US continues to go backward...

[cowboyinexile]

Marjorie Taylor Greene Calls For United States to Be Split Up, Declares Country ‘No Longer Safe’ For Anyone​

link

MSN

Quite the statesman there. Someone should ask her if she still cares about the Epstein files or if this was enough of a distraction to get people to forget about it.

 

[KK10]

At this point I almost think Ol' Marge just jumps to the next topic to keep her name in the news. Just when you think you have her figured out...

 

[steross]

Holy sh*t, yea... you got me. My entire ploy was to include 'white women' in the stats.

I don't care. No. I don't. Not in the context of this discussion. We are talking about mass shooters. So yea, you want to open up a conversation thread about violent crime, non-violent crime, etc., and about the idea of systemic racism inside the Justice System? That's where we are going now? If so, start a new topic.

I was TALKING ABOUT MASS SHOOTINGS.

Let me say it again...

I WAS TALKING ABOUT MASS SHOOTINGS.

If you want to add data derogatory data about a race that was not the subject then say you don’t care and SCREAM about other exculpatory data because of a subtle difference in the type of data, that is fine. As I said, it lets me know the type of person I am dealing with.

 

[steross]

I would say yes.



And on this one, it's a great video and I think everyone needs to watch it. I agree with 95% of it. But I'm also torn on a few things. Mostly the proverbial "they." He tries to get specific with his "covert elite" label. I just don't know if it's a small group trying to control the populace. I lean toward it's a small group who doesn't give a crap about the populace and will make money in any way they can. Hate, division, and anger have been commoditized. And they sell. People crave them. It's big tobacco all over again. They have a product that's addictive and dangerous to society but they'll lie, lobby, and cheat all they can to stay in business. I think it may be that simple. There's no big plan.

That doesn't mean that politicians and large corporations don't use division to their advantage. Sure they do.

And then there's the Elon Musks and Peter Thiels of the world. They actually seem to believe in something and that's honestly scarier. Anyway...I don't know s*** about f***.

I fully agree.

I also think that much of the intended audience would yawn at “they are powerful people who use you to make money” but get off on “it is a cabal that wants to control you” even though the outcome doesn’t change much at all.

 

[steross]

Not here for the banter or arguing, but the first part of his argument is missing a key data point. Hispanics are missing from the first pie chart. On that same website, under the "ethnicity" tab, it's separated by (Hispanics) and (Non-Hispanics). Hispanics are 29.8% or 46,040. There's no conclusive evidence which group of "race" the Hispanic population got grouped into, but it seems as if they almost dumped them into the "white" pie chart for whatever reason.

Only reason I'm bringing this up is the gentlemen making the claim to debunk Kirk didn't thoroughly research it and missed a huge data point. Doesn't make his or Kirk's claim correct, but it goes to show the narrative pushed by folks on either side of the aisle when trying to push a topic of debate. So, Grindz too, is trying to create divide by cherry picking data points and creating a talking point, when the fact is - neither of them were correct.

I don't often post in these subjects but I do read a lot of banter between everyone for shitter entertainment, so carry on

BOP Statistics: Inmate Ethnicity

www.bop.gov

I’m a white guy. I’m often on some form asked:
-white, non-hispanic
-white, hispanic

Never:
-white, African-Amercan
-white, non-African-American

I don’t disagree with you but it does show how arbitrary and trival these “ethnicity” differences should be. Of course, reality is they can have major consequences for people’s lives.

 

[Ryno]

If you want to add data derogatory data about a race that was not the subject then say you don’t care and SCREAM about other exculpatory data because of a subtle difference in the type of data, that is fine. As I said, it lets me know the type of person I am dealing with.

Let's start this over. The question was 'mass shootings'. HacklemanPoke mentioned it, the PF5 said that most mass shootings were carried out by "straight white males". I asked what was his definition of a 'mass shooting'. That's all I asked (asked it 4 times actually). YOU then chime in with your 2 cents by saying to my question "Trying to argue whether 2,3,4, or 57 people are required to meet the definition so you can minimize the stats is a pretty pathetic."

Then again, I stated "The claim of 'most mass shooters are white men' needs to be backed up with proof." I wasn't attacking anyone or saying anything derogatory. At all. GratefulPoke was actually the first and only one to post numbers... which showed 155 total mass shootings since 1982. I ADMITTELY made a mistake by not excluding white women when I did my percentages. I explained why I brought up the question in the first place. You continue to chime in with this 'I had some agenda' thing.

The ENTIRE point of my question (again) was to point out how liberal media, liberal politicians, etc. inflate 'mass shooting' numbers and then act like it's all white men. If you use REAL incidents of mass shootings, they are over 50% white the past 40+ years. If you use the liberal media/politicians definition of mass shootings... they aren't mostly white. It's picking and choosing to fit an anti-gun narrative.

 

[PF5]

 

[steross]

Let's start this over. The question was 'mass shootings'. HacklemanPoke mentioned it, the PF5 said that most mass shootings were carried out by "straight white males". I asked what was his definition of a 'mass shooting'. That's all I asked (asked it 4 times actually). YOU then chime in with your 2 cents by saying to my question "Trying to argue whether 2,3,4, or 57 people are required to meet the definition so you can minimize the stats is a pretty pathetic."

Then again, I stated "The claim of 'most mass shooters are white men' needs to be backed up with proof." I wasn't attacking anyone or saying anything derogatory. At all. GratefulPoke was actually the first and only one to post numbers... which showed 155 total mass shootings since 1982. I ADMITTELY made a mistake by not excluding white women when I did my percentages. I explained why I brought up the question in the first place. You continue to chime in with this 'I had some agenda' thing.

The ENTIRE point of my question (again) was to point out how liberal media, liberal politicians, etc. inflate 'mass shooting' numbers and then act like it's all white men. If you use REAL incidents of mass shootings, they are over 50% white the past 40+ years. If you use the liberal media/politicians definition of mass shootings... they aren't mostly white. It's picking and choosing to fit an anti-gun narrative.

You wrote three paragraphs and left out/ignored the ONLY thing you wrote that has anything to do with black men?

Yes, and 5.7% of the population commit 17% of all mass shootings.

That's not 'starting over.' That is a whitewash.

Multiple posts and the 3 paragraphs above sure are a ton of words to write just to avoid writing a single simple sentence like, "Hmmm, when I posted the black man mass murder rates, I didn't realize our justice system could be so biased against them."

As I said, thank you for letting me know, and now emphatically and repeatedly confirming, the kind of person I am dealing with.