Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-campaign-kathy-zhu-miss-world-racist-tweets-a9024151.html Pattern confirmed.

Jesus dude, Trump owns your soul.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-campaign-kathy-zhu-miss-world-racist-tweets-a9024151.html Pattern confirmed.


I'm not sure about this one.


I mean, yes, she's pretty obviously gunning for talking head status. On the other hand, nothing really racist about refusing to wear religious paraphernalia (Granted, what was her purpose in even approaching them?)


She's also a minority herself. According to social justice philosophy, a minority representative with no real power can only be prejudiced, but not racist. (Not making this up, this is a real argument from real social activists..)

Originally posted by Surtur
Jesus dude, Trump owns your soul.

^
Ad hominem fallacy

Originally posted by Robtard
^
Ad hominem fallacy is his forum known Whirly derangement syndrome I suspect.

Ms. Zhu is gorgeous and was inappropriately stripped of her title. Anyway, I didn't see a single racist comment from her. Perhaps the OP would be able to elaborate?

Googled her, she's okay to meh, imo

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190722120311-kathy-zhu-miss-michigan-beauty-queen-tweets-exlarge-169.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
Googled her, she's okay to meh, imo

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190722120311-kathy-zhu-miss-michigan-beauty-queen-tweets-exlarge-169.jpg She's worth a poke or two tbh. But knowing how rotten she is on the inside...

Originally posted by TempAccount
Ms. Zhu is gorgeous and was inappropriately stripped of her title. Anyway, I didn't see a single racist comment from her. Perhaps the OP would be able to elaborate?



https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/michigan-pageant-winner-ousted-after-tweets-about-muslims/2019/07/21/adbcb91a-abf3-11e9-9411-a608f9d0c2d3_story.html?utm_term=.d25237a6d0d0



She tweeted about Muslims being oppressed, about rejecting a hijab, and about blacks blaming other people for their problems.


Nothing concretely racist, but things seen as "dog whistles" (And everyone, think about that for a minute. Claiming Muslims women are oppressed is considered a dog whistle. Whether it's true or not doesn't even matter, all that matters are racists use it as a tell.


This means SYSTEMIC VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN MUSLIM MAJORITY COUNTRIES CAN NEVER BE OPEN FOR LEGITIMATE DEBATE.


This is, honestly, a terrifying concept. That all it takes to censor genuine concerns, is for the enemy to take up their cause for their own ends.

Chinese and Vietnamese women get me hard for their looks. Definitely one-night-stand or concubine material, but they become money pits as they age. Wouldn't want a long-term relationship with them.

Japanese women on the other hand: Most don't really turn me on tbh (shocking); at least not superficially. I do admire the ones who are dedicated wifey/motherly material. Definitely would choose a Japanese woman for a long-term partnership. It's a different type of beauty.

Lol@ concubine.

Originally posted by cdtm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/michigan-pageant-winner-ousted-after-tweets-about-muslims/2019/07/21/adbcb91a-abf3-11e9-9411-a608f9d0c2d3_story.html?utm_term=.d25237a6d0d0



She tweeted about Muslims being oppressed, about rejecting a hijab, and about blacks blaming other people for their problems.


Nothing concretely racist, but things seen as "dog whistles" (And everyone, think about that for a minute. Claiming Muslims women are oppressed is considered a dog whistle. Whether it's true or not doesn't even matter, all that matters are racists use it as a tell.


This means SYSTEMIC VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN MUSLIM MAJORITY COUNTRIES CAN NEVER BE OPEN FOR LEGITIMATE DEBATE.


This is, honestly, a terrifying concept. That all it takes to censor genuine concerns, is for the enemy to take up their cause for their own ends. You know who else said the same exact thing about the Hijab?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

https://i.ibb.co/j5xjXHZ/Capture.png


I don't recall her receiving backlash on the scale of stripping her of awards over this statement? Why is that?

Could it be because Ayaan has actual first-hand experience with fundamental Islam as a Somali refugee, so the left can't refute her experience?

Why is Zhu punished for doing essentially the same thing?


I don't know what is or isn't a dog-whistle at this point, or what the context of this woman's tweets were.

Ditto for the black-on-black crime tweet.

Originally posted by TempAccount
You know who else said the same exact thing about the Hijab?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

https://i.ibb.co/j5xjXHZ/Capture.png


I don't recall her receiving backlash on the scale of stripping her of awards over this statement? Why is that?

Could it be because Ayaan has actual first-hand experience with fundamental Islam as a Somali refugee, so the left can't refute her experience?

Why is Zhu punished for doing essentially the same thing?


I don't know what is or isn't a dog-whistle at this point, or what the context of this woman's tweets were.

Ditto for the black-on-black crime tweet.


*Ahem*, actually..


Look up the term "Native Informant". An interesting term, towards natives that air diirty laundry in the states.

Originally posted by cdtm
*Ahem*, actually..


Look up the term "Native Informant". An interesting term, towards natives that air diirty laundry in the states. So what I deduce from this is that if Zhu brings up hijab as being a symbol of oppression against women, she's called a racist. If Ayaan Hirsi Ali brings it up, she is dismissed as a dirty native informant despite her powerful first-hand experience seen in Infidel (read it it's a good book).

Is this correct?

Originally posted by TempAccount
So what I deduce from this is that if Zhu brings up hijab as being a symbol of oppression against women, she's called a racist. If Ayaan Hirsi Ali brings it up, she is dismissed as a dirty native informant despite her powerful first-hand experience seen in Infidel (read it it's a good book).

Is this correct?


Or "porch monkey", or other derogatory term.


Yes. You'll never see it in big media, just from various bloggers, activists on social media, liberals behind closed doors.

Originally posted by cdtm
Or "porch monkey", or other derogatory term.


Yes. You'll never see it in big media, just from various bloggers, activists on social media, liberals behind closed doors. The thing is, I remember a time when the mainstream media did talk about people like Ayaan Ali. Back in 2013, I recall Reza Aslan being on CNN where he was belittled by the Anchors Don Lemon and Poppy Harlow where--believe it or not--they were BACKING UP Bill Maher of all people, and his belief that Islam oppresses women.

The original clip was deleted, but I found this commentary incorporating it:

PC8N807rrzM


What changed since then? Don and Poppy flip-flop with the times I guess? Not being able to think for themselves, but rather proponents of what's trending for the time?

Originally posted by Surtur
Jesus dude, Trump owns your soul.


Yep. Don't know whether to laugh at pooty/bash or feel sorry for him lol.

Actuallly, I take that back... laughing at him is much more fun.

Originally posted by TempAccount
The thing is, I remember a time when the mainstream media did talk about people like Ayaan Ali. Back in 2013, I recall Reza Aslan being on CNN where he was belittled by the Anchors Don Lemon and Poppy Harlow where--believe it or not--they were BACKING UP Bill Maher of all people, and his belief that Islam oppresses women.

The original clip was deleted, but I found this commentary incorporating it:

PC8N807rrzM


What changed since then? Don and Poppy flip-flop with the times I guess? Not being able to think for themselves, but rather proponents of what's trending for the time?

Only thing I can guess, is heavy investment by certain lobby groups. Saudi's are one of the richest representatives of Islam in the world, it would be easy for them to invest in various businesses so that they have a place on the board, or funnel money to politicians for their own interests.


I mean, money talks, everyone knows it, so I'm not saying anything except the obvious.

Originally posted by cdtm
She tweeted about . . . blacks blaming other people for their problems.

Originally posted by cdtm
Nothing concretely racist . . .

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/007/123/3de.gif

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/007/123/3de.gif


*Shrugs*

Originally posted by TempAccount

Ditto for the black-on-black crime tweet. She said "But black on black crime" in an attempt to shut down discussion about police brutality on blacks, so on top of being a racist, she's also a retard, and anyone who agrees with her reasoning is also a retard tbh.

"Don't talk about this problem because this other problem isn't solved yet" is a fallacy of relative privation, or an appeal to worse problems fallacy. That one problem affects you and might be worse does not imply that another problem doesn't merit being addressed.

If you disagree with this, you're a retard.

Originally posted by NemeBro
She said "But black on black crime" in an attempt to shut down discussion about police brutality on blacks, so on top of being a racist, she's also a retard, and anyone who agrees with her reasoning is also a retard tbh.

"Don't talk about this problem because this other problem isn't solved yet" is a fallacy of relative privation, or an appeal to worse problems fallacy. That one problem affects you and might be worse does not imply that another problem doesn't merit being addressed.

If you disagree with this, you're a retard. Excellent post

Originally posted by NemeBro
She said "But black on black crime" in an attempt to shut down discussion about police brutality on blacks, so on top of being a racist, she's also a retard, and anyone who agrees with her reasoning is also a retard tbh.

"Don't talk about this problem because this other problem isn't solved yet" is a fallacy of relative privation, or an appeal to worse problems fallacy. That one problem affects you and might be worse does not imply that another problem doesn't merit being addressed.

If you disagree with this, you're a retard.


When's it ever discussed on the left, though?



That's a problem with politics in general. Everyone always says "Hey. We have a problem. And it's THOSE GUYS."



When do you ever really hear "We also have another problem. We need to clean up our act."



As in self criticism, or saying anything that requires more then getting angry, but may require some actual work and self improvement? (No, people getting upset about privilege doesn't count, because a leftist feeling bad about being privileged doesn't motivate any lifestyle changes outside of a crocodile tear at the gated community he lives in.)

Originally posted by NemeBro
She said "But black on black crime" in an attempt to shut down discussion about police brutality on blacks, so on top of being a racist, she's also a retard, and anyone who agrees with her reasoning is also a retard tbh.

"Don't talk about this problem because this other problem isn't solved yet" is a fallacy of relative privation, or an appeal to worse problems fallacy. That one problem affects you and might be worse does not imply that another problem doesn't merit being addressed.

If you disagree with this, you're a retard. Like I said, I don't know what context she said it in, but if she used it as a red herring to get out of addressing police brutality, then yeah she's clueless.

I read the entire thread, not a single valid explanation so far has been given for how she is racist.

Anyone wanna try to take a crack what others in this thread have utterly and completely failed at?

Originally posted by TempAccount
Like I said, I don't know what context she said it in, but if she used it as a red herring to get out of addressing police brutality, then yeah she's clueless.

It's definitely "whataboutism" but so? The point was to highlight hypocrisy. When democrats deflected from Ilhan Omars anti-semitism by going "what about Steve King?" was that them participating in anti-semitism? Does a Republican anti-semite somehow cancel out a Democrat anti-semite? Is that how this works?

Either this kind of tactic is okay or it's not. It can't be racist or bigoted for one side, but not the other. It can't be okay when it comes to matters related to jews, but not with blacks. It can't be okay when someone on the left does it, but it's racism, etc. from folk on the right. There needs to be consistency(speaking of consistency, I thought the left didn't feel minorities could even be racist, or does that special rule just apply to the left leaning minorities?)

And she'd be clueless if she said blacks experience no police brutality or racism. As far as I can tell she tweeted out uncomfortable facts. So okay you've called her clueless, does that mean she is also being racist? If so, can you specifically highlight the racism here?

Oh and, if she had responded to someone discussing black on black violence with "what about all the white on white violence" or something like that, do you feel she'd be labeled racist by the left? Since whites are most likely to be on the receiving end of violence from other whites, just like blacks are most likely to be killing other blacks. It's just blacks commit murder at a higher rate than whites and in fact commit a majority of homicides in the country. Wait, is that fact racist too? Is the FBI racist for compiling that stat?

Originally posted by Surtur
It's definitely "whataboutism" but so? The point was to highlight hypocrisy. When democrats deflected from Ilhan Omars anti-semitism by going "what about Steve King?" was that them participating in anti-semitism? Does a Republican anti-semite somehow cancel out a Democrat anti-semite? Is that how this works?

Either this kind of tactic is okay or it's not. It can't be racist or bigoted for one side, but not the other. It can't be okay when it comes to matters related to jews, but not with blacks. It can't be okay when someone on the left does it, but it's racism, etc. from folk on the right. There needs to be consistency(speaking of consistency, I thought the left didn't feel minorities could even be racist, or does that special rule just apply to the left leaning minorities?)

And she'd be clueless if she said blacks experience no police brutality or racism. As far as I can tell she tweeted out uncomfortable facts. So okay you've called her clueless, does that mean she is also being racist? If so, can you specifically highlight the racism here?

Oh and, if she had responded to someone discussing black on black violence with "what about all the white on white violence" or something like that, do you feel she'd be labeled racist by the left? Since whites are most likely to be on the receiving end of violence from other whites, just like blacks are most likely to be killing other blacks. It's just blacks commit murder at a higher rate than whites and in fact commit a majority of homicides in the country. Wait, is that fact racist too? Is the FBI racist for compiling that stat? Rustled Jimmies.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Rustled Jimmies.

^has no valid response

Originally posted by Surtur
^has no valid response seems valid, there is no need to be upset.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
seems valid, there is no need to be upset.

And yet you got super triggered over my response.

My bad, too many sentences?

Originally posted by NemeBro
She said "But black on black crime" in an attempt to shut down discussion about police brutality on blacks, so on top of being a racist, she's also a retard, and anyone who agrees with her reasoning is also a retard tbh.

No, she's right. Policy Brutality is more of a problem against white people, per capita. Proportionally represented, black people have less of a chance of police brutality.

The left has brainwashed us for so long that now even obvious facts are seen as racist by intelligent people like you. They are hidden and obfuscated so well that almost no one outside of criminology knows about these things. It's racist to even talk about them (this is literally what one of my professors said when introducing some of the topics).

Blacks harm blacks far more than anyone else. It's a landslide. Biggest homicide problem in American is black-on-black violence. Ignoring it is racist. Her pointing out that fact is not racist. Calling her racist and detracting from the issue is the actual racist position but you'd never know that because of the left making any discussions about this topic taboo.



Originally posted by NemeBro
"Don't talk about this problem because this other problem isn't solved yet" is a fallacy of relative privation, or an appeal to worse problems fallacy. That one problem affects you and might be worse does not imply that another problem doesn't merit being addressed.

If you disagree with this, you're a retard.

I didn't see her do that in the cherry picked quotes. Also, it's pretty easy to say, "Address both or all."



Edit - And I remember almost 20 years ago how it was leftist and progressive to talk about how oppressive Islam is of women, in general. It was "woke" to talk about anti-feminist hijabs and the like. Now, you're considered racist for not wanting women...to...be oppressed and treated like objects? WTF? How backwards can you get?

Originally posted by Surtur
And yet you got super triggered over my response.

My bad, too many sentences?


Probably too many multisyllable words for him lol.

Originally posted by Robtard
^
Ad hominem fallacy

Shut up, pawn prawn. You look like an old dusty rag.

All these threads Whirly makes are inane and uninformed.

Originally posted by Robtard
^
Ad hominem fallacy

Originally posted by Raptor22
I wasnt sure what criteria u were using to check the numbers myself.


First, nice write-up and research. Good finds.

To answer your question, apples to apples comparison is how it worked out (comparing apples to oranges is what dishonest statisticians LOVE to do and I try to avoid it. If I cannot, I explain all the weaknesses in the data and in my conclusions and you'll see some of that, below). Just taking the raw population numbers by race and using that as a divisor and then taking the number of police violence cases as the dividend is not an honest portrayal of reality.

If you represent police reports from victims, blacks far more represent the perpetrators than any other race. Robberies, assaults, murders, etc. Proportionally, whites are far more likely to be victims of violent force from police. Not only do black people get away with far more crimes than any other race (based on victimization reporting), they also are far less likely to experience violence from police in an encounter where they are criminal suspects. There is another confounding variable in this issue: black people trust the police less than any other race and are less likely to report crimes or cooperate with police during investigations due to this mistrust. Meaning, victimization by perpetrator by race is likely underrepresented by black people and we are not capturing true figures for which race is committing crimes. Since black people are the most likely victims of black criminals, we have an under-reporting problem. That may explain some of the black crime problems plaguing our large cities and police need to do something about improving trust so that crimes can be better addressed and prevented.

If you are a white person, you have a higher probability of experiencing violence from the police, per encounter, than a black person, when confronted for committing a crime. This also includes fatal confrontations.

Not sure why police are more "relaxed" with black suspects.

Originally posted by dadudemon
First, nice write-up and research. Good finds.

To answer your question, apples to apples comparison is how it worked out (comparing apples to oranges is what dishonest statisticians LOVE to do and I try to avoid it. If I cannot, I explain all the weaknesses in the data and in my conclusions and you'll see some of that, below). Just taking the raw population numbers by race and using that as a divisor and then taking the number of police violence cases as the dividend is not an honest portrayal of reality.

If you represent police reports from victims, blacks far more represent the perpetrators than any other race. Robberies, assaults, murders, etc. Proportionally, whites are far more likely to be victims of violent force from police. Not only do black people get away with far more crimes than any other race (based on victimization reporting), they also are far less likely to experience violence from police in an encounter where they are criminal suspects. There is another confounding variable in this issue: black people trust the police less than any other race and are less likely to report crimes or cooperate with police during investigations due to this mistrust. Meaning, victimization by perpetrator by race is likely underrepresented by black people and we are not capturing true figures for which race is committing crimes. Since black people are the most likely victims of black criminals, we have an under-reporting problem. That may explain some of the black crime problems plaguing our large cities and police need to do something about improving trust so that crimes can be better addressed and prevented.

If you are a white person, you have a higher probability of experiencing violence from the police, per encounter, than a black person, when confronted for committing a crime. This also includes fatal confrontations.

Not sure why police are more "relaxed" with black suspects. thank u, u too. I appreciate the response.

"Just taking the raw population numbers by race and using that as a divisor and then taking the number of police violence cases as the dividend is not an honest portrayal of reality"

Agree completely with this part. Would u say a better way to phrase it would be- while race undoubtedly plays a part in some cases and some numbers might show that some races are disproportionately represented in police brutality cases, there are many other contributing factors outside of race that have an impact.?

"If you are a white person, you have a higher probability of experiencing violence from the police, per encounter, than a black person, when confronted for committing a crime. This also includes fatal confrontations."

This part is interesting to me.

I started considering different factors and data that could contribute to that, such as if either race is more or less likely to be confronted for a crime they didnt commit, how that would affect their own response, which in turn would affect the cops response etc... Then while looking into some of those numbers, i started to think of different factors that could affect that.

Then i started to think its a never ending rabbit hole where contributing factors pile upon contributing factors that muddy and confuse things even more. Which simultaneously made me appreciate the conclusion from the article i posted before which was-

"I believe there are only 2 things separating us from having all the right answers.
The first is enough data, and we are slowly but surely getting there. The second is having more curious people who are willing to look at this data and ask the right questions."

While at the same time being discouraged at the thought of ever coming to an actual correct conclusion, based off factors and data. How many contributing factors are there? Do some matter or weigh more than others? By how much? Etc... It seems very daunting and would probably take more time than i have while waiting for my turn for my haircut to figure out lol.

With all that being said. If i was lost in an area that i wasnt familiar with, getting pulled over/confronted by the police in the middle of the night with no witnesses around, id feel much more comfortable/safer being a white guy than a black dude.

In ur heart of hearts, in that same situation, would u honestly feel safer being black?

Originally posted by dadudemon
First, nice write-up and research. Good finds.

To answer your question, apples to apples comparison is how it worked out (comparing apples to oranges is what dishonest statisticians LOVE to do and I try to avoid it. If I cannot, I explain all the weaknesses in the data and in my conclusions and you'll see some of that, below). Just taking the raw population numbers by race and using that as a divisor and then taking the number of police violence cases as the dividend is not an honest portrayal of reality.

If you represent police reports from victims, blacks far more represent the perpetrators than any other race. Robberies, assaults, murders, etc. Proportionally, whites are far more likely to be victims of violent force from police. Not only do black people get away with far more crimes than any other race (based on victimization reporting), they also are far less likely to experience violence from police in an encounter where they are criminal suspects. There is another confounding variable in this issue: black people trust the police less than any other race and are less likely to report crimes or cooperate with police during investigations due to this mistrust. Meaning, victimization by perpetrator by race is likely underrepresented by black people and we are not capturing true figures for which race is committing crimes. Since black people are the most likely victims of black criminals, we have an under-reporting problem. That may explain some of the black crime problems plaguing our large cities and police need to do something about improving trust so that crimes can be better addressed and prevented.

If you are a white person, you have a higher probability of experiencing violence from the police, per encounter, than a black person, when confronted for committing a crime. This also includes fatal confrontations.

Not sure why police are more "relaxed" with black suspects.



I read something about a higher percentage of tech jobs in Canada are being filled by Indians/foreign labor, then in the US.


Is this an example of dishonesty? I don't know the figures, but if you have a million jobs in the US, and a thousand/several hundred in Canada, 9% of US tech jobs being filled by h1-b's vs 11% of Canadian tech jobs being filled would yeild VASTLY higher real numbers of people for the US.

So getting back on topic was there ever a valid explanation given for why this is racism or no? I saw a bunch of stupid shit spouted for why it's racist, but nothing valid any sane adult would say.