Political Thread Of Fail And AIDS (Geeto ahead!)

[Orion]

Interesting read. I found this excerpt especially interesting:

 

"There is evidence that racial profiling was common practice in the New Jersey State Police in the 1990's: internal police memos; testimony by troopers; and training materials that encouraged officers to stop and search minority drivers. Most striking are police records that show that black and Hispanic motorists, who make up 30 percent of the drivers on the turnpike, were subjected to more than 80 percent of the searches."

 

Given, that was the 90's and scrutiny is MUCH higher now. Looks like that article was written in 2002. Wonder if/how things have changed since then.

[TTQ B4U]

Interesting read. I found this excerpt especially interesting:

 

"There is evidence that racial profiling was common practice in the New Jersey State Police in the 1990's: internal police memos; testimony by troopers; and training materials that encouraged officers to stop and search minority drivers. Most striking are police records that show that black and Hispanic motorists, who make up 30 percent of the drivers on the turnpike, were subjected to more than 80 percent of the searches."

 

Given, that was the 90's and scrutiny is MUCH higher now. Looks like that article was written in 2002. Wonder if/how things have changed since then.

 

What's the relationship between why each was stopped and searched? Stats like this mean nothing without the probably cause as to why drivers were stopped or searched.

 

The reality is it doesn't make sense to continually search those that are less likely to turn up something just to balance out the stats. It's also worth noting that according to the BJS cops search males 2x that of women too. Again, there's always a reason. Cops aren't out to simply harass men more. Effectiveness is what we're after. In the end one can say no to a search too.

Edited September 8, 2017 by TTQ B4U

[Geeto67]

What's the relationship between why each was stopped and searched? Reality is it doesn't make sense to continually search those that are less likely to turn up something just to balance out the stats. It's also worth noting that according to the BJS cops search males 2x that of women too. Again, there's always a reason. Cops aren't out to simply harass men more. Effectiveness is what we're after. In the end one can say no to a search too.

 

The problem I have is the assumption that because someone is "white" a search is "less likely" to turn something up. I also don't like the inference that just because someone's appearance (as in clothing fashion) is culturally different it is automatically suspect.

 

I also have to object to the assumption that women generally commit less crime than men and that gender discrimination is "effective". When it comes to drug crimes women and men are pretty close in terms of instances of possession (Men do bias to a wider variety of drugs, women bias to prescription drugs and repeat offenses). There majority of incarcerated women offenders are in for either property or drug related crimes, both of which rely heavily on stop and search, while men have a much broader spectrum of offenses and not all detectable by searches.

 

and as far as saying no, as part of profiling and biases, police are more likely to interpret saying no to a search by a minority as hostile or suspicious behavior establishing probable cause. Even if the officer gets it wrong, you usually don't get to the part where that gets corrected till well into the trial process.

 

And while the NYT article references racial profiling in NJ in the 1990's, the NYPD is still actively involved in racial profiling lawsuits stemming from stop and frisk, and will be mired in it for some time to come since it is an ongoing program. FYI it has been found to have participated in racial profiling in the majority of individual cases and even some practices, esp those targeting Blacks and Muslims have been found as unconstitutional. In terms of effectiveness 87% of stops don't result in any police action, which means that only 13% of the time the stop is effective.

[10phone2]

no point and just peeing in the wind. Edited September 8, 2017 by 10phone2

[TTQ B4U]

The problem I have is the assumption that because someone is "white" a search is "less likely" to turn something up. I also don't like the inference that just because someone's appearance (as in clothing fashion) is culturally different it is automatically suspect.

 

I agree, that's why the stats are not altogether accurate. There's always more to the story. Ignoring the obvious profiles of people in context with where the instance is occurring just to be politically correct is stupid and cops know it. You don't have to "like" the facts but they are pretty reliable. Stereotypes aren't politically correct but in many cases can be more accurate than not. Enjoy pulling out the exceptions and arguing them all you want but there's often a reason why cops stop people and it's not based solely on skin color.

 

I also have to object to the assumption that women generally commit less crime than men and that gender discrimination is "effective".

Of course you object, you don't like stereotypes or the use of broad nets being used to fight the bad guys. You'd much rather have the world of shit in Chicago be everywhere so long as no broad nets or common sense be used. I'll take the opposite and am much more appreciative of a more stern approach when and where needed and likely to be effect so long as the crap is gone. Again, you and many others worry more about the bad guys whereas I worry more and error on the side of the good guys. Perhaps at the expense of a few but the end results are worth it.

 

and as far as saying no, as part of profiling and biases, police are more likely to interpret saying no to a search by a minority as hostile or suspicious behavior establishing probable cause. Even if the officer gets it wrong, you usually don't get to the part where that gets corrected till well into the trial process.

since when is simply denying a search probable cause?

 

And while the NYT article references racial profiling in NJ in the 1990's, the NYPD is still actively involved in racial profiling lawsuits stemming from stop and frisk, and will be mired in it for some time to come since it is an ongoing program.

You grew up in NY and I worked there when it wasn't a great place. It was made safe under Rudy's watch and I'm sure you hate the techniques used to drive out the riff-raff but it worked and continues to work. Argue the stats and issues all you want, the city is safer because of the police and their methods and millions going there every day can thank them for it. Me included. Edited September 8, 2017 by TTQ B4U

[C-Mart]

GTO - do you think there is an equal distribuition of crime, IQ, and ability between every gender/race/country on earth? Edited September 9, 2017 by C-Mart
Requestion

[C-Mart]

GTO - do you think there is an equal distribuition of crime, IQ, and ability between every gender/race/country on earth? Edited September 9, 2017 by C-Mart
Requestion

[Otis Nice]

The down side is I really don't get to talk cars with a lot of you because there are always going to be people like yenner who just want me to leave full stop and will go out of their way to get that point across.

 

I do?

 

I would LOVE to talk cars with you. The problem is you don't simply want to talk cars. You want to assert yourself verbally. You don't have two way conversations. You seek to prove yourself in order to feel superior. It's ok. I've long caught on and accepted it. As a matter of fact, every time you think you're rustling my jimmies or what not, quite the opposite is happening. Even to the point that IRL certain members have told non-CR friends how fired up you get and made light of it.

 

It's ok Kerry. I have no ill feelings towards you and I personally don't care if you're on CR until the day you die. You have indeed provided much needed entertainment here that had been lacking. Someone to get all riled up. For that I thank you.

 

To quote you:

 

Some of you guys don't realize how acrid some of the thing you say are to people who don't share your opinion...

 

Who keeps bringing up the other's name now? :thumbup: I sincerely hope you have a wonderful weekend.

[wagner]

Wonder if Ted Cruz has seen any good movies lately?

[zeitgeist57]

WHY would you breathe new life into this thread?!?

[wagner]

WHY would you breathe new life into this thread?!?

 

Because I like seeing monkey shit fights at the zoo

[10phone2]

Because I like seeing monkey shit fights at the zoo

 

well played sir.

[Orion]

Because I like seeing monkey shit fights at the zoo

 

You realize, of course, that by participating, you are actually IN the monkey shit fight?

[Otis Nice]

You realize, of course, that by participating, you are actually IN the monkey shit fight?

 

 

[wagner]

You realize, of course, that by participating, you are actually IN the monkey shit fight?

 

Sometimes you have to get dirty for the sake of comedy.

[BStowers023]

Rocket Man vs. Dotard :lolguy:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/world/asia/trump-north-korea-dotard.html

[Geeto67]

Rocket Man vs. Dotard :lolguy:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/world/asia/trump-north-korea-dotard.html

 

still waiting for Vince McMahon to come out of nowhere seeking revenge with a folding chair every time trump is behind a microphone

[TTQ B4U]

Edited September 22, 2017 by TTQ B4U

[BStowers023]

LOLOLOL

[BStowers023]

https://www.facebook.com/203805062990264/videos/10155607555546163/

 

Not violent

-Kerry

[RedRocket1647545505]

https://www.facebook.com/203805062990264/videos/10155607555546163/

 

Not violent

-Kerry

 

lol. I'm about as worried about those morons doing harm to me as I am my 5yo cousin. Those fuckheads have about as much of a chance at figuring out how to operate an 'assault weapon' as I would one of their Starbucks espresso machines.

[Geeto67]

https://www.facebook.com/203805062990264/videos/10155607555546163/

 

Not violent

-Kerry

 

If your source for anything is Steven Crowder you should probably just recognize you are really bad at evaluating credible media. All that video proves is that Steven was able to find a small collective of dipshits, and even then He still has to work pretty hard with the sensationalism to make them look like credible threats (and I think he fails).

 

But what's your point? If your point is how you want to prove that you implicitly support White Supremacy I would say "mission accomplished"

 

There is something interesting going on here recently with white supremacy. For decades the kkk and other new nazi groups operated within the leaderless resistance model. It was effective and allowed people like Timothy McVeigh to pull of awful acts of violence and terrorisim without bringing down the whole organization. It was simple, it kept them under the radar, and they still could maintain their status as the no 1 domestic terrorisim threat. However, with the rise of the alt right, there is a shift away from the pure leaderless resistance movement, and towards something more high profile and collective, and they have done this because of the current elected leadership. A paradigm shift like this is at least noteworthy and worth discussing.

 

But you don't want to talk about this paradigm shift. At all. All You want to talk about is how another leaderless resistance group is wrong because they are fighting against this using violent tactics. You want to paint the "guys fighting Nazis" as the bad guys, but don't want to touch the subject of white supremacy other than to say you don't support it.

 

Except that you do support it. Your rethoric isn't decrying violence, its decrying liberal violence. Implicit in every point you make is that the left shouldn't be violent and you are silent on right violence. Your discussions aren't about the general rise of political violence, they are about painting the left as the enemy because you feel white people are under attack. But remember you aren't a supporter of white supremacy. Well I say bullshit.

 

The only thing I have to ask is, are you a "proud boy"? Because you sure as hell sound exactly like them right down to the "we are not Nazi's" rhetoric.

[wagner]

https://www.facebook.com/203805062990264/videos/10155607555546163/

 

Not violent

-Kerry

 

The second they used anti-gay words they lost all credibility.

[Geeesammy]

So basically if you are against antifa and/or BLM you are pro white supremacy and a racist?

Serious question

[Geeto67]

So basically if you are against antifa and/or BLM you are pro white supremacy and a racist?

Serious question

 

It really turns on the reason why you are against antifa or BLM, so no you are not automatically anything just for not liking an organization, but in this case you do have a duty to be very clear about your reasons if you don't want to be perceived that way.

 

There are plenty of people who are liberal who are critical of antifa, many of them publically. Trevor Noah of the daily show , who branded them "Vegan ISIS", probably summed it up best: "When you think you’re punching Nazis, you don’t realize that you’re also punching your cause. Because your opponents, they’ll just use every violent incident to discredit your entire movement.”

And he is 100% right.

 

However, if you objection to BLM/Antifa is on their position of race relations - yeah you don't really get a pass. If you genuinely think that BLM=Nazis or that they exist as an attack on white people, that's just you not being knowledgible. Or you really do support white supremacy.