress any non-Republican from winning elections, Republican supporters cheering every one of them.
Out of all the barriers that would prevent the above happening, almost of them have been removed over the last 12 years, and accelerated under Trump; with many of others being felt out. If Desantis were to get into power he would be much more effective at removing the remainder than Trump would be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Your argument is silly. The decide between who is willing and indeed able to spend more money than necessary is not a gender line it is a class line. That is why public transportation is better for society than any number of personal electric vehicles.
This goes way beyond public transport - and is actually an issue with how cities themselves are designed. City design over the last 50 years has revolves around cars; suburbs where access to food, shopping, schools, work are difficult to access by foot; lack of dedicating sidewalks and bikes together with large roads outside residential areas making walking and cycling much more dangerous - so people drive. Because people drive, there are fewer people walking - which makes it feel more unsafe, which means fewer people walking; all those people driving are now making it more dangerous for pedestrians and the cycle continues. Add to that low density housing that makes it way harder to justify public transit costs, and leads to the vicious cycle of no one using public transport because there isn’t the service, but there isn’t the service because no one is using it.
I don’t disagree with comprehensive public transport at all - this is just to point out the issue with cars runs way, way deeper than just the nature of alternatives.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Pelosi gets a lot of stick, rightly so; but this is why she’s absolutely great as a tactical politician.
We’re going to see a fair number of pieces of completely logical, legislation - protecting private data - rights to contraception - you can have an abortion if you’re going to die; or if you’re a ten year old rape victim…
Republicans will be forced to vote against all of them; and demonstrate that they’re the party of the extreme whack job crazies, and that it was never really about protecting life.
If it passes the senate - that’s an added bonus.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
I don’t believe I’ve seen anyone prominent - no one outside the odd Twitter crazy - that has materially objected to murder and violent crime rate - other than to point out that there is some level and some forms of racial skew in many types of crime statistics - which there is.
So on that basis - I think it’s rather disingenuous and largely arguing from a false premise to accuse the left of denying something I don’t really see being substantively denied outside the odd Twitter crazy.
What is largely objected to, reasonably, is the inherently subtle, and occasionally not-so subtly implication you’re making - why is the black murder rate higher than the white murder rate.
One can either attribute that to some as yet unknown racial or genetic factors - that whites are somehow “better” than blacks - that they’re just bad parents, don’t discipline their kids, that black people are just bad at stuff, and because they’re black, they’re more likely to murder - etc. This, depending on what action you wish to take on is just thinly veiled white supremacy, and in cases were you just openly denigrate a race for being inherently bad at some current social measure than whites that veil is largely lifted entirely. Indeed, terminating your superficial search for why’s at behaviour you can attribute to the nature of the individuals themselves without looking any deeper is often used as pretence to oppress people and to justify open racism.
Alternatively you can attribute it to complex sociopolitical factors; many of which have historical race components. For example things like, say, the social impact of the crack epidemic - caused in part due to mass poverty and historical redlining, mass incarceration that resulted in the collapse of family structure in many poor black communities; which in turn can fuel crime - as abuse, poor parenting, and broken families are one of the most substantial correlates with crime in the us.
Group behavioural trends are the incredibly complex interaction of innumerable factors, with genetics being a largely minor player in the churning mix. Add into this generational impact of various sociopolitical factors: if parents are exposed to some negative impact, it may impact their children, who can then impact their children - and on and on.
It’s almost impossible to draw causal conclusions from correlating this data - especially given the glut of data from a variety of locales and times that indicate the wild variability of murder and violent crime rates sliced across everything.
Even if such correlates did equate to causation - even if, say, a correlating gene was found that was specifically linked to and a causal factor of violent crime - does this mean that one must treat those with the gene as inferior - and tailor social policy to restrict their rights? Of course not; social policy and support should be promoted to prevent what is a genetic risk factor from being realized - in the same way we do for, say, cancers.
This sort of attempt at argument; is not really logical or honest attempt at assessing the truth. It appears to be just finding a data and argument to try and provide a reasonable sounding justification for the racial views and prejudices you already have by analyzing what is inherently cherry picked data with a very narrow interpretation that doesn’t consider the wider picture.
So on that basis - I think it’s rather disingenuous and largely arguing from a false premise to accuse the left of denying something I don’t really see being substantively denied outside the odd Twitter crazy.
What is largely objected to, reasonably, is the inherently subtle, and occasionally not-so subtly implication you’re making - why is the black murder rate higher than the white murder rate.
One can either attribute that to some as yet unknown racial or genetic factors - that whites are somehow “better” than blacks - that they’re just bad parents, don’t discipline their kids, that black people are just bad at stuff, and because they’re black, they’re more likely to murder - etc. This, depending on what action you wish to take on is just thinly veiled white supremacy, and in cases were you just openly denigrate a race for being inherently bad at some current social measure than whites that veil is largely lifted entirely. Indeed, terminating your superficial search for why’s at behaviour you can attribute to the nature of the individuals themselves without looking any deeper is often used as pretence to oppress people and to justify open racism.
Alternatively you can attribute it to complex sociopolitical factors; many of which have historical race components. For example things like, say, the social impact of the crack epidemic - caused in part due to mass poverty and historical redlining, mass incarceration that resulted in the collapse of family structure in many poor black communities; which in turn can fuel crime - as abuse, poor parenting, and broken families are one of the most substantial correlates with crime in the us.
Group behavioural trends are the incredibly complex interaction of innumerable factors, with genetics being a largely minor player in the churning mix. Add into this generational impact of various sociopolitical factors: if parents are exposed to some negative impact, it may impact their children, who can then impact their children - and on and on.
It’s almost impossible to draw causal conclusions from correlating this data - especially given the glut of data from a variety of locales and times that indicate the wild variability of murder and violent crime rates sliced across everything.
Even if such correlates did equate to causation - even if, say, a correlating gene was found that was specifically linked to and a causal factor of violent crime - does this mean that one must treat those with the gene as inferior - and tailor social policy to restrict their rights? Of course not; social policy and support should be promoted to prevent what is a genetic risk factor from being realized - in the same way we do for, say, cancers.
This sort of attempt at argument; is not really logical or honest attempt at assessing the truth. It appears to be just finding a data and argument to try and provide a reasonable sounding justification for the racial views and prejudices you already have by analyzing what is inherently cherry picked data with a very narrow interpretation that doesn’t consider the wider picture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Sorry I didn’t realize I had included a 1 instead of a 10 when i said multiple both sides by 10.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Still doesn't alter the fact that 0.999r will never achieve a whole.
Theres two things you’re tripping up on here. Firstly is decimal notation (Because 0.999r = 1/3 * 3 = 1) - your seeing the 0.999 but missing the nuance of what recurring means, because decimals cannot properly express what it means, it’s a bit confusing.
The second issue you’re tripping up on, is the nature of the recurring, and infinities.
If you took 0 followed by a billion 9s, it would never reach 1. A trillion - closer, but doesn’t reach 1. A googleplex of 9s - close but still no.
Any finite number of 9s you can have, there is always a number between it and one - as the number has an end you can still add a 9 to.
You can never reach 1 with finite numbers, but 0.99r is not a finite number. It is closer to 1 than any finite number of 9s that you can ever specify because you cannot add anything to it to make it closer to 1 -there is no actual real number between 0.99r and 1.
You’re treating 0.99r like it’s a finite number, but it’s an infinite number, and that infinite nature is what allows it to reach 1:
Infinities cancel nevers.
I will never reach the end of an infinitely long road - unless I walk for an infinite time.
So it’s best to stop thinking of 0.99r in terms of finite numbers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Easily provable that 0.9999r = 1.
X = 0.999r
Multiple both sides by 1
10x = 9.999r
Subtract x from both sides
10x - x= 9.9999r - 0.999999r
9x = 9
Which, after running all the calculations and consulting with mathematicians, yields:
X = 1
Meaning 0.999r = 1
Created:
Due to callout thread rules and PM doxxing rules, I am unsure what to do. That is why I made this thread, PM me to find out who it is and what was said.
Given that you’ve blocked all but one person on this site - saying that you’ve been harassed on PM is basically giving away their identity.
Created:
Posted in:
These 2 things are incompatible. Preferential treatment by the government requires regulation of competitors like they did with Covid mandates on small business.
Ignoring the second part - which is just a dishonest straw man that I know you won’t bother to defend - you’re a little confused I think. If there is no regulation - lobbying for regulation is a practical strategy for large companies.
No monopoly can crush competition without government regulations handed down from the one uncontested monopoly of force of the government.
Of course they can. What are you smoking lol. Any company that can become big enough can buy or leverage power to take out smaller competitors through a million different ways. In the absence of regulation mergers, buyouts and price fixing are super easy.
The idea that regulation is what helps monopolies crush competition is just a lie peddled to gullible republicans so they support removing important regulations that harm the bottom line of Republican donors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
The pixelation is either an artifact of the CCD - for example a dead pixel, movement of the camera during a long exposure, or saturation of a CCD element or, alternatively - and most likely - a signal processing compression artifact. Like when YouTube craps out on a livestream, the image cannot be resolved correctly, leaving collections of large poor Color blocks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
It really doesn't. Back when the country was first formed, everyone was a business owner and it was highly unregulated. You would be a blacksmith or a farmer or vet. Everyone legit owned their own businesses before market interventionist was a thing
So while you said 3 sentence - none was related in any way to the avoidance of monopoly - other than, say, the difficulty in forming large nationwide monopolies when there are not yet trains.
The issue is very simple. If you’re successful, and want to expand. In the absence of regulation, one of the best ways of doing that is to buy out competition; lobby government. with vast sums of money government for beneficial treatment: and levering that power in a way that limits consumer choice.
Monopoly in unregulated capitalism is effectively inevitable as a result. And given that, to make it work you have to have truly altruistic regulation - which also doesn’t work for the same reason communism doesn’t work - as it requires everyone involved to be altruistic - a truly free market that works properly is impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
Deleted post #2 from GP
The general consensus is that this isn’t a protest, but a poorly informed group of individuals, much of the leadership with a different agenda, are making absurdly over dramatic and hyperbolic protests and comparisons and whose long term presence is creating unnecessary Burden on regular people - with a police chief who does not appear to be able or competent enough to correctly police the city.
Created:
Posted in:
Ottawa police chief resigns in protest of the tyranny.It's surprising just how much some Canadians in Ottawa feel the mandates are worth fighting and dying over instead of compromising. Evidently, they choose violence to keep the mandates by supporting martial law. And here I was thinking Canadians were mostly nice people.But I guess American Southerners thought the same thing about themselves while dying to keep their indentured servants. Unfortunately, the Canadian truckers still refuse to serve their masters."We are reinforcing the "institutions" that keep Canadians free." (from other Canadians apparently)-some Tyrant
And he deletes a post again! Deleted post #1
This is just irrational trolling hyperbolae : a deliberate misrepresentation of what’s actually going on, what is being protested about.
While I’m not sure why GP is on a debate platform and goes out of his way to prevent any rational discussion by going to such ridiculous lengths not to justify anything he said - but at this point I’m genuinely interested in how far he’s willing to go to prevent to not defend his position.
This is just irrational trolling hyperbolae : a deliberate misrepresentation of what’s actually going on, what is being protested about.
While I’m not sure why GP is on a debate platform and goes out of his way to prevent any rational discussion by going to such ridiculous lengths not to justify anything he said - but at this point I’m genuinely interested in how far he’s willing to go to prevent to not defend his position.
Please refer to the previous posts?
Created:
Posted in:
This means most conservative voters vote for reasons OTHER than their best interests
A funny story, one of my Trump supporting friends on Facebook continually railed against socialism, and how the democrats were going to destroy the country….
Then constantly opined at the cost of healthcare, outrages at the price of insulin, and that we shouldn’t have to have gofundme when someone gets cancer - and professed outrage at wage and income inequality; and how the super wealthy need to be controlled and regulated.
In fact - take away the red hats - she’d sound like Bernie sanders.
Republicans almost invariably vote against their interests - mainly because their party has spent the last 30 years drilling into their supporters how the democrats are attacking their way of life.
The democrats aren’t really going to “take your guns”, there is no “war on Christmas”, no one is being taught to hate America, but that’s the narrative that keeps peoples focus off all the things republicans actually want.
In the last decade or so - its apparent the swing in how inherently unpopular the republicans real policies are; and how much distraction they need to give their supporters - given that it’s gone from war on Christmas to “zomg they want to destroy the country”.
Created:
Posted in:
Only a very stupid person would believe the urban myth of Diesel being explosive. Stop watching movies and drive a truck for a few weeks.
This is clearly figuratively.
Storing large quantities of flammable liquid in the middle of a protest outside the seat of government is clearly a security risk.
The fascist police have blockaded the bridge so there can be no photo ops of the resistance.
You mean that police have removed protesters that are blockading a bridge on the border?
I think the point was specifically that the truckers are causing harm to the interests of normal Canadians - both small business owners and workers in all the locations the truckers have shut down, and actual normal truckers trying to cross the border as part of their job on the bridges that were blockaded.
Canada will never forget where their freedoms came from.
Not from a group of angry truckers, led by racists, who proclaim normal, justifiable actions are fascism
Trudeau declared martial law and the truckers still have nowhere to go.
No he didn’t. You should probably Google martial law - though I am certain you know what you said was wrong and you said it anyway.
It's surprising just how much some Canadians in Ottawa feel the mandates are worth fighting and dying over instead of compromising.
The general consensus is that this isn’t a protest, but a poorly informed group of individuals, much of the leadership with a different agenda, are making absurdly over dramatic and hyperbolic protests and comparisons and whose long term presence is creating unnecessary Burden on regular people - with a police chief who does not appear to be able or competent enough to correctly police the city.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
also a truly free market would pretty much entirely eliminate poverth
This sounds very similar to “communism works it just hasn’t been properly implemented”
A truly free market and working communism are largely impossible for the same reason. Human nature precludes it. “Truly free” markets rely on altruistic governance of the market, as self interest typically drives markets towards monopoly and inequality that altruistic governance is in achievable, as it is always possible to convert money to power at some level. It just screws the system up from the top down instead of bottom up.
Even were that not true - the claim is also ridiculous. For homeless not to be an issue in some notional free market - it must either be possible for a majority of individuals to be born to restart jobs/economic activity with no capital; or impossible that become lose all your capital. Given that both would be laughably untrue no matter how free market the market was: it would seem that it wouldn’t be any off of panacea.
A truly free market and working communism are largely impossible for the same reason. Human nature precludes it. “Truly free” markets rely on altruistic governance of the market, as self interest typically drives markets towards monopoly and inequality that altruistic governance is in achievable, as it is always possible to convert money to power at some level. It just screws the system up from the top down instead of bottom up.
Even were that not true - the claim is also ridiculous. For homeless not to be an issue in some notional free market - it must either be possible for a majority of individuals to be born to restart jobs/economic activity with no capital; or impossible that become lose all your capital. Given that both would be laughably untrue no matter how free market the market was: it would seem that it wouldn’t be any off of panacea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
because they claim it's bad that there are orphans and homelessness and they want OTHER people to do something about it.
Broadly speaking - the entire purpose of government is to Marshall a set of collective resources of group - and use those resources to do thing that benefit the group.
It’s not specifically that supporters want someone else personally want anyone directly inconvenienced (ie: want OTHER people to do it), but feel that to be an effective response they need more than charity and individuals to deal with it, and want more of the countries resources diverted to it.
If you have basic level of human decency, and empathy you can appreciate that homelessness is bad that you we need to do something about; the only argument is about how that I achieved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Excluding GPs obvious hyperbolic edge-lord trolling which I am not going to touch with a barge-pole as it seems targeted at driving the conversation of the rails with a whole ton of absurd nonsense he’s not going to defend or justify - both of the two above seem to have accidentally said the quiet parts out loud:
That is, I liked reading GO and uncles posts as they frame this as the impact and malfeasance of liberals in general - giving up any pretext this was ever really about vaccines - this never was about vaccine or mandates, or “freedom”. This has always been about a deeper clash for which this is being used as a fig leaf. Both drop this ridiculous canard that we all know is nonsense, mandates of a safe and effective vaccine are neither oppressive nor tyrannical; and they have moved into a more generic “zomg the liberal elites are killing us all!“ both in a slightly different way.
I mean, we all know it wasn’t about that - but it’s nice that they’ve gone out of their way to acknowledge it.
It’s this constant and repeated us of absurd pretext; where the right mask an irrational, indefensible, unjustifiable issue they have - racism - sexism - a victim mentality coming from changing hierarchies - replacement theory - authoritarianism - with silly pretext - that highlights their general collective dishonesty. GP, and those like him have to rely on pushing these obtusely stupid narratives as if real because the core reality they support are largely indefensible. The same way creationists rely on repeated cue card lines “why are there still apes”, or “random chance can’t randomly assemble a cell”; or flat earthers reminding us that all photos from space are fake.
The second part - is that both of them are inherently acknowledging the end result of this if people don’t cave to whatever things that they believe are at issue - violent revolution will or at least may ensue. Which is sort of hilarious given that GPs main point is that these protesters are entirely peaceful. This type of thing is as text book a definition of double think as you can practically get.
I mean - when it is implied that a group of people are entirely peaceful, but may engage in mass violence and attempt to overthrow the country if we do what they want; they’re acknowledging that they’re not really peaceful at all; they simply haven’t begun to be violent yet. Of course, ignoring all the many cases they have been violent.
The reality is this all, is that changing demographics, a changing society, and a changing world has meant that conservatives have had to rely more and more on fear and grievance of a specific subset of society in order to get elected; because the actual specific policys they want to push aren’t popular; and the typical policy of tax cuts and regulations is almost solely aimed at helping their biggest donors at the expense of most of the low education, low paid workers. The terrorists, then the Muslims, then the immigrants, then the left, then all of them. There maybe at some level some rational issues or concerns; but that’s all swept away by the wave of crazies and irrational grievance stoking. First government was getting in the way, now it’s literally the enemy to be destroyed. First the liberals want to increase your taxes; now it’s that they literally want to destroy the country. A slow but sure ratcheting up of grievance and animosity, stoking racism and whatever fear they can to prevent people from thinking too hard about what policy actually works.
What makes this doubly tough is that valid concerns have been completely hijacked by this sort of fuckwittery, actual discussion on key issues degenerates into conspiratorial accusations, irrational partisan talking points - or meaningless constant pretext and strawmen where GP vehemently and constantly argues white is back - all of which are way over and above the typical voter ignorance that has typified both sides forever.
Some of this nonsense, is just the same ridiculous distortion and nonsense as he has used throughout - but I guess the best way to constantly shut down any conversation by people who disagree with you when you do not have a valid position - is to repeatedly deny any shared reality, and just continue to throw our absurd accusations until people give up.
That is, I liked reading GO and uncles posts as they frame this as the impact and malfeasance of liberals in general - giving up any pretext this was ever really about vaccines - this never was about vaccine or mandates, or “freedom”. This has always been about a deeper clash for which this is being used as a fig leaf. Both drop this ridiculous canard that we all know is nonsense, mandates of a safe and effective vaccine are neither oppressive nor tyrannical; and they have moved into a more generic “zomg the liberal elites are killing us all!“ both in a slightly different way.
I mean, we all know it wasn’t about that - but it’s nice that they’ve gone out of their way to acknowledge it.
It’s this constant and repeated us of absurd pretext; where the right mask an irrational, indefensible, unjustifiable issue they have - racism - sexism - a victim mentality coming from changing hierarchies - replacement theory - authoritarianism - with silly pretext - that highlights their general collective dishonesty. GP, and those like him have to rely on pushing these obtusely stupid narratives as if real because the core reality they support are largely indefensible. The same way creationists rely on repeated cue card lines “why are there still apes”, or “random chance can’t randomly assemble a cell”; or flat earthers reminding us that all photos from space are fake.
The second part - is that both of them are inherently acknowledging the end result of this if people don’t cave to whatever things that they believe are at issue - violent revolution will or at least may ensue. Which is sort of hilarious given that GPs main point is that these protesters are entirely peaceful. This type of thing is as text book a definition of double think as you can practically get.
I mean - when it is implied that a group of people are entirely peaceful, but may engage in mass violence and attempt to overthrow the country if we do what they want; they’re acknowledging that they’re not really peaceful at all; they simply haven’t begun to be violent yet. Of course, ignoring all the many cases they have been violent.
The reality is this all, is that changing demographics, a changing society, and a changing world has meant that conservatives have had to rely more and more on fear and grievance of a specific subset of society in order to get elected; because the actual specific policys they want to push aren’t popular; and the typical policy of tax cuts and regulations is almost solely aimed at helping their biggest donors at the expense of most of the low education, low paid workers. The terrorists, then the Muslims, then the immigrants, then the left, then all of them. There maybe at some level some rational issues or concerns; but that’s all swept away by the wave of crazies and irrational grievance stoking. First government was getting in the way, now it’s literally the enemy to be destroyed. First the liberals want to increase your taxes; now it’s that they literally want to destroy the country. A slow but sure ratcheting up of grievance and animosity, stoking racism and whatever fear they can to prevent people from thinking too hard about what policy actually works.
What makes this doubly tough is that valid concerns have been completely hijacked by this sort of fuckwittery, actual discussion on key issues degenerates into conspiratorial accusations, irrational partisan talking points - or meaningless constant pretext and strawmen where GP vehemently and constantly argues white is back - all of which are way over and above the typical voter ignorance that has typified both sides forever.
Some of this nonsense, is just the same ridiculous distortion and nonsense as he has used throughout - but I guess the best way to constantly shut down any conversation by people who disagree with you when you do not have a valid position - is to repeatedly deny any shared reality, and just continue to throw our absurd accusations until people give up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I always vote in my best interests. It’s more beneficial to me having a more equitable society in which everyone has an opportunity to succeed than having an extra $200 a month. The impact of crime, drugs, homelessness, climate change - etc are all much worse than my tiny shade of any tax supported policy that successfully mitigates it. This is not even getting into the general benefit to me personally of not having to worry that I will go bankrupt if I lose my job - or the benefit to my peace of mind for not living in a country where people have to ration insulin.
The issue isn’t about self interest or altruism - it’s largely about a form of enlightened self interest - realizing that there is an inherent benefit in having policies and spending money helping others, both directly as I could wind up needing that help in the future - and indirectly as a healthy, functioning society that allows individuals to succeed is worth more to all of our own personal success and well being than the money it would take to meet it.
The problem is the way of thinking. If your priorities and view on life is money, possessions, your investment portfolio, how big a car you can have; then you’re going to have a different set of concerns than if your priorities are happiness, well-being and not being a total c**t to people.
Created:
Posted in:
There are a few spelling errors in this post:
Psaki
This is actually spelled correctly.
exposed
The correct spelling is
“asked a series of inherently loaded and leading questions that inherently inject the conclusion and narrative the journalist wanted to push, rather than being inherently representative of anything Psaki actually said, much less meant”
As anti-speech tyrant
Again a little spelling error here. I think you incorrectly spelled: “a political spokesman who was expressing disappointment that Russia - who had declared themselves neutral on the matter - were going out of their way to assist Snowden - and at worst was expressing dissatisfaction that Russia was assisting someone viewed as a criminal who leaked published secrets in gaining access to to individuals that may help in that endeavour.
Easy mistake there. Damn auto correct!
Easy mistake there. Damn auto correct!
Journalists grill
This should be spelt “journalists Asked a series of loaded and leading questions intended to result in a gotcha soundbite for a narrative they want to push.”
Psaki
Correct!
on why a person accused of crimes should be muzzled.
Again, minor typo - I think this mean to say “about views of the government on a specific instance of Russia assisting what they view to be a national security threat” - I am basing this on the fact that nothing about the exchange was making any attempt to specify any generic policy or belief about how those who have committed crimes should be treated - other than the aforementioned not wanting someone leaking of state secrets to continue to leak and publicize those same state secrets. Which is clearly not the same.
If these weren’t “accidental typos”, then you’re really attempting to invent something to take issue at - clearly misrepresenting what she said in order to draw a preferred assumed conclusion.
Given that this was over 8 years ago, and in the intervening years, you or the prominent politician you profess to support have attempted to muzzle, or suggested at various times the support of muzzling in various forms: NFL football players who kneel during the national anthem, politicial opponents both of their party or others, peaceful protesters, anyone news organizations that write unflattering stories, people who work for him who leak to the press, and many others, it gives the clear and unavoidable conclusion that you are disinterested in free speech and are simply using it as a pretext to make a disingenuous attack that you likely don’t even believe.
While I have no doubt you will simply ignore everything I say - because you seem historically unwilling to defend the things you say - this type of weaponized hypocrisy in a wider group of political supporters is the perfection of true Orwellian doublethink, where you can be told and believe whatever your political overlords wish; and it will be accepted no matter how incoherent and contradictory with what you were supporting yesterday.
If these weren’t “accidental typos”, then you’re really attempting to invent something to take issue at - clearly misrepresenting what she said in order to draw a preferred assumed conclusion.
Given that this was over 8 years ago, and in the intervening years, you or the prominent politician you profess to support have attempted to muzzle, or suggested at various times the support of muzzling in various forms: NFL football players who kneel during the national anthem, politicial opponents both of their party or others, peaceful protesters, anyone news organizations that write unflattering stories, people who work for him who leak to the press, and many others, it gives the clear and unavoidable conclusion that you are disinterested in free speech and are simply using it as a pretext to make a disingenuous attack that you likely don’t even believe.
While I have no doubt you will simply ignore everything I say - because you seem historically unwilling to defend the things you say - this type of weaponized hypocrisy in a wider group of political supporters is the perfection of true Orwellian doublethink, where you can be told and believe whatever your political overlords wish; and it will be accepted no matter how incoherent and contradictory with what you were supporting yesterday.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
It’s a star beside the target galaxy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Maybe…but there sure seems to be a sudden preference cascade in the Anglosphere in favor of removing remaining restrictions. Maybe it’s totally unrelated to the trucker strike. But maybe not.
Theres been fairly steady progress to that effect for a while; Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan are conservative provinces; and may have announced to make it aligned with the protests to make political hat - but they would have done it anyway.
Most of the rest have been figuring out how bad omicron was going to be in terms of hospitalizations; it got pretty bad, before easing restrictions; I know Ontario has been planned for a while since it peaked.
There’s going to be some restrictions eased off - even at the federal level. But most of this has been kicking around for a while, and isn’t really related to the protests.
I wish I could know what was going on in the backrooms
I live in Ottawa, and have a number of surprising friends, and can tell you it’s both Much more and much less interesting than you may think ;)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Are the truckers getting results? I keep seeing stuff about various provinces lifting COVID restrictions and vaccine mandates but I don't know if that was going to happen anyway
The federal guidance is not likely to change, and at the provincial level most of the reopening was going to happen anyway. Reopening in Ontario specifically has been planned for a while: the west has been pretty gung-ho about opening up at varying points throughout the whole pandemic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Please remove the ability to edit or delete your post once someone has replied to you! There’s enough opportunity to dishonestly troll without adding more :)
Created:
Posted in:
So good that you’ve deleted every reference, and refuse to defend it. Not sure who you’re trying to convince!
Anyhoo, lets park that to the list of points you concede, and rebuttals that scare you. Let’s move on to a point I missed: If I’m going to rebut everything you’ve point by point, while you demonstrate the bankruptcy of your position by petulantly refuse to debate :
Anyhoo, lets park that to the list of points you concede, and rebuttals that scare you. Let’s move on to a point I missed: If I’m going to rebut everything you’ve point by point, while you demonstrate the bankruptcy of your position by petulantly refuse to debate :
“If it was about health, they would be talking about natural immunity rates, exercise, good eating, and not mandates. Talk about healthy diets and exercise. Talk about building your immune system. Talk about taking vitamins.”
Like all the rest of the points you have capitulates on without contest - this one is another grotesque misrepresentation of reality that is wholly without merit. Firstly, public health have touched healthy eating and diet consistently and repeatedly. “Building your immune system” and “taking your vitimins” is a solution for Covid that is being pushed from people selling supplements and vitamins to the gullible. Short of people deciding not to be obese, completely reversing all co-morbidities; there are no amount of dr oz pills or vitamins that will lower your risk of Covid. Given that health advice to this effect has been completely ignored, and often takes years to realize the benefits if you’re in one of the at risk categories: it makes literally no sense to simply push this aspect in the name of “health” when it will invariably maximize the number of people who will die.
Public health in the context of a pandemic is about policies that minimize the damage done to society as a whole by a rapidly spreading deadly pathogen. Given this, the most available and effective tool to minimizing the harm from this pathogen to society is the safe and effective vaccine.
So the idea that public health shouldn’t focus on this is a laughably dishonest straw man.
I await you’re complete capitulation on this point!
Public health in the context of a pandemic is about policies that minimize the damage done to society as a whole by a rapidly spreading deadly pathogen. Given this, the most available and effective tool to minimizing the harm from this pathogen to society is the safe and effective vaccine.
So the idea that public health shouldn’t focus on this is a laughably dishonest straw man.
I await you’re complete capitulation on this point!
Created:
Posted in:
This is a great point.
Such a good point that you are completely unable to defend it. So excellent a point - you keep deleting everything you’ve said. Strike #3
So good, in fact that you have conceded that it’s untrue. Let’s recap:
So far you have conceded that:
- Vaccines are safe.
- Vaccines are effective.
- The government is not making people health decisions for them.
- The “biggest lie” told about vaccines is not a lie at all:
- That the media isn’t really vilifying, slandering or calling names: or otherwise unfairly characterizing the protests.
Created:
Posted in:
This is a great point.
If it were a great point - you’d defend it from criticism, and not delete your posts. But you aren’t, so it must not be. It would appear self evident to everyone that you don’t believe what you’re seeing. This is and continues to be disingenuous trolling.
Strike #2
Created:
Posted in:
This is the truth
But it isn’t. It’s a gross misrepresentation of the reality, as covered by both myself and Oromagi. Please see previous post.
You’re complete inability to defend a single claim you’ve made, makes it pretty obvious that you don’t believe a single word you’re actually saying. But that’s fine; I’ll give you two more opportunities. Strike #1
Created:
Posted in:
This is the truth.
But it’s not really; it’s substantially distorted misrepresentation presented as if wholly accurate, but is mostly a bad faith argument that, presumably - given this thread - youre not going to defend.
Let’s look at it one part a time:
The media has spent the last week vilifying the truckers participating in the freedom protests, slandering them and calling them names.The reality is that the freedom protests have been entirely peaceful. People have been praying together, singing, setting up soup kitchens and feeding the homeless. Even setting up bouncy castles for kids
The reality is this protest is that it’s a limited number of fringe protesters; there have innumerable reports of harassment and intimidation - especially against mask wearers, we’ve had fireworks let off, trucks blocking emergency services, a number of incidents of racism, and damage to both the war memorial and the terry fox monument. There has been questionable and violent rhetoric.
Oromagi did a decent shortlist of some of the questionable incidents in the post you also ignored.
That’s been broadly covered accurately by the majority of media I’ve seen - and is substantially far away “entirely peaceful” I think what you mean to say is that there are not a lot of punches being thrown, or physical confrontations with police or counter protesters - which is a particularly low bar considering - and more a testament that the heavy police presence have been actively turning away both counter protesters - and not yet removing those parked in the street.
While I’m sure you can find the odd cherry picked opinion piece or report, and fairly broad negative coverage in most liberal media - and literally all Ottawa based outlets; the idea that the media has been unfairly “vilifying” “slandering”, or “calling them names”, is a rather obtuse and inaccurate exaggeration.
An exaggeration, I may add; that I’m sure you won’t defend, other than throwing contextless cherry picked individual examples my way.
Created:
Posted in:
The media has spent the last week vilifying the truckers participating in the freedom protests, slandering them and calling them names.The reality is that the freedom protests have been entirely peaceful. People have been praying together, singing, setting up soup kitchens and feeding the homeless. Even setting up bouncy castles for kids.However, there has been a serious attack that has taken place, and the victims are the freedom protesters.It took place in Winnipeg when a man seemingly deliberately rammed his car into a freedom protester. Four people were injured in the attack.Three of the injured had minor injuries and were treated on the scene, and one person was treated in hospital and released. This attack could have turned out much worse than it did and thankfully no one was killed in this attack.In other words, a far-left extremist used his car to seemingly deliberately ram into peaceful freedom protesters, injuring several people, and it is almost like the media doesn’t want to talk about it.The question needs to be asked why that is, why the lack of news coverage? The truckers have been vilified for days and now a far-left extremist rammed his car into them. It really is simple. This doesn’t fit the narrative that they have been pushing.So the lies continue, and the truckers will honk as long as they must to drown out the lies.
And this is changing the subject again. You can’t defend what you’re saying so you try and constantly deflect away from criticism of your point.
You made a claim about a specific lie from Biden - which is clearly not a lie. Given that it is most assuredly not a lie, and this is strike 3. We can indeed add this to the list of points you have capitulated let’s recap:
So far you have conceded that:
- Vaccines are safe.
- Vaccines are effective.
- The government is not making people health decisions for them.
- The “biggest lie” told about vaccines is not a lie at all:
Now it seems - you have dropped all objections to what is being protested about - and are now solely fixated on how the truckers are being presented, right?
Created:
Posted in:
So the lies continue, and the truckers will honk as long as they must to drown out the lies
I’m sorry you’re made uncomfortable by intellectual discussion, but disingenuous trolling and naming calling isn’t a good argument - this statement is not true. Strike 2
Created: