ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"
faerwin wrote:
the evidence is in how disparate the data is from state to state. You can expect a few points of difference here and there but not go to nearly 0 for many MANY states.

Go read it again.


Same goes for Canada though, which means it's not a good argument. Do you have some actual evidence?

GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
"
Xavderion wrote:
"
rojimboo wrote:


You might wanna stop throwing accusations around, since you can't even count.


hahahahaha

"
rojimboo wrote:
But yeah sure, Canada has 9 times more hate crimes than the US


That's nonsense which you made up. Stop fighting yourself.

"
rojimboo wrote:
a far more violent place to begin with


How is that an indicator for racism? Also the vast majority of violence in the US is black on black or white on white.

"
rojimboo wrote:
and is thus clearly more racist than a place with rampant white nationalism.



Still zero evidence of that. That one event that happened two years ago is not evidence of rampant white nationalism lmao.


I've decided upon certain criteria that I will use to decide whether I will converse with someone.

Ability to perform simple arithmetic maths on a calculator is my new requirement.

You fail Xav, yet are still convinced you are right.

Not much more to say.

Ta ta.
Not that it's really my business, but…

The 2017 FBI hate crimes statistics report enough agencies participating according to standard to account for roughly 304 million of the United States' 326 million 2017 population. The non-participating agencies do seem to fall in traditionally pro-white racist (but only rumored to be currently pro-white racist) states, such as Alabama with about 60% participation.

There's two tensions here:
1. The data is incomplete and doesn't give insight into hate crimes in some mostly rural, non-participating areas — let's call these The Outlands — and
2. The data is complete enough to cover 93% of the United States by population, so we should be able to say something about the United States based on it.

My compromise would be to divide the US into two indistinct regions — The Outlands, and "Non-Outlands America." We have no data on hate crimes in the Outlands, so we can only speculate. However, we have all law enforcement agencies from Non-Outlands America reporting, and assuming we use the slightly lower population (304 million, not 326 million) in our per capita math, I think it's fair to make conclusions about the vast majority of the US experience with hate crimes.

Canada had a hate crime rate of 56.732 per million people in 2017.
The Non-Outlands US had a hate crime rate of 51.355 per million people in 2017. This doesn't use the number in Xav's chart because it is misleading: the Canadian chart measures hate crimes while Xav's number was for FBI reported hate crime incidents, each of which can consist of multiple hate crimes.

The overall 2017 hate crime rate for the US in 2017 is unknown. However, it's likely that it is still less than Canada. The US Outlands would require a hate crime rate of over 132 per million people to make the nation's tied — more than double the Canadian rate. While possible, this isn't reasonable to believe without evidence.

Lastly, it's worth noting that the hate crime laws in Canada include certain speech laws that aren't prosecuted in the US due to protection under the First Amendment. This means certain categories of Canadian hate crime simply aren't hatr crime in the US. It's unclear what percentage of hate crimes Canada are actually thoughtcrimes.

TL;DR: Hate crime rates in Canada and in the US are pretty close to even, but Canada jails more people for saying naughty words.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Apr 27, 2019, 6:31:04 PM
"
rojimboo wrote:


I've decided upon certain criteria that I will use to decide whether I will converse with someone.

Ability to perform simple arithmetic maths on a calculator is my new requirement.

You fail Xav, yet are still convinced you are right.

Not much more to say.

Ta ta.


I literally showed you a screenshot of Google calculating the numbers. You can't do the same. So, again, stop embarassing yourself.
GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
NZ: TRUMPS AMERICA IS AUTHORITARIAN AND FASCIST

NZ:
Multi-Demi Winner
Very Good Kisser
Alt-Art Alpha’s Howl Winner
Former Dominus Multiboxer
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
"
Turtledove wrote:

Regarding the assertion that "most Americans of being aware and tolerant of racism against white people", sorry that is false. During my career as a manager for a large software engineering firm, I saw plenty examples of discrimination against non-whites and women. This was a company that had very strict rules against such discrimination and the company took those rules very seriously. Yet real discrimination still existed there. I never saw any discrimination against white males there. Just to be clear, I'm a white male and this idea of widespread racism and sexism against white males is silly.
Turtledove, I don't know exactly how old you are, but I know it's roughly retirement age. What I'm talking about is a relatively new development — more than 20 years ago it existed almost solely in the minds of activist professors, and it didn't really pick up steam until about 2010 or so. But by now, thanks to media hysteria beginning in 2016, it's completely status quo.

I cited evidence. Here it is again:
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
Every one of these ten recent articles, from media outlets big and small, is either reporting on bigotry against white males in a tolerant manner, or is bigotry against white males. You can detect this easily by applying a simple anti-bias filter: replace all instances of "white" with "person of color," "male" with "female," etc, and vice versa.

I don't believe for a second you would read a NYT headline that read "Should a black woman be the face of the Republican Party in 2024?" with interviews where people expressed their hesitation regarding such an outcome, and not think to yourself that the article was covering racist and sexist attitudes.

Get with the times, Grandpa. You're living in the past.

I totally agree that we've had the opposite problem, and worse, in the past. In a way we still do: as the Unite the Right rallies unfortunately showed, the rise of anti-white racism does not mean the death of pro-white racism. Each have their own centers of influence. But overall, we pushed the pendulum past the equilibrium point. I don't even regret that — we should have moved the pendulum from where it was and in the direction we did, and I'm not perfectionist about progress. But since then we have been willfully ignorant or tolerant of the new problem, and that is not okay.


I consider your "evidence" irrelevant. I read all nine articles (one was a bad link, the slate one IIRC). Just because someone is talking about sex or race does not mean there is any discrimination going on. I like the fact that women and minorities more likely embrace the Democratic party. All things being equal in the last election I had tendency to vote for the minority or the female on the ballot. The Democratic party will have great success against the Republicans, as long as the Republicans are the party for old white men (like me, 67 BTW) and the Democrats are the party for the young, for women and for minorities.

This reverse racism and sexist thing that you folks have going on will likely really help the Democrats. So please keep it up!! I'll guess that you'll accuse me of being racist and sexist against old white men. I'm already chuckling to myself in anticipation. :-)
Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support (thread # 1702621) Thank you all! GGG will implement a different method for ascension in PoE2. Retired!
;p; still braying at racism? I know illegals that make 200k a year like guy who recenly painted my truck (sweet rino liner whole truck), IMO this racism white ppls wanting free shit like college or whatever withwout work and want to parlay with minorities so they dont look so bad being deabeats.
Git R Dun!
Last edited by Aim_Deep#3474 on Apr 27, 2019, 9:14:38 PM
Must be embarrassing for the New York Times to admit they published a cartoon made by the same white supremacists they spend so much time crusading against. I wouldn't dream of posting it here.
to those who have seen it
"B-but it was anti-Trump!"

Yes, it was. Unfortunately, now you know, in graphic detail, why the white supremacists are anti-Trump now.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Apr 27, 2019, 9:24:13 PM
"
Turtledove wrote:
All things being equal in the last election I had tendency to vote for the minority or the female on the ballot.
So racist and sexist motivations aren't your primary considerations, they're low-priority tiebreakers for you. Well, at least that isn't very racist nor very sexist. My appreciation for your candor outweighs my disappointment.
"
Turtledove wrote:
The Democratic party will have great success against the Republicans, as long as the Republicans are the party for old white men (like me, 67 BTW) and the Democrats are the party for the young, for women and for minorities.
No party should be any more nor less for ethnic minorities than for white people. That makes political parties racist. "In this election, blacks and women won, and old white guys lost." Or vice versa. Neither is okay.

Additionally, the least racist party — technically, the one perceived as least racist, but ideally perception matches reality — has an advantage in a two-party system. Let's say one party is (perceived as) racist against black people and the other party isn't (perceived as) significantly racist against anyone (just some minor accidental stuff, because no one is perfect). If there's any blacks who are racist against non-black people, it's not rocket science who they're going to vote for, even if the second party doesn't cater to them even a tiny bit. (If you truly understand this you'll understand why the left is putting out anti-Semitic dog whistles, then backpedaling when they get too much heat for it.)
"
Turtledove wrote:
This reverse racism and sexist thing that you folks have going on will likely really help the Democrats.
I acknowledge that risk, and probably understand it a lot better than you do.

I know that the fringe right engages in pro-white racism and uses an anti-Semitic persecution narrative to justify that racism. By pointing to institutional racism and sexism against white males, I understand that I'm partially agreeing with them on the problem (although definitely not the anti-Semitic half). I don't like publicly agreeing with them on anything, because I don't like confirming their narrative, even partially.

My most important point of disagreement with them is on the solution. They believe the answer to racism against whites is racism against non-whites. I don't think racism and reverse racism work that way, like matter and antimatter where one cleanly cancels out the other. (Even in physics that's a myth; the energy created is enormous and disastrous.) Instead you get racism against X here, and racism against Y there. It's like saying the solution to seeing guys in a different uniform is to shoot them; it might be an okay method for war, but it's a shitty method for peace.

And I like peace. A lot.

All of this is why I'm trying my level best to not exaggerate the situation. That's why I say that I don't think there's a lot of zealous anti-white racists, but instead a small minority of the left. It is institutional, though; this is because a great many don't agree but tolerate them, and a great many more — like you — partially agree but put it further down your priority list. Nor is any of this anti-white racism particularly severe at the moment. My main worry is that it has the ear of the corporatist media and, so far, is broadly tolerated. I'd rather fight it while it's small, but as it is now no one wants to fight it — indeed, they want to defend it, because they've bought into the persecution narrative. And it's not difficult to fall for — it's more misleading truths than straight-up lies (although it does have plenty of the latter).

But I digress. My point is that I worry, and worry hard, that talking about things this way will encourage pro-white racism more than it encourages anti-racism. I don't want white people or men to think of themselves as victims in a system rigged against them. That's loser mentality, even if the system IS rigged against you. Don't be a victim, be a winner, goddamn it! Racism is for cowards; it's the defeatism of those who believe they can only win if they cheat as they believe their enemies cheat.

But I fear someone will read my words and decide to cheat anyway. It only takes a handful of cowards to lose a fight, as you predict. Hopefully more will choose a better path.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Apr 27, 2019, 11:29:34 PM
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
"
Turtledove wrote:
All things being equal in the last election I had tendency to vote for the minority or the female on the ballot.
So racist and sexist motivations aren't your primary considerations, they're low-priority tiebreakers for you. Well, at least that isn't very racist nor very sexist. My appreciation for your candor outweighs my disappointment.
"
Turtledove wrote:
The Democratic party will have great success against the Republicans, as long as the Republicans are the party for old white men (like me, 67 BTW) and the Democrats are the party for the young, for women and for minorities.
No party should be any more nor less for ethnic minorities than for white people. That makes political parties racist. "In this election, blacks and women won, and old white guys lost." Or vice versa. Neither is okay.

Additionally, the least racist party — technically, the one perceived as least racist, but ideally perception matches reality — has an advantage in a two-party system. Let's say one party is (perceived as) racist against black people and the other party isn't (perceived as) significantly racist against anyone (just some minor accidental stuff, because no one is perfect). If there's any blacks who are racist against non-black people, it's not rocket science who they're going to vote for, even if the second party doesn't cater to them even a tiny bit. (If you truly understand this you'll understand why the left is putting out anti-Semitic dog whistles, then backpedaling when they get too much heat for it.)
"
Turtledove wrote:
This reverse racism and sexist thing that you folks have going on will likely really help the Democrats.
I acknowledge that risk, and probably understand it a lot better than you do.

I know that the fringe right engages in pro-white racism and uses an anti-Semitic persecution narrative to justify that racism. By pointing to institutional racism and sexism against white males, I understand that I'm partially agreeing with them on the problem (although definitely not the anti-Semitic half). I don't like publicly agreeing with them on anything, because I don't like confirming their narrative, even partially.

My most important point of disagreement with them is on the solution. They believe the answer to racism against whites is racism against non-whites. I don't think racism and reverse racism work that way, like matter and antimatter where one cleanly cancels out the other. (Even in physics that's a myth; the energy created is enormous and disastrous.) Instead you get racism against X here, and racism against Y there. It's like saying the solution to seeing guys in a different uniform is to shoot them; it might be an okay method for war, but it's a shitty method for peace.

And I like peace. A lot.

All of this is why I'm trying my level best to not exaggerate the situation. That's why I say that I don't think there's a lot of zealous anti-white racists, but instead a small minority of the left. It is institutional, though; this is because a great many don't agree but tolerate them, and a great many more — like you — partially agree but put it further down your priority list. Nor is any of this anti-white racism particularly severe at the moment. My main worry is that it has the ear of the corporatist media and, so far, is broadly tolerated. I'd rather fight it while it's small, but as it is now no one wants to fight it — indeed, they want to defend it, because they've bought into the persecution narrative. And it's not difficult to fall for — it's more misleading truths than straight-up lies (although it does have plenty of the latter).

But I digress. My point is that I worry, and worry hard, that talking about things this way will encourage pro-white racism more than it encourages anti-racism. I don't want white people or men to think of themselves as victims in a system rigged against them. That's loser mentality, even if the system IS rigged against you. Don't be a victim, be a winner, goddamn it! Racism is for cowards; it's the defeatism of those who believe they can only win if they cheat as they believe their enemies cheat.

But I fear someone will read my words and decide to cheat anyway. It only takes a handful of cowards to lose a fight, as you predict. Hopefully more will choose a better path.


Nice post.

I seem to have the same long range hopes. In the meantime, here's the current tally.

U.S. Senate
25 women total 17 Democrat women and only 8 Republican women, 25% of 100 seats are women

U.S. House
102 women total 89 Democrat and a pitifully low only 13 Republican women, 23.4% of 435 seats are women

https://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/current-numbers

Racial diversity

The contrast is even greater for racial diversity. Democrats have nearly six times more minority members than the Republicans.


African-American 48 Democrats and 3 Republicans

Hispanic/Latino 30 Democrats and 13 Republicans

Asian/Indian/Pacific Islander 16 Democrats and 0 Republicans

Total 94 Democrats and 16 Republicans are minorities

Diversity in Congress: Democrats have women and minorities, Republicans have white men over 55?

So right now, Republicans in congress are the party of over 55 white male and Democrats are the party of the young, women, and minorities. (The young and old thing I just threw that in as a bonus bit of a troll.)

Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support (thread # 1702621) Thank you all! GGG will implement a different method for ascension in PoE2. Retired!

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info