ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

faerwin wrote:

And I showed you that the data you provided is unusable because it makes no sense that some of the most racist states have close to no report of hate crimes happening.

Data doesn't have to "make sense" to be usable and/or reliable. Anything involve quantum physics doesn't make sense at the surface level.

It doesn't make sense to visualize what a black hole looks like, since no light can escape it, yet here we are:



Stop and think about your claim "some of the most racist states have close to no report of hate crimes happening"

Even in a leftist frame of mentality, you could find some sense in this if you look at the claim again:

"some of the most racist states have close to no REPORTS of hate crimes happening.

It could also be the counterpoint - that the least obviously 'racist' states where people say the right things are the ones with the most real racists - ones who are willing to commit crimes against people they don't like, but will behave nicely in public.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

kolyaboo wrote:

And so it begins. Payback can be a bitch.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/440730-how-the-obama-white-house-engaged-ukraine-to-give-russia-collusion

Fake news.

Literally.

It's a far right lunatic piece of opinion.

We know who the purveyors of fake news are:

"

pneuma wrote:

If you're told every day on every TV channel and in every movie and song that America is racist, it's hard to disbelieve it, but it's not true.

Hate crimes have risen recently (primarily anti-semitic, but I guess we're not supposed to talk about that), but they're still a nearly non-existent segment of crime by percentage. And that's to say nothing of the litany of hate crime hoaxes that we've all been watching parade in.

More people from more diverse backgrounds move here than any other country, per capita. If America was a horrible, racist ethnostate where whitey reigned supreme, why would people want to move here? The success stories of America abound, and there is zero systemic racism, zero limitations.

The reality is simple: Nobody in America gives a fuck what color you are. Pay your taxes, don't commit crimes, and do your part in making America the best country in the world.

It's a lie to call Americans racists. Race hustlers know how to ride that lie to fame and power, but they have no reality to stand on. They scare people for power, telling them that "the white man is keeping you down" and "the brown people are gonna breed you out of existence"... fuck them. Leave them behind in the dustbin of history where they belong.

It's fun though, like the hate-crime statistic being discussed now.

7100 hate crimes in America from the graph.

Population 328 million.

Even if it was ten times 7000, it would still be minute.

But apparently it's a raging monster in the country pervasive under and inside every nooky.

And who cares about the individuals being effected by the grouping + stigmatising in order to drive the narrative.

I remember a time when the progressives where the people who wanted the state out of their life and believed in the individual and his/her personal agency and strenth to overcome any adversity in their path.(resulting in memorable events like woodstock)

It must feel demoralizing for old progressives to see this new form it has taken on, demanding enforcement from the state to fascilitate their ideals, distancing personal accountability from themselves and fostering victim narratives for each and every group that comes knocking on the door.

I wonder how history is going to recall this progressive movement trying to put racism back on the forefront when it is at a historical low.

I have this nagging feeling they honestly believe they can "erase" racism from human existence. I hope i'm wrong on that though.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

rojimboo wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

I showed you the step by step guide. Just look up the official stats and do the maths if you're interested in the numbers. Something tells me you aren't and just want to ramble.

And I showed you that the data you provided is unusable because it makes no sense that some of the most racist states have close to no report of hate crimes happening.

He won't get because his statistics are apparently infallible, instead of actually unusable in inter-country comparisons.

He literally believes Sweden has the most rape in the world, and Canada the most kidnapping.

This sort of brainwashing is hard to de-program. Not sure how to go about doing that.

Kidnapping per capitanumbers might be high in Canada because of the tendency to report the abduction of a child by the "non-custodial" parent as a kidnapping instead of a domestic or custodial dispute.

In the United States, the tendency of authorities to use the "Amber Alert" for similar reasons has jaded the public response to such alerts.

"

Boem wrote:

Define harassment? Because routinely stopping and searching black people in a neighbourhood where the statistics prove they commit most of the crimes is just the most effective method of discouraging and preventing crime.

Just like i would want cops to focus white people, hispanics or asians if they where the majority's commiting crimes.

After a certain period of time patrolling an area, good police officers get a sense for who seems to fit in a neighborhood and who doesn't. Whether the car is too nice or too shabby, driving too slow, or circling around the block for the fifth time - something arouses their suspicions, and they pull the person over.

I've been pulled over before for not matching the ethnicity of the neighborhood. The officer was convinced something nefarious was going on until he verified that the coworker I had dropped off (his car broke down) did live nearby.

I didn't fault the officer. Something seemed out of place to him and he was protecting the area he was employed to protect.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

Define harassment? Because routinely stopping and searching black people in a neighbourhood where the statistics prove they commit most of the crimes is just the most effective method of discouraging and preventing crime.

Just like i would want cops to focus white people, hispanics or asians if they where the majority's commiting crimes.

After a certain period of time patrolling an area, good police officers get a sense for who seems to fit in a neighborhood and who doesn't. Whether the car is too nice or too shabby, driving too slow, or circling around the block for the fifth time - something arouses their suspicions, and they pull the person over.

I've been pulled over before for not matching the ethnicity of the neighborhood. The officer was convinced something nefarious was going on until he verified that the coworker I had dropped off (his car broke down) did live nearby.

I didn't fault the officer. Something seemed out of place to him and he was protecting the area he was employed to protect.

My personal feeling is that they are defining "harassment" as "the police doing it's job".

It's pushing a bad-faith narrative when i am personally convinced that a person growing up deciding to become a cop isn't exactly the worst ilk around.

Just like my suspicion tells me most doctors are probably intend on saving lives and curing people and sometimes a death occurs under their watch.

I don't think people even contemplate the averse effects of these movements.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

For example a study showed that a police force was stopping more black and hispanic drivers for control. So they did a study and looked at the data from night-time(when racial prejudice cannot occur, since cars are stopped before race could be identified), nothing changed in the outcomes of the data sets.

Flat out bullshit wrong. It is the exact OPPOSITE!

"

Our statistical analysis of these records proceeds in
three steps. First, we assess potential bias in stop decisions by applying the “veil of darkness” test developed
by Grogger and Ridgeway [13]. The test is based on a simple observation: because the sun sets at different times
throughout the year, one can examine the racial composition of stopped drivers as a function of sunlight while
controlling for time of day. If black drivers make up a
smaller share of stopped drivers after sunset, when it is
difficult to determine a driver’s race, that suggests black
drivers were stopped before sunset in part because of their
race. In both state patrol and municipal police stops, we
find that black drivers comprise a smaller proportion of
drivers stopped after sunset, which is suggestive of racial
bias in stop decisions.

https://5harad.com/papers/100M-stops.pdf

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

we find that black drivers comprise a smaller proportion of drivers stopped after sunset, which is suggestive of racial bias in stop decisions.

Not really. Here is a sound logic chain for that conclusion:
Premise 1: The ratio of black drivers — pulled over or not — to nonblack drivers stopped before sunset is equal to or less than the ratio of black drivers to nonblack drivers after sunset.
Premise 2: The rate of suspicious behavior (that is, to actually warrant pulling over) on the part of black drivers before sunset is equal to or less than the rate of suspicious behavior of black drivers after sunset.
Premise 3: The rate of pulling over black drivers relative to nonblack drivers before sunset is greater than the rate of pulling them over after sunset.
Therefore: the motive behind pulling over the black drivers before sunset is partially motivated by racism.

You need all 3 premises to really prove it; I'd consider 2 out of 3 suggestive. 1 out of 3 is just a situation with no particular inquiry into the cause. As it stands, you're only citing evidence of one premise.

Here's one possible non-racist explanation: let's imagine that black people in this area are more likely to drive cars with expired registration. Drivers of cars with expired registration are less likely to be pulled over at night, so a greater percentage of black drivers would be pulled over during daylight hours.

If I was some kind of peace officer with authority (e.g. judge, police chief) and you came to me with only evidence of premise 3, I'd advise you to collect evidence of premise 1 — which would be simple enough, it's just a random sampling of drivers over different time periods — and dismiss you. If you then came with evidence of premises 1 and 3, I'd say that would merit an investigation, but not yet be proof of guilt.