Signs in Toronto Urge White People to Join ‘Alt-Right’

[Warhippy]

1 minute ago, Cerridwen said:

 

Oh wait......wasn't that 'Final Solution' proposed once before? And look how THAT turned out, eh?

[Cerridwen]

2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

 

Oh dear, I must have forgotten the

 

Apologies for daring to think your perception skills were better.

 

 

[Warhippy]

13 minutes ago, Cerridwen said:

 

Oh dear, I must have forgotten the

 

Apologies for daring to think your perception skills were better.

 

 

Look.  Election thread aside.

 

There is NO reason to sit and denigrate ANYONE that doesn't conform to ones version of a perfect Utopia.  Claiming someone different will do X or Y is absolutely ignorant.

 

It's roughly 189 pounds of crap in a 10 pound bag really.

 

Oh NO muslims...Oh No, alt right christians.  Oh No Orthodox Jews.  All religions that have sects that demand no outsiders or the death of those non conforming.

 

Trump won, great we get it.  but now that mirror I spoke of is being looked in to.  people woke up and are starting to realize that the world they live in is disgusting.  These "attacks" and graffiti, are not new.  They have occurred for years.  people are just NOW starting to pay attention to them.  The sad thing is they are claiming it is JUST because trump won; when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

That mirror shines light on some ugly places and shows people things they never wanted to actually deal with.  Now they have to.

 

They call it "alt-right" when the truth is they could just have easily labelled it my neighbour Tim, my best friend Jane or that group of people that meet on thursdays.

 

The world we live in is disgusting.  The people claiming they are better than those they fear no better in actuality than those they don't understand

 

People finally have to deal with the crap they've been ignoring.  This forum is showing a very small microcosm of that fact.

 

That's all I have to say on it

[Aircool]

1 hour ago, etsen3 said:

Lol @ my multiple accounts conspiracy theory. Lol @ advocating for racial profiling and claiming racism doesn't exist at the same time.  It doesn't matter whether you think it's "logical" or not.  Individuaps have constitutionally protected rights in the US, rights against unreasonable search and seizure.  Innocent people don't deserve to get treated with suspicion just because people who have the same colour skin as them have higher crime rates.  That's written into law.  That's the definition of racism.  It's my belief that stop and frisk should be done away with completely, as no one should be searched on the street, regardless of their race. Anyways, your argument that treating a certain racial group with bias (aka the very definition of racism) is justified speaks for itself.

 

I wasn't accusing you of multiple accounts, and I'm not even firm on whether this person is multi-accounting. It's just weird for someone's first post ever to be in a thread that's reasonably old. At least that person did research though, so I'm 99% certain that that person isn't you. If that person even if multi-accounting... Moving on...

 

I wasn't advocating for racial profiling, I was just stating that it's extremely logical. Seeing the merits in something, isn't supporting something. Racial profiling is not racism, although I'm sure you will try hard to convince yourself that it is, it's just not. Now your argument about having constitutionally protected rights against unreasonable search and seizure, I don't know how valid this argument is, but it's a far better argument against something like stop and frisk, which for the record I'm not a supporter of, but I was just explaining the motivations for it's arrival. You make many assumptions about what I support, but I'm making very few claims about what I want society to be like, and instead I'm making mostly claims about what I think society is right now. Huge difference.

 

Racial profiling would be racist if it presumed someone guilty before, conducting a search via stop and frisk for example, it instead chooses to select people with the highest probability of success when conducting the search. Clearly you don't understand what racism is. The notion that people can live without bias, and preconceptions is a foolish one. Of course we all have biases and preconceptions. What makes one more ignorant than the next person is to act on those biases/preconceptions. Racism is not the act of having a bias/preconception/stereotypical belief about a race. It's the act of judging an individual based on those factors. It's the act of ASSUMING that this individual is a certain type of person, with certain characteristics, without knowing anything about them, purely because of their skin colour or nationality. Racism is not having preconceptions, and your perspective on this is EXTREMELY ignorant.

[dank.sinatra]

On 15/11/2016 at 6:33 AM, etsen3 said:

All the reasons you posted are actually good reasons to protest though.  These white supremacist groups only seek to preserve dominance, not fight for equal rights.

 

Groups like Black Lives Matter aren't intended to divide people.  They're intended to expose and fight the division that already exists - courtesy of those in power.

 

Yes there are members of these groups that'll trash white people no matter what, and that is counterproductive.  The problem lies with "the system", not every single white person on the planet.

 

.

 

[dank.sinatra]

On 17/11/2016 at 1:50 PM, Aircool said:

 

You've clearly read my previous posts very poorly. I completely dismiss the notion of "the man". I think that is a laughable conspiracy contrived to bolster the extremely flawed arguments that follow the lines of many of your arguments. That isn't to say that there isn't bias. There is bias. But getting to why I believe you've read my previous posts poorly, I think that this is fundamentally (while not without significant influence from white people) a result of the actions of black people. As I've said in my previous posts, black people have an image crisis. It is their fault that their crime rates and especially violent crime rates are what they are. Now as I've also previously stated, poverty (which has ties to slavery and even the subsequent release from slavery without remuneration) has a lot to do with that. However, at the end of the day, one is still responsible for their choices in life, no matter how forced they may feel to make them. Why is stop and frisk not blind? Because black people commit more violent crime than white people, which is the point of stop and frisk. To subvert the committal of violent crimes. Racial profiling is an EXTREMELY logical thing to do. I honestly don't understand why people have an issue with it. If people of a certain race don't want to be profiled, then their race should behave comparably to others in the respect that they are profiled. So if black people committed less violent crime, guess what? Stop and frisk rates for them would go down. If there was less Arabic terrorism, you'd have less brown people being pulled aside in airports for a "random" screening. Your "random" in your post is an accurate factor to point out. But the notion that this is somehow immoral is just the wrong perspective to take. IF black people were committing lower amounts of violent crime than white people and were still getting stop-and-frisked at higher, and not just higher but significantly higher, rates than white people, then this would be a strong case for institutional racism.

 

Equality is a funny thing. As I've said, black people want to be treated like white people, while behaving like black people. Well if you behave like black people, you get treated like black people... This doesn't matter what "behaving like black people" entails nor what "getting treated like black people" entails. People react to sets of behaviour however they react to sets of behaviour. If you want to be treated like white people, then you'd essentially have to behave with more commonalities to a generic white person. Why is it that a person like Van Jones on CNN is treated with such extreme respect when he talks by his fellow cohosts? It's a combination of him wearing a suit, glasses, and being black on a news station who would be very afraid to come across as racist. You constantly see him interrupting others and they stop talking, and never do they interrupt him. It also doesn't help that he is a complete race-baiter... So the topic of racism is always being discussed when he interrupts or is talking and therefore puts a person seeking to get their opinion in a more precarious situation.

 

Why is it that wearing a suit provides someone with an intellectual status not commonly associated with black people (this is unfair, but true that this occurs.)? Well it might have something to do with the FACT that when people like Van Jones wear suits, and work in an intellectual job surrounded by white people, that they are then dismissed by the black community as an "Uncle Tom" or essentially a sellout to the white man, for having done well enough to wear expensive/nice/business-like attire, and for having done well enough to receive a good education. Situations like this are created by the black community when they separate themselves from those who have intellectual success. It's a SELF-IMPOSED criteria that to be intellectual is to not be black. Not imposed by those who are actually smart, but by those who aren't smart enough to understand that this is wrong.

 

As for the tone of Black Lives Matter, that is completely irrelevant, I don't care one bit about their tone. I care about their message, and it's a pathetic one. It's one that shirks all responsibility and refuses to speak of the real problems of black people, their own responsibility in causing their problems, and refuses to ask for help instead of degrade those it views as it's enemies. Their protests are not peaceful nor thoughtful and their motives are impure. There is nothing respectable about Black Lives Matter, except the name.

 

Jesus Christ man, it's people like you who make me really &^@#ing scared for the future. 

[Aircool]

6 minutes ago, dank.sinatra said:

Jesus Christ man, it's people like you who make me really &^@#ing scared for the future. 

 

Why?

[dank.sinatra]

3 minutes ago, Aircool said:

 

Why?

 

Ehhhh I wouldn't worry about it. Judging from your posts I've read it's definitely not worth getting into. 

 

I am curious to know your educational background and potential experience relating to the issues your speaking of, if you don't mind explaining. 

[Aircool]

6 minutes ago, dank.sinatra said:

Ehhhh I wouldn't worry about it. Judging from your posts I've read it's definitely not worth getting into. 

 

I am curious to know your educational background and potential experience relating to the issues your speaking of, if you don't mind explaining. 

 

I do mind explaining. Because, I'm being told by you that I am a scary individual, and you won't provide me with any insight as to why you believe that when I ask a simple question. But when you ask a question, you now expect me to answer?

[clam linguine]

On 11/17/2016 at 2:50 PM, Aircool said:

Why is it that a person like Van Jones on CNN is treated with such extreme respect when he talks by his fellow cohosts? It's a combination of him wearing a suit, glasses, and being black on a news station who would be very afraid to come across as racist. You constantly see him interrupting others and they stop talking, and never do they interrupt him. It also doesn't help that he is a complete race-baiter... So the topic of racism is always being discussed when he interrupts or is talking and therefore puts a person seeking to get their opinion in a more precarious situation.

This hushed awe /fear when Van Jones speaks drives me nuts too. CNN has had a few Breitbart people on lately and they pull no punches. Very refreshing.  Watch this video!  Its great! (Van Jones is a topic too)

CNN may be smelling the coffee.  Their left wing guests are just as wacky as ever, but the eye rolling hosts are trying to strike a slightly more neutral tone now that America has spoken.

 

[dank.sinatra]

48 minutes ago, Aircool said:

 

I do mind explaining. Because, I'm being told by you that I am a scary individual, and you won't provide me with any insight as to why you believe that when I ask a simple question. But when you ask a question, you now expect me to answer?

 

Sorry, I'm just really not into debating with people on the Internet as I find it to be a massive waste of time and energy. 

You're opinions are very different from mine, there's no point in debating because that fact isn't going to change. However, I am very curious about your background and knowledge and what reasoning you use to justify your views. 

 

[Red Light Racicot]

21 hours ago, dank.sinatra said:

 

Sorry, I'm just really not into debating with people on the Internet as I find it to be a massive waste of time and energy. 

You're opinions are very different from mine, there's no point in debating because that fact isn't going to change. However, I am very curious about your background and knowledge and what reasoning you use to justify your views. 

 

But you spoke as if you already knew that anyways based on your initial response, so how does that make sense?

[dank.sinatra]

13 minutes ago, Red Light Racicot said:

But you spoke as if you already knew that anyways based on your initial response, so how does that make sense?

 

Ok sorry my first comment was a pretty general statement. I was more or less just thinking out loud, it wasn't necessary to post. Yet still it's the posters views, and the fact that many share his views, that have me scared for the future, not his life history. 

[dank.sinatra]

On 11/19/2016 at 11:04 AM, Aircool said:

 

I wasn't accusing you of multiple accounts, and I'm not even firm on whether this person is multi-accounting. It's just weird for someone's first post ever to be in a thread that's reasonably old. At least that person did research though, so I'm 99% certain that that person isn't you. If that person even if multi-accounting... Moving on...

 

I wasn't advocating for racial profiling, I was just stating that it's extremely logical. Seeing the merits in something, isn't supporting something. Racial profiling is not racism, although I'm sure you will try hard to convince yourself that it is, it's just not. Now your argument about having constitutionally protected rights against unreasonable search and seizure, I don't know how valid this argument is, but it's a far better argument against something like stop and frisk, which for the record I'm not a supporter of, but I was just explaining the motivations for it's arrival. You make many assumptions about what I support, but I'm making very few claims about what I want society to be like, and instead I'm making mostly claims about what I think society is right now. Huge difference.

 

Racial profiling would be racist if it presumed someone guilty before, conducting a search via stop and frisk for example, it instead chooses to select people with the highest probability of success when conducting the search. Clearly you don't understand what racism is. The notion that people can live without bias, and preconceptions is a foolish one. Of course we all have biases and preconceptions. What makes one more ignorant than the next person is to act on those biases/preconceptions. Racism is not the act of having a bias/preconception/stereotypical belief about a race. It's the act of judging an individual based on those factors. It's the act of ASSUMING that this individual is a certain type of person, with certain characteristics, without knowing anything about them, purely because of their skin colour or nationality. Racism is not having preconceptions, and your perspective on this is EXTREMELY ignorant.

 

Have you ever thought in-depth about what forms those biases and preconceptions? If so, I'd love to hear you explain your conclusion.

[Aircool]

17 minutes ago, dank.sinatra said:

Have you ever thought in-depth about what forms those biases and preconceptions? If so, I'd love to hear you explain your conclusion.

 

A lot of things form biases and preconceptions... I assume that you are going to come back with some "supposedly" witty response of institutional racism in the past is what has created future generations of racists. I think stuff like that is probably to some extent true. How your peers behave, and the act of fitting in, will make you develop certain opinions. Especially if you are around people who aren't tolerant of different viewpoints. But I also thing people build opinions up through what they witness. I mean the stereotypes that Asians are good at Math, and that they study hard. Is this just rhetoric that has been distributed between ignorant communities? Or is this just people noticing that a lot of Asians are good at Math, and people are agreeing on these facts. Regardless, I'll repeat what you quoted... Having biases/preconceptions isn't a crime, judging people solely on your preconceptions is generally a scummy thing to do.

[Mustapha]

On 20/11/2016 at 8:51 PM, Aircool said:

 

 Having biases/preconceptions isn't a crime, judging people solely on your preconceptions is generally a scummy thing to do.

 

Unfortunately, the exact opposite is encouraged in the 'progressive' sphere of influence.

 

Bias is treated like Original Sin, we are born with it and are poor sinners unless we repent and prostrate ourselves before our 'inclusive' overlords.

 

As for judging people on preconceptions, it happens whenever a man is asked to 'check his privilege' or stop 'mansplaining'. 

 

Nietzche was right. Western decadence gave rise to this mind rot.

[OneSeventeen]

On 11/19/2016 at 2:34 AM, Aircool said:

This doesn't give anyone the right to pick any specific black person and say they are a criminal, that's racism (at least if that judgement was made solely on the colour of their skin), but it does allow people to acknowledge they are more likely to be a criminal.

 

Racial profiling is an EXTREMELY logical thing to do. I honestly don't understand why people have an issue with it. If people of a certain race don't want to be profiled, then their race should behave comparably to others in the respect that they are profiled. So if black people committed less violent crime, guess what? Stop and frisk rates for them would go down. If there was less Arabic terrorism, you'd have less brown people being pulled aside in airports for a "random" screening. 

 

IF black people were committing lower amounts of violent crime than white people and were still getting stop-and-frisked at higher, and not just higher but significantly higher, rates than white people, then this would be a strong case for institutional racism.

 

I should have posted something a with more nuance and extrapolated on the data set I provided. So I apologize for that. Let me start of by saying that I don't believe you to be a racist or bigot in anyway. I do however think that your ideas on the relationship between crime and ethnicity are not very data driven. Nor do they consider the problem of crime and policing in a very holistic way.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're arguing that stop and frisk policies are logical because people of colour commit more crimes or are more likely to be criminals compared to people of other ethnicities. I think you're also arguing that people of colour need to acknowledge that a higher percentage of people in their communities are criminals and terrorists, therefore its logical for many of them to be treated as such.  

 

Here's my take with some evidence on some of the claims you've made.

 

One of the problematic factors with stop and frisk policies is that it rarely relates to catching the perpetrators of violent crimes. Just think about it. How exactly does "randomly" stoping an individual on the street and searching them lead to a murder, rape, assault or other violent crime conviction? Unless a perpetrator is stupid enough to cary the weapon or some other piece of evidence that they committed a crime with on their person, unlikely. Now before you think their DNA can be used as evidence I'd like to point out that a court order is needed for police to obtain a someone's DNA and process it. 

 

Stop and frisk is largely meant to target the crime of drug possession. There are many factors to consider on this topic but here are a few. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/03/us/the-race-gap-in-americas-police-departments.html

The above data set shows that communities with a higher proportion of people of colour also have more police officers compared to predominantly white communities. An argument can be made that black individuals are more likely to be arrested and convicted of a crime because there are more police present to investigate and arrest them. You can counter argue that increased policing is necessary in minority communities because minorities tend to use drugs at a higher rate.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8562077/police-racism-implicit-bias

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-aged-white-americans-study-finds.html

This data set supports my first argument and dispels the counterargument I provided. There is only a 1% difference in drug use between whites and blacks, yet black individuals comprise 72% of drug related arrests. An interesting statistic in the video is that black males are sentenced longer than whites by a rate of 20% for the same crime. (As a side note, I think it's also interesting to consider how socio-economic status can lead to different circumstances of drug abuse, see second link. How likely is someone, regardless of ethnicity, to be arrested for a legal drug prescription? Prescription drug abuse is also not illegal unless a person did something illegal to obtain those drugs. Minorities tend to lack the financial luxury of being able to afford health insurance in order to get legal drugs.)  A counter argument can be made here. Drug possession is a crime so it doesn't really matter who get's arrested for it. My argument for that is three fold.

 

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/our-drug-laws-have-always-been-racist-americas-ugly-history-prohibition-tool-oppress

http://Now one of the problematic factors with stop and frisk policies is that it rarely relates to catching the perpetrators of violent crimes. Stop and frisk is largely meant to target the crime of drug possession. 

I think it's interesting that you've acknowledged poverty as a contributing factor in crime but have not acknowledged how the label of criminal can create a cycle of poverty and crime. Now the above link is not the most academic but it comes from a fairly reputable writer and is quite an easy read (I can link you to articles that have been peer edited if you'd like). When a person is sent to jail for a drug related crime their ability to earn money is taken away, their family may likely be spending money to help with their legal fees, jail related fees like phone calls, commissary or traveling to see them etc. When individuals are released it becomes more difficult for them to find a legal job due to their criminal record and may cause them to turn to illegal means in order to make a living. Overall a system that disproportionally arrests individuals for drug related crimes contributes to families and communities having less wealth. That lack of wealth directly translates to how much local governments can raise in tax revenue and cycle back into education, public transportation, body cameras for police, comprehensive training of police and other programs or services that fosters healthy communities.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/rape-in-the-american-prison/385550/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/what-does-solitary-confinement-do-to-your-mind/

Tangentially, the state of prison life in the US doesn't exactly produce the best results for a crime free life after prison. I'm not saying that every prisoner experiences rape or severe mental health problems, but for those that do, very few are likely to get the therapy they need. I have no statistics on whether this kind of trauma factors into recidivism. But I don't think its a reach to say that having a large population (and it is large when you consider that fact that the US incarcerates more people than any other country in the world) of traumatized individuals in communities is a good thing. 

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/04/04/395061810/despite-laws-and-lawsuits-quota-based-policing-lingers

Another problematic factor is that police in many towns and cities in America are required to make a certain number of stops, tickets or arrests. In my opinion, whether a police officer gets to keep their job, when they get a promotion or how much of a raise they get, should not be dependent on whether they hit a certain number of people arrested. Arrests should be made based on evidence regardless of how many arrests can be made. 

 

http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/13/13252266/police-shootings-race

This data shows why it's dangerous for law enforcement officials to have the mentality that people of colour are more likely to be criminals. Blacks and Hispanics are a minority population in the US yet they comprise the majority of the people violently confronted or killed by police while not being violent themselves. Regardless of whether the community a person of colour lives in is poor and crime riddled or well-educated and wealthy, violent police encounters occur when Blacks and Hispanics are involved. Specifically, "a one-point rise in the percentage of black residents increased the expected number of use-of-force incidents by 2.6 percent. [a 1.1% increase for hispanics]." This study controlled for crime so it's not just a matter of blacks and hispanics being more violent. Effectively, there is a statistically proven likelihood for people of colour to have a violent encounter with police while being innocent of any crime.  

 

http://www.demos.org/category/tags/voter-suppression

Just as a side note. Voter suppression does happen in America and here are some articles and studies on the issue. 

[Aircool]

2 hours ago, OneSeventeen said:

 

I should have posted something a with more nuance and extrapolated on the data set I provided. So I apologize for that. Let me start of by saying that I don't believe you to be a racist or bigot in anyway. I do however think that your ideas on the relationship between crime and ethnicity are not very data driven. Nor do they consider the problem of crime and policing in a very holistic way.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're arguing that stop and frisk policies are logical because people of colour commit more crimes or are more likely to be criminals compared to people of other ethnicities. I think you're also arguing that people of colour need to acknowledge that a higher percentage of people in their communities are criminals and terrorists, therefore its logical for many of them to be treated as such.  

 

Here's my take with some evidence on some of the claims you've made.

 

One of the problematic factors with stop and frisk policies is that it rarely relates to catching the perpetrators of violent crimes. Just think about it. How exactly does "randomly" stoping an individual on the street and searching them lead to a murder, rape, assault or other violent crime conviction? Unless a perpetrator is stupid enough to cary the weapon or some other piece of evidence that they committed a crime with on their person, unlikely. Now before you think their DNA can be used as evidence I'd like to point out that a court order is needed for police to obtain a someone's DNA and process it. 

 

Stop and frisk is largely meant to target the crime of drug possession. There are many factors to consider on this topic but here are a few. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/03/us/the-race-gap-in-americas-police-departments.html

The above data set shows that communities with a higher proportion of people of colour also have more police officers compared to predominantly white communities. An argument can be made that black individuals are more likely to be arrested and convicted of a crime because there are more police present to investigate and arrest them. You can counter argue that increased policing is necessary in minority communities because minorities tend to use drugs at a higher rate.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8562077/police-racism-implicit-bias

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-aged-white-americans-study-finds.html

This data set supports my first argument and dispels the counterargument I provided. There is only a 1% difference in drug use between whites and blacks, yet black individuals comprise 72% of drug related arrests. An interesting statistic in the video is that black males are sentenced longer than whites by a rate of 20% for the same crime. (As a side note, I think it's also interesting to consider how socio-economic status can lead to different circumstances of drug abuse, see second link. How likely is someone, regardless of ethnicity, to be arrested for a legal drug prescription? Prescription drug abuse is also not illegal unless a person did something illegal to obtain those drugs. Minorities tend to lack the financial luxury of being able to afford health insurance in order to get legal drugs.)  A counter argument can be made here. Drug possession is a crime so it doesn't really matter who get's arrested for it. My argument for that is three fold.

 

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/our-drug-laws-have-always-been-racist-americas-ugly-history-prohibition-tool-oppress

http://Now one of the problematic factors with stop and frisk policies is that it rarely relates to catching the perpetrators of violent crimes. Stop and frisk is largely meant to target the crime of drug possession. 

I think it's interesting that you've acknowledged poverty as a contributing factor in crime but have not acknowledged how the label of criminal can create a cycle of poverty and crime. Now the above link is not the most academic but it comes from a fairly reputable writer and is quite an easy read (I can link you to articles that have been peer edited if you'd like). When a person is sent to jail for a drug related crime their ability to earn money is taken away, their family may likely be spending money to help with their legal fees, jail related fees like phone calls, commissary or traveling to see them etc. When individuals are released it becomes more difficult for them to find a legal job due to their criminal record and may cause them to turn to illegal means in order to make a living. Overall a system that disproportionally arrests individuals for drug related crimes contributes to families and communities having less wealth. That lack of wealth directly translates to how much local governments can raise in tax revenue and cycle back into education, public transportation, body cameras for police, comprehensive training of police and other programs or services that fosters healthy communities.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/rape-in-the-american-prison/385550/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/what-does-solitary-confinement-do-to-your-mind/

Tangentially, the state of prison life in the US doesn't exactly produce the best results for a crime free life after prison. I'm not saying that every prisoner experiences rape or severe mental health problems, but for those that do, very few are likely to get the therapy they need. I have no statistics on whether this kind of trauma factors into recidivism. But I don't think its a reach to say that having a large population (and it is large when you consider that fact that the US incarcerates more people than any other country in the world) of traumatized individuals in communities is a good thing. 

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/04/04/395061810/despite-laws-and-lawsuits-quota-based-policing-lingers

Another problematic factor is that police in many towns and cities in America are required to make a certain number of stops, tickets or arrests. In my opinion, whether a police officer gets to keep their job, when they get a promotion or how much of a raise they get, should not be dependent on whether they hit a certain number of people arrested. Arrests should be made based on evidence regardless of how many arrests can be made. 

 

http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/13/13252266/police-shootings-race

This data shows why it's dangerous for law enforcement officials to have the mentality that people of colour are more likely to be criminals. Blacks and Hispanics are a minority population in the US yet they comprise the majority of the people violently confronted or killed by police while not being violent themselves. Regardless of whether the community a person of colour lives in is poor and crime riddled or well-educated and wealthy, violent police encounters occur when Blacks and Hispanics are involved. Specifically, "a one-point rise in the percentage of black residents increased the expected number of use-of-force incidents by 2.6 percent. [a 1.1% increase for hispanics]." This study controlled for crime so it's not just a matter of blacks and hispanics being more violent. Effectively, there is a statistically proven likelihood for people of colour to have a violent encounter with police while being innocent of any crime.  

 

http://www.demos.org/category/tags/voter-suppression

Just as a side note. Voter suppression does happen in America and here are some articles and studies on the issue. 

 

To be honest, I've sort of moved on from this topic... But I'll try to read up on some of what you've posted since you've clearly put in a lot of effort.

 

I'd just like to add a few things on my perspective. I don't particularly support Stop-And-Frisk... I agree, I don't really think it's a reliable way to find criminals, and there are clear moral flaws in it. But I do see value in racial profiling, I think anyone that likes to claim that people from different circumstances behave identically is completely dishonest. While I see value in racial profiling, I don't believe you should have the right to do unlawful searches of people based solely on ethnicity. I'm just sick of the leftist logic that's out there where we have to pretend that all people are identical (not equal, but identical...) That's clearly BS.

 

Moving onto some of your points about the likelihood to be arrested or convicted of crime, and increased sentencing. I'll be the first to stand up and say that, while many poor communities (which happen to have a lot of minorities) have issues, minorities aren't getting fair treatment. But I'm pretty sure earlier in this thread I expressed this exact sentiment (you may have missed it, which is okay) that minorities, especially black people, have an image crisis in America. They are correctly associated with behaviours that don't do them any favours in these regards. There are many legitimate reasons for why violent crime rates are higher in black communities. It's got nothing to do with skin colour as a causation, and it's mostly due to poverty, but this is indisputable that the violent crime rates are higher and there is no getting away from that. I'm sick of hearing from groups like "Black Lives Matter" that white people are the reason for everything wrong in a black person's life. There are many more intelligent voices in the black community who understand this isn't true, but they don't shout as loud as these ignorant groups. I can say definitively that black people in America will not receive impartial treatment in the judicial system until their image has been repaired, which will NOT be easy, but will be necessary. It's definitely not fair, but it is true. So it's about time people start growing up and accepting this harsh fact. Instead of whining about the inequities in life, these groups like BLM should be taking efforts to rectify them... Maybe I'm asking for a little too much... I guess the standard of not being ignorant is too high...

 

I think there is a great irony in that I feel I can comfortably say that the most ignorant people in America are the race-baiters who unequivocally support minorities in all their issues without any accurate perspective on the true issues minorities face.

 

I agree, and will admit to have not considered that, convictions hurt a person's ability to earn a living. However, these are EXACTLY the real issues that people should be talking about, and actually trying to take action to correct. Instead of immaturely playing the blame game at the expense of a significant portion of society, and I'm talking both black and white people when I say this, they both suffer at the hands of those too immature to discuss solutions instead of the problems. That all being said, regardless of the circumstances that may well tilt the scales, breaking the law is breaking the law, everyone has the same opportunity in life to not do so. While that is a harsh thing to say, I don't particularly feel empathy for those who commit crime. I'm not hardline against them, but I certainly won't be kept up at night feeling sorry for criminals. No matter how stupid drug-related laws are, I've never broken them, so others are clearly capable of the same...

 

I also agree with your viewpoints on rehabilitation and policing quotas.. These are issues in the system that are creating more problems, not less. As for your information about assuming people of colour are more likely to commit crime, well I'll just have to reject this entirely. Statistics show, you can go look them up, that minorities are more likely to be shot by a minority police officer. One could make some BS argument about how these minority police officers, having been around white police officers, have internalized a self-hatred of those with their own skin colour... Or you could accept that it's NATURAL to have preconceptions about people.. it's NATURAL to make associations where you can. If you have REASON to make an association between skin colour and some action/activity/characteristic/whatever it may be, then your brain will make that association. It's not as voluntary as leftist loonies would have you believe. What needs to happen in society isn't the berating of people who make logical associations in their subconscious, and sometimes in split-second decisions act in a lesser manner because of it. What needs to happen in society is that people need to stop giving VALID REASONS to make these associations. 

 

I'd love to have the discussion of racism in policing, when black people have lower crime rates and lower violent crime rates, and lower drug-related offenses.... Some of this isn't possible if policing is skewed, and even if it wasn't just due to poverty... But the notion that anyone can claim racism in policing definitively while black people commit disproportionate amounts of crime, that's a laughable notion. I think there is a thin line between objectivity and bias when it comes to race, because we're not identical. But I think that if black people acted like white people (in large enough quantities) they'd get treated like white people. I think if Chinese people acted like Indians, they'd get treated like Indians... It's got nothing to do with the skin colour. Unfortunately it's impossible to prove this either way, since this will never happen... But at the very least, if we do have identical crime rates at some point, let's then have a discussion about if racism STILL exists in policing, if the treatment is still different while the behaviour is identical.

[Moonshinefe]

On 11/19/2016 at 9:31 PM, dank.sinatra said:

 

Sorry, I'm just really not into debating with people on the Internet as I find it to be a massive waste of time and energy. 

You're opinions are very different from mine, there's no point in debating because that fact isn't going to change. However, I am very curious about your background and knowledge and what reasoning you use to justify your views. 

 

Not really into debating people on the internet, as he continuously debates people on the internet... well, that made sense. Also, questioning someone's education level like in your previous post over the internet is idiotic. Not agreeing with the alt-right people in this thread to be honest, just, you come off as extremely intolerant and silly. You aren't helping things and we're moving in a bad direction as a society often based on these sorts of pretentious attitudes.

 

Hint: If you have good arguments and reasoning, you can defeat people without asking about their education level and posturing about how you don't feel a need to debate on the internet while engaging in literally that.

[Moonshinefe]

2 hours ago, Aircool said:

 

To be honest, I've sort of moved on from this topic... But I'll try to read up on some of what you've posted since you've clearly put in a lot of effort.

 

I'd just like to add a few things on my perspective. I don't particularly support Stop-And-Frisk... I agree, I don't really think it's a reliable way to find criminals, and there are clear moral flaws in it. But I do see value in racial profiling, I think anyone that likes to claim that people from different circumstances behave identically is completely dishonest. While I see value in racial profiling, I don't believe you should have the right to do unlawful searches of people based solely on ethnicity. I'm just sick of the leftist logic that's out there where we have to pretend that all people are identical (not equal, but identical...) That's clearly BS.

 

Moving onto some of your points about the likelihood to be arrested or convicted of crime, and increased sentencing. I'll be the first to stand up and say that, while many poor communities (which happen to have a lot of minorities) have issues, minorities aren't getting fair treatment. But I'm pretty sure earlier in this thread I expressed this exact sentiment (you may have missed it, which is okay) that minorities, especially black people, have an image crisis in America. They are correctly associated with behaviours that don't do them any favours in these regards. There are many legitimate reasons for why violent crime rates are higher in black communities. It's got nothing to do with skin colour as a causation, and it's mostly due to poverty, but this is indisputable that the violent crime rates are higher and there is no getting away from that. I'm sick of hearing from groups like "Black Lives Matter" that white people are the reason for everything wrong in a black person's life. There are many more intelligent voices in the black community who understand this isn't true, but they don't shout as loud as these ignorant groups. I can say definitively that black people in America will not receive impartial treatment in the judicial system until their image has been repaired, which will NOT be easy, but will be necessary. It's definitely not fair, but it is true. So it's about time people start growing up and accepting this harsh fact. Instead of whining about the inequities in life, these groups like BLM should be taking efforts to rectify them... Maybe I'm asking for a little too much... I guess the standard of not being ignorant is too high...

 

I think there is a great irony in that I feel I can comfortably say that the most ignorant people in America are the race-baiters who unequivocally support minorities in all their issues without any accurate perspective on the true issues minorities face.

 

I agree, and will admit to have not considered that, convictions hurt a person's ability to earn a living. However, these are EXACTLY the real issues that people should be talking about, and actually trying to take action to correct. Instead of immaturely playing the blame game at the expense of a significant portion of society, and I'm talking both black and white people when I say this, they both suffer at the hands of those too immature to discuss solutions instead of the problems. That all being said, regardless of the circumstances that may well tilt the scales, breaking the law is breaking the law, everyone has the same opportunity in life to not do so. While that is a harsh thing to say, I don't particularly feel empathy for those who commit crime. I'm not hardline against them, but I certainly won't be kept up at night feeling sorry for criminals. No matter how stupid drug-related laws are, I've never broken them, so others are clearly capable of the same...

 

I also agree with your viewpoints on rehabilitation and policing quotas.. These are issues in the system that are creating more problems, not less. As for your information about assuming people of colour are more likely to commit crime, well I'll just have to reject this entirely. Statistics show, you can go look them up, that minorities are more likely to be shot by a minority police officer. One could make some BS argument about how these minority police officers, having been around white police officers, have internalized a self-hatred of those with their own skin colour... Or you could accept that it's NATURAL to have preconceptions about people.. it's NATURAL to make associations where you can. If you have REASON to make an association between skin colour and some action/activity/characteristic/whatever it may be, then your brain will make that association. It's not as voluntary as leftist loonies would have you believe. What needs to happen in society isn't the berating of people who make logical associations in their subconscious, and sometimes in split-second decisions act in a lesser manner because of it. What needs to happen in society is that people need to stop giving VALID REASONS to make these associations. 

 

I'd love to have the discussion of racism in policing, when black people have lower crime rates and lower violent crime rates, and lower drug-related offenses.... Some of this isn't possible if policing is skewed, and even if it wasn't just due to poverty... But the notion that anyone can claim racism in policing definitively while black people commit disproportionate amounts of crime, that's a laughable notion. I think there is a thin line between objectivity and bias when it comes to race, because we're not identical. But I think that if black people acted like white people (in large enough quantities) they'd get treated like white people. I think if Chinese people acted like Indians, they'd get treated like Indians... It's got nothing to do with the skin colour. Unfortunately it's impossible to prove this either way, since this will never happen... But at the very least, if we do have identical crime rates at some point, let's then have a discussion about if racism STILL exists in policing, if the treatment is still different while the behaviour is identical.

It's almost like skin colour and race isn't the main thing here, it's almost like... there are sociological issues at play. There have been prosperous black and native societies in the past if you'd bother to read history--it must have just been an anomaly right? *mind gets blown*