|
|
Waukesha
Nov 25, 2021 12:07:13 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by aztecryan on Nov 25, 2021 12:07:13 GMT -8
Because you're not arguing in good faith and you're not being serious. Your first sentence kills your entire post. Not sure if it was an attempt to be funny, but it missed the mark. I'd rather just not waste my time. Regarding your last point - I'm not sure what you're trying to illustrate. There are a multitude of factors that go into the criminal justice system's processes - The end result is racial disparity in criminal sentences. There's numerous sources on this topic.
I guess diving into statistical studies you've provided and drawing out methodological oversights or omissions isn't arguing in good faith? Line by line pointing out your numerous contradictions and flimsy evidence isn't either apparently. "Your first sentence kills your entire post. Not sure if it was an attempt to be funny, but it missed the mark."
Well when you're the butt of the joke, I imagine you wouldn't find the analogy funny. The ADL is an extraordinarily biased organization. So using their *opinion* on what constitutes racist symbolism is... a joke. Hence the comparison. "Regarding your last point - I'm not sure what you're trying to illustrate. There are a multitude of factors that go into the criminal justice system's processes."
What don't you understand about my last point? Not really sure how else I could state it. You're ignoring my counter points and arguments to the studies you provided supposedly proving systemic racism exists. And you're ignoring a lot of what else I've said on the original topic of this thread. Specifically, why have you not addressed Darrell Brooks' comments about knocking out white people in relation to his crime of driving an SUV through a crowd of white people following the Rittenhouse verdict? This is the third time I've asked. "I'd rather just not waste my time."
The feeling's mutual. And I've long observed that's basically what's happening here. In actuality, you clearly aren't the person arguing in good faith because, as any casual observer can see, you're not open to new ideas or perspectives. Or really even responding to challenges against your own for that matter. There's a massive difference between new ideas and perspectives compared to illogical attempts to spin statistics into a narrative you want to create. The ADL is a "biased organization." Well, every media source you've brought forth is right-wing biased fodder, conspiracy theory nonsense or something in the same vein. Not something I really take seriously, or even care to. I've addressed your Brooks assertion already, but in case you missed it - He's clearly mentally ill. He's a violent felon. You made the leap to domestic terrorism with no evidence to support your claim. If you don't want to waste your time, just move on. We're not going to agree on largely anything here, so it's not a productive exercise. Systemic racism exists. The Sentencing Project data is clear, no matter how you want to discredit it or dispute it. That's just one source of many that will illustrate the same conclusion. Also, common sense comes into play at some point, I'd hope. Beyond that, I'm good here. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 25, 2021 12:31:38 GMT -8
"Because you're not arguing in good faith and you're not being serious."
I guess diving into statistical studies you've provided and drawing out methodological oversights or omissions isn't arguing in good faith? Line by line pointing out your numerous contradictions and flimsy evidence isn't either apparently. "Your first sentence kills your entire post. Not sure if it was an attempt to be funny, but it missed the mark."
Well when you're the butt of the joke, I imagine you wouldn't find the analogy funny. The ADL is an extraordinarily biased organization. So using their *opinion* on what constitutes racist symbolism is... a joke. Hence the comparison. "Regarding your last point - I'm not sure what you're trying to illustrate. There are a multitude of factors that go into the criminal justice system's processes."
What don't you understand about my last point? Not really sure how else I could state it. You're ignoring my counter points and arguments to the studies you provided supposedly proving systemic racism exists. And you're ignoring a lot of what else I've said on the original topic of this thread. Specifically, why have you not addressed Darrell Brooks' comments about knocking out white people in relation to his crime of driving an SUV through a crowd of white people following the Rittenhouse verdict? This is the third time I've asked. "I'd rather just not waste my time."
The feeling's mutual. And I've long observed that's basically what's happening here. In actuality, you clearly aren't the person arguing in good faith because, as any casual observer can see, you're not open to new ideas or perspectives. Or really even responding to challenges against your own for that matter. I don't think the media will be all over the fact that Brooks said that he will knock TF out of white people. Call me crazy, but I just don't see that happening, for a multitude of reasons. Fox News is all over it. |
|
|
|
Waukesha
Nov 25, 2021 12:58:59 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by johneaztec on Nov 25, 2021 12:58:59 GMT -8
I don't think the media will be all over the fact that Brooks said that he will knock TF out of white people. Call me crazy, but I just don't see that happening, for a multitude of reasons. Fox News is all over it. Ha!!! That's true. |
|
|
|
Post by Obsidian Edge on Nov 25, 2021 13:09:10 GMT -8
"Because you're not arguing in good faith and you're not being serious."
I guess diving into statistical studies you've provided and drawing out methodological oversights or omissions isn't arguing in good faith? Line by line pointing out your numerous contradictions and flimsy evidence isn't either apparently. "Your first sentence kills your entire post. Not sure if it was an attempt to be funny, but it missed the mark."
Well when you're the butt of the joke, I imagine you wouldn't find the analogy funny. The ADL is an extraordinarily biased organization. So using their *opinion* on what constitutes racist symbolism is... a joke. Hence the comparison. "Regarding your last point - I'm not sure what you're trying to illustrate. There are a multitude of factors that go into the criminal justice system's processes."
What don't you understand about my last point? Not really sure how else I could state it. You're ignoring my counter points and arguments to the studies you provided supposedly proving systemic racism exists. And you're ignoring a lot of what else I've said on the original topic of this thread. Specifically, why have you not addressed Darrell Brooks' comments about knocking out white people in relation to his crime of driving an SUV through a crowd of white people following the Rittenhouse verdict? This is the third time I've asked. "I'd rather just not waste my time."
The feeling's mutual. And I've long observed that's basically what's happening here. In actuality, you clearly aren't the person arguing in good faith because, as any casual observer can see, you're not open to new ideas or perspectives. Or really even responding to challenges against your own for that matter. There's a massive difference between new ideas and perspectives compared to illogical attempts to spin statistics into a narrative you want to create. The ADL is a "biased organization." Well, every media source you've brought forth is right-wing biased fodder, conspiracy theory nonsense or something in the same vein. Not something I really take seriously, or even care to. I've addressed your Brooks assertion already, but in case you missed it - He's clearly mentally ill. He's a violent felon. You made the leap to domestic terrorism with no evidence to support your claim. If you don't want to waste your time, just move on. We're not going to agree on largely anything here, so it's not a productive exercise. Systemic racism exists. The Sentencing Project data is clear, no matter how you want to discredit it or dispute it. That's just one source of many that will illustrate the same conclusion. Also, common sense comes into play at some point, I'd hope. Beyond that, I'm good here. vague dismissals. "The ADL is a "biased organization." Well, every media source you've brought forth is right-wing biased fodder, conspiracy theory nonsense or something in the same vein."The difference between sources I've brought forth is that they contain actual evidence you've never bothered to refute. In contrast, you cite ADL *opinion* as fact."You made the leap to domestic terrorism with no evidence to support your claim."
I'm done going back and forth on this. I provided higher quality circumstantial evidence implicating Brook's actions could have a racial motive than you provided for your assertion Kyle Rittenhouse is a racist. The thing is, that wasn't even my main point. The point is that this event demonstrates a double standard. Both from you and the media. You didn't address Brook's comments directly until now. Interesting how you just dismiss his comments as the ramblings of someone who is mentally ill. Are you a psychiatrist? Do you have unfettered access inside Darrell Brook's mind? In any case, why does that even matter? You can be racist and insane as many figures have been throughout history. "Systemic racism exists. The Sentencing Project data is clear, no matter how you want to discredit it or dispute it."
Done going back and forth on this too. Once again you're not addressing anything I've actually said regarding my criticisms of this data.
|
|
|
|
Waukesha
Nov 25, 2021 14:38:38 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by aztecryan on Nov 25, 2021 14:38:38 GMT -8
There's a massive difference between new ideas and perspectives compared to illogical attempts to spin statistics into a narrative you want to create. The ADL is a "biased organization." Well, every media source you've brought forth is right-wing biased fodder, conspiracy theory nonsense or something in the same vein. Not something I really take seriously, or even care to. I've addressed your Brooks assertion already, but in case you missed it - He's clearly mentally ill. He's a violent felon. You made the leap to domestic terrorism with no evidence to support your claim. If you don't want to waste your time, just move on. We're not going to agree on largely anything here, so it's not a productive exercise. Systemic racism exists. The Sentencing Project data is clear, no matter how you want to discredit it or dispute it. That's just one source of many that will illustrate the same conclusion. Also, common sense comes into play at some point, I'd hope. Beyond that, I'm good here. vague dismissals. "The ADL is a "biased organization." Well, every media source you've brought forth is right-wing biased fodder, conspiracy theory nonsense or something in the same vein."The difference between sources I've brought forth is that they contain actual evidence you've never bothered to refute. In contrast, you cite ADL *opinion* as fact."You made the leap to domestic terrorism with no evidence to support your claim."
I'm done going back and forth on this. I provided higher quality circumstantial evidence implicating Brook's actions could have a racial motive than you provided for your assertion Kyle Rittenhouse is a racist. The thing is, that wasn't even my main point. The point is that this event demonstrates a double standard. Both from you and the media. You didn't address Brook's comments directly until now. Interesting how you just dismiss his comments as the ramblings of someone who is mentally ill. Are you a psychiatrist? Do you have unfettered access inside Darrell Brook's mind? In any case, why does that even matter? You can be racist and insane as many figures have been throughout history. "Systemic racism exists. The Sentencing Project data is clear, no matter how you want to discredit it or dispute it."
Done going back and forth on this too. Once again you're not addressing anything I've actually said regarding my criticisms of this data.
Almost everything you've said lacks logic, but the easiest thing is the adamant denial that systemic racism exists. That's irrefutable and going to absurd lengths to deny it is silly. Sentencing differences alone indicate that, with many studies corroborating the data across decades. "Actual evidence"? I'll give you the notion that Brooks COULD have racial motivations, but you jumped to "act of domestic terrorism" without any real basis to do so. The fact is Brooks was fleeing a crime when the parade tragedy occurred and outside of screenshots from a year and a half ago or longer, I haven't seen anything to indicate premeditated malice. The double standard comment here is weird - Kyle Rittenhouse's white privilege is obvious and apparent. His lackadaisical excuse for the Proud Boys photo op and his subsequent "I'm a fan of the BLM" movement tokenism seems easily transparent. Also, the idea of white supremacy in the justice system with Rittenhouse as an example is separate from the idea of his individual racism as a person. I don't know where to begin on your criticism of the data - So I didn't bother even trying (Lazy, I know). You brought up judges sentencing different people of different color in different geographical locations - That's racial bias. It's the same plane as the now-illegal "stop and frisk" that targeted minority neighborhoods disproportionately. Murder doesn't care what skin color you are, nor does any other crime, outside of hate crimes. It's like people using the meme of the man who was "acquitted" on self-defense grounds on the same day as Rittenhouse, ignoring the fact the cases are nowhere near similar and that Coffee is still facing 30 years in prison for gun possession. |
|
|
|
Post by Obsidian Edge on Nov 25, 2021 16:08:27 GMT -8
"There's a massive difference between new ideas and perspectives compared to illogical attempts to spin statistics into a narrative you want to create."Well, let's hear it then. What about anything I've said is illogical? You continue to deflect or evade without really addressing anything I've said beyond vague dismissals. "The ADL is a "biased organization." Well, every media source you've brought forth is right-wing biased fodder, conspiracy theory nonsense or something in the same vein."The difference between sources I've brought forth is that they contain actual evidence you've never bothered to refute. In contrast, you cite ADL *opinion* as fact."You made the leap to domestic terrorism with no evidence to support your claim."
I'm done going back and forth on this. I provided higher quality circumstantial evidence implicating Brook's actions could have a racial motive than you provided for your assertion Kyle Rittenhouse is a racist. The thing is, that wasn't even my main point. The point is that this event demonstrates a double standard. Both from you and the media. You didn't address Brook's comments directly until now. Interesting how you just dismiss his comments as the ramblings of someone who is mentally ill. Are you a psychiatrist? Do you have unfettered access inside Darrell Brook's mind? In any case, why does that even matter? You can be racist and insane as many figures have been throughout history. "Systemic racism exists. The Sentencing Project data is clear, no matter how you want to discredit it or dispute it."
Done going back and forth on this too. Once again you're not addressing anything I've actually said regarding my criticisms of this data.
Almost everything you've said lacks logic, but the easiest thing is the adamant denial that systemic racism exists. That's irrefutable and going to absurd lengths to deny it is silly. Sentencing differences alone indicate that, with many studies corroborating the data across decades. "Actual evidence"? I'll give you the notion that Brooks COULD have racial motivations, but you jumped to "act of domestic terrorism" without any real basis to do so. The fact is Brooks was fleeing a crime when the parade tragedy occurred and outside of screenshots from a year and a half ago or longer, I haven't seen anything to indicate premeditated malice. The double standard comment here is weird - Kyle Rittenhouse's white privilege is obvious and apparent. His lackadaisical excuse for the Proud Boys photo op and his subsequent "I'm a fan of the BLM" movement tokenism seems easily transparent. Also, the idea of white supremacy in the justice system with Rittenhouse as an example is separate from the idea of his individual racism as a person. I don't know where to begin on your criticism of the data - So I didn't bother even trying (Lazy, I know). You brought up judges sentencing different people of different color in different geographical locations - That's racial bias. It's the same plane as the now-illegal "stop and frisk" that targeted minority neighborhoods disproportionately. Murder doesn't care what skin color you are, nor does any other crime, outside of hate crimes. It's like people using the meme of the man who was "acquitted" on self-defense grounds on the same day as Rittenhouse, ignoring the fact the cases are nowhere near similar and that Coffee is still facing 30 years in prison for gun possession.
Thanks. "Also, the idea of white supremacy in the justice system with Rittenhouse as an example is separate from the idea of his individual racism as a person."I've repeatedly made that distinction."You brought up judges sentencing different people of different color in different geographical locations - That's racial bias."
Or it's judges in high crime areas expressing less leniency and coming down harder on crime, because they have a problem with crime. You need to compare sentencing within the same district for it to have any meaning. And with that, I think I'm done here. I plan on spending my time in the sports section of this forum from now on. |
|
