• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Forgery suspect killed by cop restricting his airway

Why should he commit to do work, if afterward, you will not earnestly accept the studies, but instead be dismissive and political?

This is not what I wrote. I am perfectly capable of changing my mind with good evidence.

But I cannot agree to change my mind when I don't know how compelling the evidence would be. If I was willing to change my mind based on Jarhyn's word alone, I'd have already changed it.

But I'm disturbed that you think I should 'earnestly accept' any source Jarhyn produces. I can agree to honestly evaluate the source; I cannot--nor could any honest person with a scintilla of integrity--agree to 'earnestly accept' them.

But I think want Jarhyn wants is that I make a public commitment to expressing my new belief, if I have a new belief. I don't have a problem with this. I would have a problem with expressing a belief that I do not hold, however.

His computed cost to look up these things, report them, and argue is far higher than a benefit of 0 since you will not agree to rational stipulations. Why should he play your rigged political game?

First of all, Jarhyn claims he already has the studies. What he would be required to do is post them. Now, he made a positive claim (that blacks and whites commit crimes at the same level per capita). That is a claim at odds with everything I know about crime in the United States, so I asked for evidence. He did not produce it.

Second, what is 'rigged' about asking for evidence of a claim and evaluating that evidence? You are asking that I accept his claim at face value without evaluating the evidence.

I did not say "nothing you could produce could change my mind", in which case he'd be right not to bother.
 
So, doing some research on the NCVS, there are already some primary factors which impugn any attempt to correlate the results from such a survey to the subject, that black people are more likely to be criminals than white people: it focuses on who is the victim of perceived crimes, not on who the committed them.

It is, I would say, somewhat difficult to get a representative sample of people to confess their criminal activities to the government. Crime victimisation surveys bypass a major stumbling block (as you see it), that arrest rates are disproportionate to crime commitment rates by race. The crimes reported in a victim survey do not have to have been reported to or investigated by the police.

If I have one black person in 5 commiting 3 crimes, and one white person in five commiting one crime, those two populations have the same number of criminals.

Can I take it, then, that this is your positive claim: that, per capita, an individual black person is about as likely as an individual white person, to have committed at least one crime in their lifetime (or let's say: by the time they are 25)?

Second, we run into the same reporting bias that cops do: if we have a population more likely to perceive an act as being criminal, or more likely to be agitated by some encounter, we are again confounded.

You cannot simply explain away any discrepancy as bias without evidencing the bias. But, in any case, let's say it's the case that a crime committed by a black perpetrator is more likely to be remembered and reported in a victimisation survey. That does not prove bias, or at least not in the way you are positing. It could be that black perpetrators are typically more violent when they commit criminal acts, and therefore their criminal acts are more easily recalled.

Though I must say, I was the subject of a common assault in 2018, and I have no trouble recalling that crime, nor would I have a problem reporting it.

It also does nothing to address any discussion of victimless or "transactional" crime, which accounts for the vast majority of enforcement disparity.

We don't need to discuss victimless crimes. We can discuss all non-victimless crimes instead.

Are you clarifying that you believe among non-victimless crimes, white people and black people are about as likely per capita to commit at least one such crime?

It also does not speak much to the underlying socioeconomic factors that some people keep trying to bring up that are themselves the result of generational racial bias,

It doesn't speak to it at all, but that isn't the claim you made. You said that per capita, whites and blacks commit about the same amount of crime (or are as likely to be criminals, or whatever the specific formulation is).

You did not say "adjusting for x". There's all kinds of adjustments we could do.

and the very structure of certain criminal enterprises is dictated by socioeconomic access: it's easier to sell drugs without having contact with a gang, when you have a bank account, a decent computer, and a college education, and the structure of gang-related drug businesses has a lot higher likelihood of violent contact, albeit with much violence arising out of a very small population, and the ability to be able to sell drugs safely in a violence free environment is pretty much zero when you have ever been arrested or associated with gang activity.

But I digress... While I'm certainly open to reading the study more deeply beyond methodologies, it is already apparent that it is unfit for making any kind of substantive claim of from whom criminal acts originated.

So, no. You will not accept actual criminal justice statistics (I presume: arrests and convictions), nor will you accept crime victimisation surveys.

Of course, you still haven't stated whether that is your view, something I was pretty clear that you had an obligation to do.

I have stated my view clearly. You can scroll back and read it. However, for your convenience, I will repost it here:

In America, blacks commit more crimes per capita than whites. This will not be true for every level and every class of crime, but is true overall.
 

They did? News to me. I am sure you or Saikat or AOC can back that extraordinary assertion up somehow.
By the way, Saikat's hero is Nazi collaborator Subhas Chandra Bose. I wonder what his opinion on civil liberties and habeas corpus was. :)


Well maybe they should have thought twice before doing things like chucking Molotov cocktails at police vehicles.
bail-54.jpg
By the way, inexplicably Urooj Rahman and that other bomb-throwing NYC lawyer, Colinford Mattis, were granted bail.

P.S.: She is covering her mouth with the style of scarf very popular among Palestinian terrorists and their sympathizers.
 
Last edited:
I’m sorry if you didn’t get into Medical school but I think you’re better suited as an engineer.
Who says I tried?
Although I do know a few people who failed to get in, and who most likely would have gotten in if they had the preferred skin color.

I focus on medical school admissions because
a) having competent doctors is very important. If universities practice racial preferences in competitive fly fishing or underwater basket weaving departments, it's still wrong, but largely inconsequential except for those directly wronged. Playing social engineering with medical school admissions, or even much of engineering, can get people killed.
b) The racial discrimination in medical school admissions is especially egregious, as the large discrepancy of admission rates by race in every GPA/MCAT category show.
c) The racial discrimination in medical school admissions is very well documented.
 
Not an excuse but a rational observation and how long is dependent upon how long the effects last. Therefore, it's not a "should" question. It is what we observe and therefore it is, your constant denial and posting of pictures of black men, not withstanding.
No, it is your interpretation of what is. You blame the past circumstances, even though other groups have had similarly bad circumstances in their past.
I think it's to a great extent parts of "black culture", particularly hip hop. But it is also enabling by the mainstream leftists through soft bigotry of low expectations. For decades blacks have been told that whitey is oppressing them and that they need racial preferences to compete. That sort of paternalism is highly destructive.

Strawman.
Not at all. Much needed perspective.

And? Jews were indeed marginalized and oppressed. In fact, in the US, Jews lived in ghettos. This is why in the 30's and 40's, they were dominating basketball which requires very little resources, like in the ghetto. After WW2, Jews became far more accepted across white culture and their participation in WW2 as veterans allowed them benefits and entry into Suburbia, not just economically but culturally, too. This changed the dynamic drastically. We've discussed this before and you're still apparently in denial of it.
My point is that they do not use the past to excuse bad behavior. It's not that black people are not accepted in the white culture - hell Obama was far more successful than very white John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. But Jews studied hard to get good education. They did not demand preferences in school admissions and hiring for example.

So, you have a non-point again.
Nope. My point is exactly about overcoming past opporession instead of being defined by it in perpetuity. Black Americans can do likewise. However, it is in the interest of race-warriors like Al Sharpton and his white allies on the Left to keep blacks as a perpetual underclass with permament grievances that they can exploit for political power and profit.

Derec said:
UKRAINIANS ARE STILL OPPRESSED BY RUSSIA!!!! YOU DID NOT KNOW OPPRESSION IS ON-GOING???!!! There is no point in talking to you!
Don't yell at me first of all. Second, it makes my point even stronger. Ukrainians are not using that as an excuse for underachieving.

And in Turkey there are issues with certain peoples, still. This isn't Turkey! You know it's the United States!
source.gif

No, shit Sherlock.
Then why do they deserve to be given a job with lesser qualifications or given a seat at an university with lesser grades and test scores?

Why would Ukrainians expect affirmative action, i.e. NOT special treatment, but EQUAL treatment by looking for qualified candidates among different races, than merely the ruling race?!
Affirmative action is the policy of giving preferential treatment to certain races and ethnic groups, to wit blacks and Hispanics in the US.
The affirmative action cases that were in SCOTUS were not about equal treatment, but about giving points in admissions just for being the "right" race/ethnicity.

Until people like you stop contributing to the problem.
I don't contribute to the problem. In fact, I want to end the policies of the last 50 years that did not bring us that much closer to real equality.
 
Lynching is really not a major problem these days, and in any case it is sufficiently covered by existing murder statutes.
I really do not see the point of this federal legislation other than virtue signalling.

Lauren Ashcraft for NY-12������ on Twitter: "Kneeling during the national anthem was pretty damn peaceful, but many found that offensive.
Here we are." / Twitter

Even though it was a completely nonviolent action. Right-wingers nevertheless acted that it was like forcibly sodomizing them.

It was peaceful, but since it protested the national anthem it was seen as protesting the country as a whole. Kaep bullying Nike into not releasing the Betsy Ross Flag sneakers further cements the observation that Kaep is first and foremost anti-American.
Second, it was protesting while he is wearing the uniform of his employer, while on the clock. You or I would not be allowed to stage a political protest while at work, no matter the reason, so why should this spoiled multimillionaire get to do it?
Thirdly, Kaep's protest suffers from the same lack of selection of cases to get outraged about as the #BLM movement writ large. He admitted that he was chiefly protesting the killing of Mario Woods. Who was Mario Woods you ask? He was a robber who, shortly after having been released on parole, stabbed a guy and then refused to drop the knife when police confronted him. They tried using non-lethal bean bags, but Mario would not budge, surely because he didn't want to go back to prison. So eventually he was shot. Perfectly justified, but still protested by Kaep.

End game for these radicals is police abolition.


What poor guy? Got a link that's not a tweet by some "influencer" nobody ever heard about?
 
Last edited:
Law Enforcement Seizes Masks Meant To Protect Anti-Racist Protesters From COVID-19 | HuffPost
Law enforcement agents have seized hundreds of cloth masks that read “Stop killing Black people” and “Defund police” that a Black Lives Matter-affiliated organization sent to cities around the country to protect demonstrators against the spread of COVID-19, a disease that has had a disparate impact on Black communities.

The Movement for Black Lives (M4BL) spent tens of thousands of dollars on the masks they had planned to send all over the country. The first four boxes, each containing 500 masks, were mailed from Oakland, California, and were destined for Washington, St. Louis, New York City and Minneapolis, where on May 25 a white police officer killed George Floyd, a 46-year-old handcuffed Black man, setting off a wave of protests across the country.

But the items never left the state. The U.S. Postal Service tracking numbers for the packages indicate they were “Seized by Law Enforcement” and urge the mailer to “contact the U.S. Postal Inspection Service for further information.”

...
It’s not entirely clear what law enforcement entity seized the masks or why. But the Justice Department, led by Attorney General William Barr, has taken an aggressive posture against demonstrations and on Thursday expressed concern about “extremist agitators” who are “hijacking the protests to pursue their own separate and violent agenda.”
What's going on here?
 
Nicholas Kristof on Twitter: "31 years ago tonight I was at Tiananmen and watched Chinese troops open fire on peaceful protesters. The West responded with revulsion, except for one man: Donald Trump, who praised the crackdown. My column on his longtime interest in military solutions: https://t.co/eq2HkD44lR" / Twitter
noting
Opinion | Trump Uses the Military to Prove His Manhood - The New York Times - "The president’s response to the coronavirus that killed more than 100,000 people was lethargic and ineffective. But when it came to anti-racism protesters, it was time to call in the troops."
For two decades, the United States has repeatedly made the mistake of over-relying on the military toolbox to try to solve intractable problems — particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq — without adequately relying on diplomacy. Now President Trump wants to repeat the mistake at home.

...
It was exactly 31 years ago that I covered the Chinese military’s assault on pro-democracy protesters at Tiananmen Square. There was outrage worldwide, with virtually the only praise in the West coming from … Donald Trump.

“When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it,” Trump told Playboy Magazine months later. “Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength.”
Trump loves the sight of soldiers in action. He even once wanted a big military parade with tanks in city streets.
In this annus horribilus, the United States has endured more than 100,000 deaths and 40 million jobs lost from the coronavirus. In response to those cataclysms, Trump responded lethargically and ineffectively: The American death rate from the virus is three times Germany’s and the unemployment rate roughly four times Germany’s. But in response to a week of protests and looting, Trump seeks to send in the Army? According to the Daily Beast, he even inquired about sending in tanks.
Tanks???

Trump is a fucking moron.
 
Opinion | Outcry Over Tom Cotton’s Call for Troops to Quell Unrest - The New York Times

New York Times Says Senator’s Op-Ed Did Not Meet Standards - The New York Times

Opinion | Tom Cotton’s Fascist Op-Ed - The New York Times
Before Donald Trump became president, most newspaper op-ed pages sought to present a spectrum of politically significant opinion and argument, which they could largely do while walling off extremist propaganda and incitement. The Trump presidency has undermined that model, because there’s generally no way to defend the administration without being either bigoted or dishonest.

Opinion sections, eager to maintain ideological diversity without publishing lies or stuff that belongs in Breitbart, have therefore filled up with anti-Trump conservatives. As a result, newspapers like this one have often been criticized for elevating an intellectual clique that has little mass base or political influence.

...
Thus when I first saw the Cotton Op-Ed I wasn’t as horrified as perhaps I should have been; I figured he’d helpfully revealed himself as a dangerous authoritarian. But as I’ve seen my colleagues’ anguished reaction, I’ve started to doubt my debating-club approach to the question of when to air proto-fascist opinions.
He mentioned George Bush I sending in troops to LA after the Rodney-King acquittal riots, but they were sent in on the invitation of CA's governor.
That’s very different from the federal government overriding local elected authorities and occupying their states and cities, which seems to be what Cotton is proposing. It’s an idea that appalls many military leaders.

...
Anyone who has ever seen a military occupation up close should know how much uglier it can get. That includes Cotton, who on Twitter called for “no quarter for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters, and looters.”
Anarchists? If conservatism means less government, than anarchists are the greatest conservatives.
 
Given the reaction to Good ole Tom, he's been backing off his assertions more loudly than a logging truck coming down a fire trail.

Attitudes in the reich have shifted.

Generals are taking aim at Trumpies. Trumpies, they're running scared.

Wheels are falling off republican campaigns faster than bacon sizzeling grease bombs off a too hot frypan.

Trump running negative 15 to negative 19. Way to go Mr. Dictator designate.
 
Opinion | Donald Trump Is No Richard Nixon - The New York Times - "He — and his party — are much, much worse."
The Trump-Nixon comparisons are obvious. Like Nixon, Trump has exploited white backlash for political gain. Like Nixon, Trump evidently believes that laws apply only to the little people.

Nixon, however, doesn’t seem to have been a coward. Amid mass demonstrations, he didn’t cower in the MAGAbunker, venturing out only after his minions had gassed peaceful protesters and driven them out of Lafayette Park. Instead, he went out to talk to protesters at the Lincoln Memorial. His behavior was a bit weird, but it wasn’t craven.

And while his political strategy was cynical and ruthless, Nixon was a smart, hard-working man who took the job of being president seriously.
Rubenzer & Faschingbauer, in their psychological study of the Presidents, rated him:
  • Character: 0.9%
  • Neuroticism: 97%
  • Extroversion: 7%
  • Openness: 14%
  • Agreeableness: 0.02%
  • Conscientiousness: 98%
The numbers are the fraction of the general public below them.
His policy legacy was surprisingly positive — in particular, he did more than any other president, before or since, to protect the environment. Before Watergate took him down he was working on a plan to expand health insurance coverage that in many ways anticipated Obamacare.

Trump, by contrast, appears to spend his days tweeting and watching Fox News. His administration’s only major policy achievement so far has been the 2017 tax cut, which was supposed to lead to surging business investment, but didn’t.

He responded to the Covid-19 threat first with denial, then with frantic efforts, not to control the pandemic, but to shift the blame for shambolic, ineffective policies to other people.
He seems *very* low in Conscientiousness -- anomalously low by President standards -- presidents are usually high in that, like people successful in academia and careers -- and politics in general. Does Mitch McConnell consider Trump hopelessly undisciplined? He is rumored to consider Trump not as smart as he is, and also "nuts".
 
More:
At this point it’s alarmingly easy to see how the United States could follow the path already taken by Hungary, becoming a democracy on paper but an authoritarian one-party state in practice. And I’m not talking about the distant future: It could happen this year, if Trump wins re-election — or even, potentially, if he loses but refuses to accept the results.

And the reason democracy is threatened in a way it never was under Nixon is not simply that Trump is a worse human being than Nixon ever was; it is the fact that he has so many enablers.

...
The modern G.O.P., however, is nothing like that. Many of its leading figures — people like Senator Tom Cotton — are every bit as authoritarian and anti-democratic as Trump himself.

The rest, with hardly any exceptions, are loyal apparatchiks, intimidated into obedience by an angry base.
Even when that enabling goes against their usual principles. Seems like they'd meekly accept being deported to Alaskan prison camps if Trump wanted to get them out of the way.
 
We should have a police force where we can provide them the benefit of the doubt. The trouble is, that trust has been violated so much, so often, that it likely can't even be quantified.

Such that, we, the public and the police need to start over. The trouble is, there is a too large percentage of the public that doesn't even see that there is a problem.

I tend to agree, Jimmy.

Imo there's at least 3 interwoven problems coming to a head here, possibly 4, possibly 5 or 6. I'm thinking them up as I type and edit. Lol.

1. The anti-African American bias/racism and associated/related white privilege that is still, unfortunately, at large, even if things are (arguably much) better than they used to be, say, 30-40-50 years ago. Similar things might be said about other non-white minorities. I would include both interpersonal racism/bias and structural/systemic versions, and include historical legacy factors, especially where these have not been properly addressed.

2. Police. There are general policing issues that affect more than just black people, but that adversely affect all civilians (and imo rebound adversely onto the police themselves).

3. Guns and gun culture. This (a) makes the police job very difficult and (b) police are an integral part of the gun culture themselves.

4. Trump. Or better to say the swing to the (populist) right that Trump represents and that he cashed in on. Some of the progress that was made (on race and other social issues, eg women's reproductive choices) has been or is in danger of being lost.

5. Demographics. A white majority is and has been in decline. In 25 years, whites will only be 33% of the demographic, I believe, if current trends continue. They will still very likely be over-represented in the establishment and in the higher socioeconomic categories however. This fact (the raw projected numbers/percentages I mean) understandably worries some, possibly many, white people, for a variety of reasons. This might be especially true of the not-so-wealthy and the poor whites, who, imo, do have a case for feeling at least somewhat politically neglected, which helps explain Trump's success, imo.

6. Money. First, economic hard times generally always lead to social problems and unrest, and the severe economic difficulties related to the Covid19 have come not all that long after the crash of 2007 and certainly many, of all races (but perhaps especially certain minorities, especially blacks) were and are still economically vulnerable because of that crash. Corporate globalisation and worsening modern job security and conditions for workers are not helpful trends in this regard. Second, there's the huge and worsening and imo toxic wealth inequality that no one with any strong clout seems to care about addressing or be able to rein in. Third, the USA is losing ground in international terms. It is no longer the way-out-in-front economic superpower it once was. Though it is still a very big, strong player.

Those aren't listed in any order of priority. Number 6 could easily even go top. List is not meant to be complete and is just my tupppenceworth. I am speaking in general terms, obviously, and as an observer from abroad.

ETA: I could also have listed:

7. Problematic African American culture. I realise that is controversial. I do think it could be included though, as a lesser factor. It is not just me saying it. And it is not just white people saying it either. It is a (meant to be honest but helpful) criticism which appears to come from within a concerned part of the African American demographic itself.

You may note I have left out 'Identity Politics' (in its recent incarnation and definition I mean) because although I recognise this as an issue, and that there may indeed have been (and still be) a bit too much of it from Democrats and even more so from the 'actual left', I think it is mostly (though not entirely) a red herring as an explanation (for the swing to the right) or is at least overstated. Maybe I should put it in as number 8 though. Not sure. It might arguably be included even if only because perceptions around it triggered a (conservative/white) opinion/sentiment backlash.

On balance, I think I should include it.

8. Identity Politics.

I have decided to leave out climate change and environmental concerns. Those factors might well start featuring more and more and more, and have huge and wide impacts on all the above (and other) issues, but they do not seem to be strong features of the current unrest (although they might be implicitly informing the responses of some progressive protesters, who may have in the past supported things such as Occupy Wall Street, or Extinction Rebellion, etc etc).

I also decided, rightly or wrongly, to omit social media, even though it might be playing a role in various ways, on all sides (and as such it may be a problem in some ways and a benefit in others).
 
Last edited:
8. Identity Politics.

I have decided to leave out climate change and environmental concerns. Those factors might well start featuring more and more and more, and have huge and wide impacts on all the above (and other) issues, but they do not seem to be strong features of the current unrest (although they might be implicitly informing the responses of some progressive protesters, who may have in the past supported things such as Occupy Wall Street, or Extinction Rebellion, etc etc).
Identity politics is the late 2010's / early 2020's right-wing version of PC. It only exists in the imagination of the right-wing. They use it to hand wave away questions about allowing certain things solely because of inertia.

I also decided, rightly or wrongly, to omit social media, even though it might be playing a role in various ways, on all sides.
Social media creates a feedback on the public issue.
 
8. Identity Politics.

I have decided to leave out climate change and environmental concerns. Those factors might well start featuring more and more and more, and have huge and wide impacts on all the above (and other) issues, but they do not seem to be strong features of the current unrest (although they might be implicitly informing the responses of some progressive protesters, who may have in the past supported things such as Occupy Wall Street, or Extinction Rebellion, etc etc).
Identity politics is the late 2010's / early 2020's right-wing version of PC. It only exists in the imagination of the right-wing. They use it to hand wave away questions about allowing certain things solely because of inertia.

I also decided, rightly or wrongly, to omit social media, even though it might be playing a role in various ways, on all sides.
Social media creates a feedback on the public issue.

Identity politics, as the right has attempted to isolate, is just the next evolution/iteration of public awareness that people have a right to some manner of self-identification and that others are not justified in discrimination on the basis of that identity, insofar as that identity does not itself imply an intent or motive to do harm.

It's a recognition that when people discriminate on the basis of an identity that should be considered as irrelevant, that makes them assholes. The problem isn't the identity. The problem isn't that people who have identitiednin some way. The problem is the people who decide, on the basis of those meaningless identities, to discriminate (or outright deny the right to that identity).

It is certainly acceptable to say that someone is doing a bad job of living true to the identities they claim. It is also certainly acceptable to say that, when someone claims some label based on shared suffering without taking a share of that suffering, that they do not necessarily deserve acceptance to a community when acceptance is more a function of being a part of the shared suffering than it is about the label itself.

Of course, this is all nuance lost on those who would themselves discriminate against people on the basis of meaningless identities, and who deny the existence of the shared suffering, and who would consider them invalid.
 
Back
Top Bottom