US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[Drew]

The US spends so much on defense internationally for its own benefit, the idea that we're some protector of the free world is a false narrative used to bolster exceptionalism and nationalism. We want our forces closer to our enemies, and available for the next misguided forray into interventionism.

Yeah, the number of people who don't get this, that our role as the world's largest superpower conveys a TON of soft power and is responsible for things like the US Dollar being the currency of global business (meaning, amongst other things, that the US Treasury bill is the safe haven asset of the world and we can issue as many Treasuries as we want because demand is baked in), and the US operating from a position of negotiation strength pretty much everywhere, or organizations like NATO and the UN being essentially instruments of US soft power themselves, rather than some sort of "globalist check" on American power...

Like, we're not funding as much global defense as we do because we feel bad for people. We do it because we want other nations to be dependent on us, and to defer to our interests over theirs.

 

[Drew]

This isn't the 1500s. You can't just make claims and expect people to believe you without showing your sources. You are repeatedly making biased claims with no sources. I honestly don't know much about the stats here, but I find your claims to be incredulous and your agenda to be pushing racism. I'm willing to accept I'm wrong if you have actual studies and stats from reputable places. But until then, please stop trolling with unjustified claims. It isn't our job to disprove you. It is your job to prove yourself.

Let's also mention, in passing, his use of "ratio" while distussing "total numbers." Ratio implies a denominator. He's dead wrong about "per contact" violence anyway, but he's either intentionally misleading here, or not very good with stats and language. Take your pick.

 

[Cynicanal]

This isn't the 1500s. You can't just make claims and expect people to believe you without showing your sources. You are repeatedly making biased claims with no sources. I honestly don't know much about the stats here, but I find your claims to be incredulous and your agenda to be pushing racism. I'm willing to accept I'm wrong if you have actual studies and stats from reputable places. But until then, please stop trolling with unjustified claims. It isn't our job to disprove you. It is your job to prove yourself.

I'm far from the first person to point out the deaths-per-contact rate is skewed heavily towards whites. Even leftist pro-BLM articles mention it: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/11/opinion/statistical-paradox-police-killings/ It's such a well-known fact, I'm surprised there's any debate over it.

Let's also mention, in passing, his use of "ratio" while distussing "total numbers." Ratio implies a denominator. He's dead wrong about "per contact" violence anyway, but he's either intentionally misleading here, or not very good with stats and language. Take your pick.

What's misleading about using the stat that shows who is more likely to be shot if a white guy and a black guy are both arrested? I mean, aside from the fact that it doesn't come to the ideologically-mandated conclusion.

 

[sleewell]

cynicanal did you recently lose your job writing for tucker carlson?

 

[Cynicanal]

No. Just remember, though, he's the most watched news-anchor in the U.S. My ideas are downright commie compared to mainstream America, where the most popular news anchor reads the 14 words and promotes "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". This site has wondered recently why more conservatives don't post in the political section -- well, I guess now you know. It's because anything even slightly right-of-center instantly gets shouted down as "OMG, RACITS!" and gets reported to the mods. You choose to live in an echo chamber and then question why -- it's really rather ridiculous.

 

[fantom]

I'm far from the first person to point out the deaths-per-contact rate is skewed heavily towards whites. Even leftist pro-BLM articles mention it: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/11/opinion/statistical-paradox-police-killings/ It's such a well-known fact, I'm surprised there's any debate over it.

So your source to justify your position is a mathematician that literally said you are wrong?

"These statistics are consistent with excessive use of deadly force against Black people"
​

What's misleading about using the stat that shows who is more likely to be shot if a white guy and a black guy are both arrested? I mean, aside from the fact that it doesn't come to the ideologically-mandated conclusion.

The link @Drew posted to a fivethirtyeight article is consistent with the link you shared. You either failed to read the articles or you don't understand statistics.

I think I'm going back to ignoring you.

 

[fantom]

"This site has wondered recently why more conservatives don't post in the political section -- well, I guess now you know. It's because anything even slightly right-of-center instantly gets shouted down as "OMG, RACITS!" and gets reported to the mods. You choose to live in an echo chamber and then question why -- it's really rather ridiculous.

I'm a moderate conservative and have not experienced anything you describe on this site happening to me.

 

[TedEH]

It's because anything even slightly right-of-center instantly gets shouted down as "OMG, RACITS!"

I don't think that this is the case. I'm not the most left-leaning person, but whenever I get shouted down it's either because I've gotten too argumentative and went off track, or because I've challenged something that was held strongly - but it's never been because of the political leaning. People don't like being challenged or told they don't understand, or continuing a conversation when they feel they've reached everything they're going to get out of it. It's entirely your choice whether you think it's worth continuing to challenge, or if you might reconsider that you might actually be wrong, etc.

I, like you, have an arguably bad habit of remaining engaged past the point of your message being received, and it rubs some people the wrong way, especially when that message doesn't align with what would otherwise be some consensus in the conversion.

I mean, you're coming to a place where you know you're in the minority, it shouldn't be a surprise that you'd get push back from challenging that.

 

[StevenC]

I'm far from the first person to point out the deaths-per-contact rate is skewed heavily towards whites. Even leftist pro-BLM articles mention it: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/11/opinion/statistical-paradox-police-killings/ It's such a well-known fact, I'm surprised there's any debate over it.

This says the opposite of what you think it says. It says it's a fallacy in the first paragraph.

It says, very clearly to anyone who can pass elementary reading comprehension, that black people are stopped by police way more frequently than white people. This is what people mean when they talk about systemic racism. Black people get stopped by traffic police way more often and they get the police called for "suspicious activity" way more often. This leads to more black people being arrested and shot per capita than white people.

If anything arguing "deaths per contact" is higher for white people means that white people more frequently interact with police for justified reasons.

No. Just remember, though, he's the most watched news-anchor in the U.S. My ideas are downright commie compared to mainstream America, where the most popular news anchor reads the 14 words and promotes "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". This site has wondered recently why more conservatives don't post in the political section -- well, I guess now you know. It's because anything even slightly right-of-center instantly gets shouted down as "OMG, RACITS!" and gets reported to the mods. You choose to live in an echo chamber and then question why -- it's really rather ridiculous.

The most left leaning person I know yells at me constantly for being a centre right monster. The conservatives that don't last in here are the trolls. See Rig Talk for an example of what you think is happening.

 

[USMarine75]

It's because anything even slightly right-of-center instantly gets shouted down as "OMG, RACITS!" and gets reported to the mods.

 

[USMarine75]

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5f0c37a0c5b6480493d2a13a



Woolery > Fauci

 

[spudmunkey]

Well...when Fauci goes away, we never really know when he'll be back. At least with Chuck, we know it'll be "two and two".

 

[Drew]

I'm far from the first person to point out the deaths-per-contact rate is skewed heavily towards whites. Even leftist pro-BLM articles mention it: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/11/opinion/statistical-paradox-police-killings/ It's such a well-known fact, I'm surprised there's any debate over it.


What's misleading about using the stat that shows who is more likely to be shot if a white guy and a black guy are both arrested? I mean, aside from the fact that it doesn't come to the ideologically-mandated conclusion.

I'm sorry, did you actually read the link you included there?

I'm struggling to find a polite way to respond to you here - finding someone who takes the time to refute your argument, doesn't somehow give intellectual heft to your argument or suggest it was right in the first place.

Or, maybe the better thing to point out is this - if the best way you can defend the claims you're making here is to share articles disproving your claims on the grounds that "enough other people incorrectly believe what I do that someone bothered to prove us wrong," then you're basically telling us you're making arguments here you know to be absolute bullshit, which really leaves your credibility in tatters.

 

[Yul Brynner]

 

[USMarine75]

@Cynicanal

Please fill in the blanks...

_____ won't replace us.

_____ took our jobs.

_____ is the size of the trenchcoat I wore in school.

It's because anything even slightly right-of-center instantly gets shouted down as "OMG, RACITS!" and gets reported to the mods. You choose to live in an echo chamber and then question why -- it's really rather ridiculous.

He thinks he's "slightly right-of-center"?

 

[Yul Brynner]

 

[Adieu]

This site has wondered recently why more conservatives don't post in the political section -- well, I guess now you know. It's because anything even slightly right-of-center instantly gets shouted down as "OMG, RACITS!" and gets reported to the mods. You choose to live in an echo chamber and then question why -- it's really rather ridiculous.

I'm a moderate conservative and have not experienced anything you describe on this site happening to me.

I am/was mostly conservative until the Trump debacle and the conservative moral bankruptcy that followed.

At the moment, the only conservative I feel any amount of trust and confidence in is Romney...although I also trust him far more than any major Democrat.


PS ...I also admit that I personally consider myself somewhat subconsciously racist. Enough to bother me when I catch myself thinking it, but at the same time so far below the threshold of what passes for racist in America that that is also troubling in its own right.

 

[sleewell]

im anti dumb people and enjoy debate with informed people from all points on the political spectrum. it seems like what were up against is someone who cant defend their position without saying its everyone else that's the problem rather than their own inability to form cohesive sentences.

 

[Cynicanal]

I'm sorry, did you actually read the link you included there?

I'm struggling to find a polite way to respond to you here - finding someone who takes the time to refute your argument, doesn't somehow give intellectual heft to your argument or suggest it was right in the first place.

Or, maybe the better thing to point out is this - if the best way you can defend the claims you're making here is to share articles disproving your claims on the grounds that "enough other people incorrectly believe what I do that someone bothered to prove us wrong," then you're basically telling us you're making arguments here you know to be absolute bullshit, which really leaves your credibility in tatters.

Yes I did, and I'm wondering if you did. The article outright admitted that the stats showed that, per contact/arrest, whites get shot more than blacks (that is, the thing I claimed); the article I linked used that as a launching point to make a different claim. Using a point that contradicts your own in order to introduce your point and debate it further is a common rhetorical technique, and is widely taught in high school, so I'm surprised you're unable to recognize it when you see it. But, hey, if you want it from a source that argues that we don't have too much police violence against blacks, there's this paper from a black Harvard professor: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_analysis_tables_figures.pdf

Please fill in the blanks...

_____ won't replace us.

_____ took our jobs.

_____ is the size of the trenchcoat I wore in school.

1. You
2. Boomers
3. Didn't wear one. But the fact that you think this is relevant demonstrates that you're simply a bully looking to extend high school forever, probably because that's when you peaked.

He thinks he's "slightly right-of-center"?

I guess if you consider anything slightly to Stalin's left to be "far right", then no. But compared to the mainstream right in this country, I'm actually fairly far to the left.

 

[TedEH]

Oof. You took the bait.