White Lives Matter banner flew over football game

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Darth Thor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53145201


Poor white people. So oppressed in the world today.

eThneoLgrRnae
LoL. Of course saying "White lives Matter" is just racist, just like saying "All lives matter" is but "Black Lives Matter" is totally fine.

But nah, the leftists don't have any double standards at all. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Silent Master
Originally posted by Darth Thor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53145201


Poor white people. So oppressed in the world today.

IOW, you have no real argument.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Darth Thor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53145201


Poor white people. So oppressed in the world today.

Really great to see people taking a stand for the most oppressed race, by police brutality, in the US. This is a movement everyone can comfortably get behind. No one would be blinded by incorrect ideas about police brutality statistics, right? They'd correctly pay attention to the facts and see that white people, specifically white men, are the most brutalized of any race demographic in the US especially when you control for violent crime.

Darth Thor
Originally posted by Silent Master
IOW, you have no real argument.


Butthurt much?


Originally posted by dadudemon
Really great to see people taking a stand for the most oppressed race, by police brutality, in the US. This is a movement everyone can comfortably get behind. No one would be blinded by incorrect ideas about police brutality statistics, right? They'd correctly pay attention to the facts and see that white people, specifically white men, are the most brutalized of any race demographic in the US especially when you control for violent crime.


Not % wise.

Insane Titan

Silent Master
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Butthurt much?

Yes, you certainly appear to be.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Not % wise.


Originally posted by dadudemon
...white people, specifically white men, are the most brutalized of any race demographic in the US especially when you control for violent crime.

White people are over-represented in police brutalities especially when you compare them to black people when you control for violent crime prevalence. When you control for violent crime prevalence, black people are under-represented compared to the all-race average.


Here's the problem America actually has: mentally ill lives matter.

eThneoLgrRnae

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Silent Master
Yes, you certainly appear to be.


Yep. He's the one who obviously triggered by a WLM banner being flown. It's so cute him pretending like everyone else are the ones who're butthurt over it lol. That's some major level projection he has going on there.

Darth Thor
Originally posted by dadudemon
White people are over-represented in police brutalities especially when you compare them to black people when you control for violent crime prevalence. When you control for violent crime prevalence, black people are under-represented compared to the all-race average.


Here's the problem America actually has: mentally ill lives matter.


Well it certainly wouldnt be inherent racism towards white people. Given the police brutality is mainly perpetrated by whites police.

So im still confused how any of this jumps to the notion of White Lives Matter.

Quincy
Originally posted by dadudemon
White people are over-represented in police brutalities especially when you compare them to black people when you control for violent crime prevalence. When you control for violent crime prevalence, black people are under-represented compared to the all-race average.


Here's the problem America actually has: mentally ill lives matter.

Do you have this information and data handy? It's something you've mentioned before and I'm interested in seeing where you get the information from.

I'm not trying to imply that you don't have this information, mind you. It's just with so much intense back and forth on this, I'm curious where this type of info would come from.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Quincy
Do you have this information and data handy? It's something you've mentioned before and I'm interested in seeing where you get the information from.

I'm not trying to imply that you don't have this information, mind you. It's just with so much intense back and forth on this, I'm curious where this type of info would come from.

Originally posted by dadudemon
https://i.imgur.com/zlZZPzz.png

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

Originally posted by dadudemon
Use trending and the first year compared to current year.

On the trend, since we've already completed 5 months and 4 days, we are already behind for all races in all categories from last year to this year - except, perhaps, "other."

If you consider the start date of 2017 (Trump took office in Jan), all categories are down except for black and unknown with this year, on black, shaping up to be a sharp drop from 2017 and the year prior.

Overall, deaths are way down since 2017 even if you stop in 2019.


And it should be obvious why murder-by-cop numbers are trending down: crime is trending down, big time, since Trump took office.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/preliminary-analysis-2018-fbi-uniform-crime-report






https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2019/10/10/us-violent-crime-rate-down-5-showing-president-trumps-combination-of-law-and-order-and-criminal-justice-reform-go-together-making-america-safer/#410034ba79cc





I made some charts to represent this data and I projected the homicides by police through the end of 2020.

I included the raw data, as well.

So here are all the charts redone with 2020 projected numbers and a linear trendline.



https://i.imgur.com/Q3YsYS4.png

https://i.imgur.com/vaYmnvG.png

https://i.imgur.com/FmH1Nx4.png

https://i.imgur.com/xEiEK2X.png

https://i.imgur.com/42lnaGh.png

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes. If you'd like to disagree with the data, you can go back in time and see little difference in the trend for this year (and there is a clear reason why: gun violence didn't change during lockdown). We were just simply getting that much better.

Full data disclosure so you don't have to rely on just my words (this bypasses the need to have to pay Statista money to see their old data and I don't feel bad about sharing this trick because this data should be made publicly available as it is important to changing policy):

Jan 29 snapshot

March 31 snapshot (in this snapshot, you can see that fatal police encounters are significantly down for the year for the first 3 months, year over year)

Data remained the same for Jan-Mar even 2 months later (because, sometimes, the data is updated when missing information comes about)

And, lastly, today's data which just got updated as of today, June 5th, gave us April's and May's data. Which is what you and I are talking about, now.



I'll break it down why it's still an accurate representation of reality:

1. Most people did not "lock down" and it was mostly placebo, according to GPS data collected on mobile devices. This, of course, is different for NY and CA where people really did "lockdown." Also, multiple states reopened on April 24th and continued to re-open through the second week of May. We would have seen an uptick and then a downtick and then an uptick again if what you said was accurate of the data. We didn't. That trend is not there.

2. Crime continued despite lockdowns with a -20% in most categories of crime except gun violence. In a study done of crime during lockdown, 18 of 30 cities saw crime go down and 12 of 30 saw crime go up during lockdown. Homicide rates remained fairly stable, however (year over year).

3. a. Gun violence was up during lockdown.
b. During police confrontations, being armedwith a gun constitutes a majority of the fatal police encounters.





This point is irrelevant since I broke all of them out by their own category and did a linear trend for each. You'd have a really damn good point if I combined all the totals into one graph (which I bet some white-supremacists would try to do to dishonestly make their point...sneaky data), by year. But I didn't, on purpose, because that chart would be dishonest. Yes, I'm telling you that so you'll be proud of me and pat me on the back (not kidding...I think this conversation is fun and I want you to see I was honest in my approach).



Your conclusion should be the opposite based on the data. It is significantly down for all races except "other." The exact opposite conclusion should be made from the available data that we have. But I digress a bit on take 2, below.


Here are 2 alternatives Takes:


Take 1: An alternative take is from Washington Post. They track death-by-police data (but there is a bias in it because it is Washington Post) and they see little year over year difference in death-by-police. Since the population is growing, year over year, this constitutes a reduction in fatal police encounters per 100,000.

Take 2: Also from WaPo's data - since violent crime is going down and population is going up, this means we are killing more people, per violent crime, per 100,000 people. This means my entire point is wrong and the exact opposite would be true. When you have conflicting data like this, what do you believe? Statista's data best fits the narrative I want to be true so I present that and put time and energy into best modeling that data. Statista also has a bias because they put a disclaimer on their data stating the US has a major police-on-people violence problem.





Second to last item that I feels needs to be talked about. All these places, when talking about fatal police encounters, dishonestly represent that black people are twice as likely to be shot and killed by police. But that doesn't match with the fact that black people are 7 times more likely to murder than white people because they only represent 13% of the population but commit a majority of all the murders. One study looked into fatal police shootings and found that crime rates by ethnicity in a city was a very accurate predictor for fatal police encounters for that particular ethnicity. To put it more simply using made up data:

City A: Black people kill 100 people a year in City A. Black people average 1 fatal police encounter(s) a year in City A.
City A: Black people kill 200 people a year in City A. Black people average 2 fatal police encounter(s) a year in City A.

City B: White people kill 600 people a year in City B. White people average 3 fatal police encounter(s) a year in City B.
City B: White people kill 900 people a year in City B. White people average 9 fatal police encounter(s) a year in City B.


Their study had two findings about fatal police encounters:

1. Crime by race is a highly accurate predictor of fatal police encounters - more crime, more fatal police encounters. Less crime, less fatal police encounters.

2. Population of race in the city also had significant but weak correlation with odds of a fatal police encounter. In other words, yet again, the "population is population" trend was found in data. There's an odd trend you can find in almost all data related to populations. Generally, it goes like this: more population, more variable x. We rediscover it over and over and over again in all sorts of studies and it gets very annoying after a while. You can almost predict anything with it and it doesn't just stop at raw numbers - you can see population data trends in population growth and densities - still the same trends more or less of those population variables results in more or less of the population stat you're studying.





Okay, last item, I promise.


None of this stuff I'm talking with you about matters much. Sure, it looks like we are trending down for the year, significantly so, since 2017. But it's not trending down nearly fast enough for my tastes. Why does the UK have FAR less fatal police encounters per 100,000 people than the US? Even if you divide their numbers by 4 (which is too much because the UK's homicide rate per 100,000 is not 4 times lower than the US's), we still cannot account for how many people die per 100,000 people in the US. Our police just kill their citizens more often per violent crime compared to the UK. We need to change it and it starts with federally mandated policing standards.


https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43

https://i.imgur.com/QF1mmar.png

Quincy
Hey thanks I'm going to read through all of this

Darth Thor
^ Dadudemon your tables seem to be showing approximately twice as many white people killed by police as black people.

But the % of the African American poulation of the U.S. is around 12-14% of the population. Whilst the % of White people in the U.S. is 70%+.

IOW you are far more likely to be killed by police as a black person than a white person, which is what I meant by %'s.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Darth Thor
^ Dadudemon your tables seem to be showing approximately twice as many white people killed by police as black people.

But the % of the African American poulation of the U.S. is around 12-14% of the population. Whilst the % of White people in the U.S. is 70%+.

IOW you are far more likely to be killed by police as a black person than a white person, which is what I meant by %'s.

You didn't read my post, then, if you conclude that.

Black people should be killed at 3.5 times the amount they are being killed by police if they are to match the numbers for white people.

Because they commit, proportionally, 7 times the amount of violent crime yet they only represent a double proportion of fatal encounters with police meaning they are underrepresented in fatal police encounters.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Quincy
Hey thanks I'm going to read through all of this

Good! big grin


And there is one error in my post that I have yet to correct. If you find it, you win the internet.

Darth Thor
Originally posted by dadudemon
You didn't read my post, then, if you conclude that.

Black people should be killed at 3.5 times the amount they are being killed by police if they are to match the numbers for white people.

Because they commit, proportionally, 7 times the amount of violent crime yet they only represent a double proportion of fatal encounters with police meaning they are underrepresented in fatal police encounters.


That's a very specific way of looking at the data. Which doesn't count homicides committed without any violent crime involved. George Floyd for instance wasn't committing a violent crime. It also doesn't count for stop and searches.

Also when you say black people commit 7 times the amount of violent crime, what that actually means is 7 times as many black people are charged for violent crimes.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Darth Thor
That's a very specific way of looking at the data.

It really isn't. That's how the data breaks down when using predictive analysis and that's covered quite thoroughly in my post.

The fatal police encounters varies very strongly and directly with the amount of violent crime.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Also when you say black people commit 7 times the amount of violent crime, what that actually means is 7 times as many black people are charged for violent crimes.

While you perform mental gymnastics to get away from uncomfortable facts about black violence in the US, we still have mountains of dead black bodies.


Sometimes, taking the hardline SJW stance is actually the racist stance and it harms the victims. This is why I do not tolerate black violence blindness and call out the dishonest takes on the topic - black lives really do matter. Trying to perform mental gymnastics to avoid the mountain of dead young black men doesn't help black lives.

Stormy Daniels
Originally posted by Darth Thor
That's a very specific way of looking at the data. Which doesn't count homicides committed without any violent crime involved. George Floyd for instance wasn't committing a violent crime. It also doesn't count for stop and searches.

Also when you say black people commit 7 times the amount of violent crime, what that actually means is 7 times as many black people are charged for violent crimes. that guy loves misrepresenting data and word salads. It's kinda trolling using sorta lies.

SquallX
Originally posted by Stormy Daniels
that guy loves misrepresenting data and word salads. It's kinda trolling using sorta lies.

You do know the FBI has these type of statistics right?

eThneoLgrRnae
More likely than not that's pooty/whirly. You know how he likes to ignore actual facts that don't support his narrative.

Insane Titan

dadudemon
Originally posted by SquallX
You do know the FBI has these type of statistics right?

It's Whirly - just ignore him. He's creating a ton of sock accounts and trolling in anticipation of mass-bans. Can't wack-a-mole 30+ accounts and there's plausible deniability if he has many.





As far as FBI stats, black crimes are underrepresented due to the distrust the black community has towards the police. Crimes are committed against he people you live near and with which is why crimes are often race correlated. The distrust of police by the black community is a widely known fact. In fact, many large-city police deparatments, in an effort to combat crime and also help the black communities, started community outreach programs between the police and the local populace to help fix that distrust and start solving crimes.

There are multiple reasons for distrust:

Racism stereorypes about police (some true)
Stop and frisk racism (this is true and is one of the greatest examples of racism from law enforcement)
Drug War and the racism of the Drug War (the stats are overwhelming on this one and a UHC + ending the Drug War + treating drug addiction like the medical and mental health problem it is would be one of the greatest things we could do for the black and Latino populations)
Black Culture - anti-snitch, anti-traitors to your people, etc. Italian Americans had this same problem back in the 1920s-1980s. It's not an unknown problem.

https://www.opportunityagenda.org/explore/resources-publications/new-sensibility/part-iv

dadudemon
Because KMC is still broken, I cannot edit my above post.

But this was the visual representation of what I feel best represents black-distrust of Police:

https://i.imgur.com/gOd2Ap4.png



Edit - I am every bit the skeptic of police engagement as anyone. I strongly distrust the police. Every conversation with police should be done with extreme caution. Never interview with the police about anything ever unless you have a lawyer. They do all sorts of evil and manipulative tactics such as tricking you into interviewing about something completely unrelated and then talking to you about something else where you are a suspect or they think you might be a suspect. Anything you say will be used against you even if you are 100% innocent. The flimsiest of statements can be used to twist you into a corner where the prosecutors use that to get a conviction.

Don't. Talk. To. The. Police. Unless you're reporting a crime and have evidence of it.

samhain
Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't. Talk. To. The. Police. Unless you're reporting a crime and have evidence of it.


Even then you still have to be careful. A friend of mine almost got ran over by a car a few years ago literally right outside of a police station, so he noted the license plate and headed inside to report it to an officer, upon telling the guy on the front desk he was completely uninterested until my friend mentioned that he had written the license plate on the wall outside, the man immediately shot up out of his seat and went to inspect the writing on the wall, he lost interest when he saw that my friend had written on the wall using a small stone and not a marker or pen, he turned to my friend and told him that if he had written on the wall in pen or marker he would have been arrested for vandalism.

Surtur
Originally posted by Darth Thor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53145201


Poor white people. So oppressed in the world today.

To whoever is behind this:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEN41KFXoAUDGs8.jpg

meep-meep
All lives matter. That pilot was expressing free speech without hurting anyone, though.

SquallX
Originally posted by dadudemon
It's Whirly - just ignore him. He's creating a ton of sock accounts

Why though? That is so much work and a waste of time.

Kinda remind me of Mr. Masters from the comic section when he was ousted by having multiple socks.

dadudemon
Originally posted by samhain
Even then you still have to be careful. A friend of mine almost got ran over by a car a few years ago literally right outside of a police station, so he noted the license plate and headed inside to report it to an officer, upon telling the guy on the front desk he was completely uninterested until my friend mentioned that he had written the license plate on the wall outside, the man immediately shot up out of his seat and went to inspect the writing on the wall, he lost interest when he saw that my friend had written on the wall using a small stone and not a marker or pen, he turned to my friend and told him that if he had written on the wall in pen or marker he would have been arrested for vandalism.

Too true. Even reporting crimes against you, you must be careful.



I think part of it is police get so used to dealing with criminals all day long - the lying when caught, stealing, violence, depravity, etc. - that they start treating all humans with disdain. It's hard to keep your humanistic wits about you when interfacing with anyone in the public.


This is part of why I think we should have national level regulations that support the people in blue. Psych evals, health check-ups, family counseling, etc.


People like to quote the "54% of all homicides are committed by less than 13% of the population" statistic, usually out of racism. But who is repeating the 40% of cop families are victims of domestic abuse statistic?

meep-meep
Originally posted by dadudemon
Too true. Even reporting crimes against you, you must be careful.



I think part of it is police get so used to dealing with criminals all day long - the lying when caught, stealing, violence, depravity, etc. - that they start treating all humans with disdain. It's hard to keep your humanistic wits about you when interfacing with anyone in the public.


This is part of why I think we should have national level regulations that support the people in blue. Psych evals, health check-ups, family counseling, etc.


People like to quote the "54% of all homicides are committed by less than 13% of the population" statistic, usually out of racism. But who is repeating the 40% of cop families are victims of domestic abuse statistic?

Absolutely

SquallX

meep-meep
@squallx

Personally I used earplugs daily for awhile. It helps a bit brother.

Old Man Whirly!
As someone who grew up in a very racially diverse area of South London and is a member of the supporters club for one of the most racist sets of fans in football, but not so much the locals these days. Thirty years ago even much of the local Turkish community were Millwall fans, but I digress. I have seen the strides the clubs have made to kick racism out of football. In the bigger cities this is working, in smaller cities where the local club fanbase like my own experience with Millwall are third or more generation white locals. Round Millwall this is not so much the case now, as the demographic in that part of South London is gentrified for wealthy whites or estates where white working class are a minority. Racism has no place in football or life tbh.

SquallX

meep-meep
Introspection is necessary, and silence is as well.

socool8520
Well, an all lives matter slogan would actually be promoting equality. As it all lives

SquallX

truejedi
One problem i see is that technically, a case such as breonna taylor wouldn't be considered a homocide by police yet in those statistics, right? And george floyd wasn't considered one until protestors forced their hand.

(Just asking, not trying to be all gotcha about it...)

SquallX

truejedi
In a selfish way, every American should fight for BLM because groups of people being marginalized and erased is something every American should abhor. Tomorrow it could be your group dismissed by propaganda.

SquallX

truejedi
I don't think you said anything that was true at all in your post. For claiming to not like liberals, you sure seem to think you are qualified for half of them. But you seeks you saw it on youtube? Nevermind, you nailed it.

eThneoLgrRnae
Actually, every single thing he said is the truth.

Old Man Whirly!

truejedi
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Actually, every single thing he said is the truth.

Actually, it isn't.

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by truejedi
Actually, it isn't. thumb up

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by truejedi
In a selfish way, every American should fight for BLM because groups of people being marginalized and erased is something every American should abhor. Tomorrow it could be your group dismissed by propaganda. Bingo!

SquallX
Originally posted by truejedi
I don't think you said anything that was true at all in your post. For claiming to not like liberals, you sure seem to think you are qualified for half of them. But you seeks you saw it on youtube? Nevermind, you nailed it.

So which part was untrue again?

That Black are just as racist as any other races?

Or white liberals are making decisions that only benefits them?

Or that Africa is being bought slowing bu China?

Or Muslims are still grabbing Afrikaans and making slaves of them?

Or these riots are being used by white liberals who could not give a **** about Blacks as a way to control them?

So tell me which is wrong.

Scribble
Originally posted by SquallX
So which part was untrue again?

That Black are just as racist as any other races?

Or white liberals are making decisions that only benefits them?

Or that Africa is being bought slowing bu China?

Or Muslims are still grabbing Afrikaans and making slaves of them?

Or these riots are being used by white liberals who could not give a **** about Blacks as a way to control them?

So tell me which is wrong. Unrelated to the discussion, I just wanted to point out that 'Afrikaans' is the name of the language developed by Dutch settlers in South Africa, not a term used for African people (or even people who speak Afrikaans, most of whom are called 'Afrikaners').

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by Scribble
Unrelated to the discussion, I just wanted to point out that 'Afrikaans' is the name of the language developed by Dutch settlers in South Africa, not a term used for African people (or even people who speak Afrikaans, most of whom are called 'Afrikaners'). thumb up very confusing the first time they invite you to a "Brie" and you find it's a barbecue. Worth reading a book called "The Ice Cream War" to get a feel for the weirdness that was colonialism in Africa just over a hundred years ago.

Darth Thor
Originally posted by dadudemon
It really isn't. That's how the data breaks down when using predictive analysis and that's covered quite thoroughly in my post.

The fatal police encounters varies very strongly and directly with the amount of violent crime.

Yes it is very specific.

Again, George Floyd wasn't committing a violent crime. So won't be covered by your stats.

Neither was Rayshard Brooks.

Neither was Christian Cooper (wasn't committing any crime) when Amy Cooper reported him to the police with a big smile on her face and no shame at all. That's inherent racism in society which your stats won't tell. Stats can not measure racism. But when people see and feel it they will protest against it.

We also know as a fact that there are killings that happen over Stop and Searches. So again not represented by your stats which are very specific comparing total number of homicides to total number of violent crimes, as if homicides only happen when there's a violent crime involved.

And back to White Lives Matter, what's the inherent racism the White Live Matter folk are speaking out against?

None I take it. They are just acting like kids, butthurt at the idea of people fighting for black people to be treated equally.

On the other hand when white people are killed by white police, I doubt they are feeling they were killed due to the colour of their skin.

Originally posted by dadudemon
While you perform mental gymnastics to get away from uncomfortable facts about black violence in the US, we still have mountains of dead black bodies.


Sometimes, taking the hardline SJW stance is actually the racist stance and it harms the victims. This is why I do not tolerate black violence blindness and call out the dishonest takes on the topic - black lives really do matter. Trying to perform mental gymnastics to avoid the mountain of dead young black men doesn't help black lives.


How is that mental gymnastics? You've presented your stats as facts about how many black people commit violent crimes. I just pointed out your stats only show how many black people are charged with violent crime.

As for the pile of dead black bodies, I assume you're referring to black on black crime? So are the black people being killed by police mostly killed due to police defending other black folk? Or is that another factor your stats are not covering?

samhain
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think part of it is police get so used to dealing with criminals all day long - the lying when caught, stealing, violence, depravity, etc. - that they start treating all humans with disdain. It's hard to keep your humanistic wits about you when interfacing with anyone in the public.


Definitely. Kinda seems like the 'chicken & egg' thing most of the time, people treat coppers like sh!t because coppers treat them like sh!t and vice versa. I feel there is serious indoctrination that happens to police personnel upon and within the first few years of joining from peers, superiors, etc, so no matter how honorable your intentions on joining, you'll have to become a team player eventually. That works both ways too. I'm from a working class area of a working class city and growing up it was always; 'don't talk to coppers', 'snitches get stitches' or 'grasses get gashes'.

wxyz
Imagine being triggered by a "White Lives Matter" flag.

Pathetic.

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by wxyz
Imagine being triggered by a "White Lives Matter" flag.

Pathetic.


Indeed. Such fragile little snowflakes some people are.

dadudemon
Originally posted by truejedi
One problem i see is that technically, a case such as breonna taylor wouldn't be considered a homocide by police yet in those statistics, right? And george floyd wasn't considered one until protestors forced their hand.

(Just asking, not trying to be all gotcha about it...)

It would. All deaths, not just the rightful deaths where a madman is killing people and won't stand down to police, count towards the police-homicides.

They break those numbers down even further by unarmed-kills and suicide by cop, too.


The data is pretty good. So good, that we know we have a white-male mental health problem in the US and they are killed the most out of all police-homicides. Yet another reason we need affordable UHC. I wonder how many of those mentally ill white guys have harmed black and brown people (by helping those white men, we may help the brown and black people, too - a win win).

dadudemon
Originally posted by truejedi
In a selfish way, every American should fight for BLM because groups of people being marginalized and erased is something every American should abhor. Tomorrow it could be your group dismissed by propaganda.

I think BLM should be thrown out for the garbage it is. It's a corrupt organization with no true intentions to save black lives.

They exist to protest the 10 unarmed black people killed by police when literally more than tat are killed each day by not-police.


Let's start a new movement that actually helps black people.

We'll call it, "No, really, black lives matter, too, and we are legitimately serious about helping black lives. We are not a shell company for the Democratic party."


We will call it: NRBLMT&WALSAHBGLWANASCFTDP movement.

Originally posted by Scribble
Unrelated to the discussion, I just wanted to point out that 'Afrikaans' is the name of the language developed by Dutch settlers in South Africa, not a term used for African people (or even people who speak Afrikaans, most of whom are called 'Afrikaners').

It's an auto-correct on iOS if you misspell Africans in a weird enough way. He posts from an iOS device.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yes it is very specific.

Again, George Floyd wasn't committing a violent crime. So won't be covered by your stats.

Neither was Rayshard Brooks.

Neither was Christian Cooper (wasn't committing any crime) when Amy Cooper reported him to the police with a big smile on her face and no shame at all. That's inherent racism in society which your stats won't tell. Stats can not measure racism. But when people see and feel it they will protest against it.

We also know as a fact that there are killings that happen over Stop and Searches. So again not represented by your stats which are very specific comparing total number of homicides to total number of violent crimes, as if homicides only happen when there's a violent crime involved.

And back to White Lives Matter, what's the inherent racism the White Live Matter folk are speaking out against?

None I take it. They are just acting like kids, butthurt at the idea of people fighting for black people to be treated equally.

On the other hand when white people are killed by white police, I doubt they are feeling they were killed due to the colour of their skin.


I don't know what you're talking about in all of this, right here. You're incorrect if you claim they are not covered in those stats: they are. Literally. It's literally the foundations of those stats. A black dead body is a black dead body and all those dead bodies are counted and broken out including the suicides in other data sets. I can't even comprehend what you are trying to accomplish, here.



Originally posted by Darth Thor
How is that mental gymnastics? You've presented your stats as facts about how many black people commit violent crimes. I just pointed out your stats only show how many black people are charged with violent crime.

By pretending like those dead bodies don't matter because they are of known crimes, you are performing mental gymnastics to avoid reality and it appears very racist of you and anyone who does that.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
As for the pile of dead black bodies, I assume you're referring to black on black crime? So are the black people being killed by police mostly killed due to police defending other black folk? Or is that another factor your stats are not covering?

In 70% of cases, yes. But 30% of those offenders are not black.

You DO know we also collect data on victimization, right?

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf


Why is it that you want to fight so strongly against the fact that black people are being murdered so much? It seems like such a racist stance to take. What is your real objective, here?

Old Man Whirly!
Bloody hell DDM, how many posts in a row?

Garrett Brow
What kind of equality can people fight for if they say that BLM is the main thing and WLM and ALM are not important? This is absurd.

wxyz
Originally posted by Garrett Brow
What kind of equality can people fight for if they say that BLM is the main thing and WLM and ALM are not important? This is absurd.

Agree.

Robtard
While White lives do matter and 'all lives matter' as well, they're used as a means to downplay the institutional racism and abuse Black people get in the US. The gaslighters who do it know exactly what they're doing when they do it.

eThneoLgrRnae
^Too blind or too dumb to see why people don't like the double standards... not surprising.

wxyz
It's funny watching people get all bent out of shape about flags; shows what kind of people they are.

socool8520
Originally posted by Robtard
While White lives do matter and 'all lives matter' as well, they're used as a means to downplay the institutional racism and abuse Black people get in the US. The gaslighters who do it know exactly what they're doing when they do it.

You can't just throw that stance out as if that's how every person who says that feels. If I say all lives matter, that's what I mean. It doesn't mean that I don't care about Black lives. It means I care more about proper policing so that all lives are protected rather than trying to make this purely a race issue.

I agree with DDM that the BLM movement doesn't seem to actually be concerned with saving Black lives, and are more concerned with getting even with white people. If they were actually concerned with Black lives, then Black on Black crime would definitely be the greater issue here. I'm all for calling out police brutality and demanding greater training and policing of our police force, but this movement is purely race baiting. Make a movement that really cares about Black lives, or all lives for that matter, and I will 100% be behind it.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by socool8520
You can't just throw that stance out as if that's how every person who says that feels. If I say all lives matter, that's what I mean. It doesn't mean that I don't care about Black lives. It means I care more about proper policing so that all lives are protected rather than trying to make this purely a race issue.

I agree with DDM that the BLM movement doesn't seem to actually be concerned with saving Black lives, and are more concerned with getting even with white people. If they were actually concerned with Black lives, then Black on Black crime would definitely be the greater issue here. I'm all for calling out police brutality and demanding greater training and policing of our police force, but this movement is purely race baiting. Make a movement that really cares about Black lives, or all lives for that matter, and I will 100% be behind it.

When black people are being disproportionately killed by police, it is a race issue. Imagine that instead of black people being disproportionately killed by police, the issue is the homes of black people being disproporionately targeted for arson. Would you then chime in and say, "I know black people are being disproportionately targeted for this crime, but actually, All Homes Matter"? No, because it would make you an *******.

Black Lives Matter was organized in response to black people, particularly black men, being disproportionately killed by police. That is their primary issue of concern. It is the reason they exist, and their primary focus. So why in the hell should they address black criminals targeting black people for violence? Most violence committed against white victims is by white perpetrators, but I do not see anyone suggesting that "something really needs to be done about white-on-white crime."

If you are truly "all for calling out police brutality and demanding greater training and policing of our police force," then you should have no problem doing that without caveats and conditions. Right now, you appear to be reticent to do so, because you see the "Black Lives Matter" slogan as exclusionary, which suggests that you care about those issues, but not enough to become involved if the efforts are not centered on a group to which you belong.

Silent Master
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't know what you're talking about in all of this, right here. You're incorrect if you claim they are not covered in those stats: they are. Literally. It's literally the foundations of those stats. A black dead body is a black dead body and all those dead bodies are counted and broken out including the suicides in other data sets. I can't even comprehend what you are trying to accomplish, here.





By pretending like those dead bodies don't matter because they are of known crimes, you are performing mental gymnastics to avoid reality and it appears very racist of you and anyone who does that.



In 70% of cases, yes. But 30% of those offenders are not black.

You DO know we also collect data on victimization, right?

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf


Why is it that you want to fight so strongly against the fact that black people are being murdered so much? It seems like such a racist stance to take. What is your real objective, here?

Seems clear to me.

socool8520
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
When black people are being disproportionately killed by police, it is a race issue. Imagine that instead of black people being disproportionately killed by police, the issue is the homes of black people being disproporionately targeted for arson. Would you then chime in and say, "I know black people are being disproportionately targeted for this crime, but actually, All Homes Matter"? No, because it would make you an *******.

Black Lives Matter was organized in response to black people, particularly black men, being disproportionately killed by police. That is their primary issue of concern. It is the reason they exist, and their primary focus. So why in the hell should they address black criminals targeting black people for violence? Most violence committed against white victims is by white perpetrators, but I do not see anyone suggesting that "something really needs to be done about white-on-white crime."

If you are truly "all for calling out police brutality and demanding greater training and policing of our police force," then you should have no problem doing that without caveats and conditions. Right now, you appear to be reticent to do so, because you see the "Black Lives Matter" slogan as exclusionary, which suggests that you care about those issues, but not enough to become involved if the efforts are not centered on a group to which you belong.


They also have a disproportionate involvement in criminal activity. It's unfortunate, but it's true. This does not excuse police brutality though, but it will skew the death numbers. Again, I'm all for calling out the police, but for everyone.

Why is this primary issue of concern? It's not even close to the leading cause of death of Black people in America. I would certainly address the issue that was most prominent in destroying people over a much smaller one. That's just me though I guess. If one truly cares for black people, they will tackle all the issues no? And logically, it would be the most serious right?

You're right, but white people also weren't talking about white lives matter either until the BLM movement.

I have stated there should be better training for Police many times, for the betterment of all people. If we want to improve the lives of Black people, however, this isn't even close to the biggest issue to tackle.

Eon Blue
Originally posted by socool8520
They also have a disproportionate involvement in criminal activity. It's unfortunate, but it's true. This does not excuse police brutality though, but it will skew the death numbers. Again, I'm all for calling out the police, but for everyone.

Why is this primary issue of concern? It's not even close to the leading cause of death of Black people in America. I would certainly address the issue that was most prominent in destroying people over a much smaller one. That's just me though I guess. If one truly cares for black people, they will tackle all the issues no? And logically, it would be the most serious right?

You're right, but white people also weren't talking about white lives matter either until the BLM movement.

I have stated there should be better training for Police many times, for the betterment of all people. If we want to improve the lives of Black people, however, this isn't even close to the biggest issue to tackle.

Bingo! thumb up

BrolyBlack
Originally posted by Darth Thor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53145201


Poor white people. So oppressed in the world today.

Says the white guy

BrolyBlack

snowdragon
Originally posted by socool8520
They also have a disproportionate involvement in criminal activity. It's unfortunate, but it's true. This does not excuse police brutality though, but it will skew the death numbers. Again, I'm all for calling out the police, but for everyone.

Why is this primary issue of concern? It's not even close to the leading cause of death of Black people in America. I would certainly address the issue that was most prominent in destroying people over a much smaller one. That's just me though I guess. If one truly cares for black people, they will tackle all the issues no? And logically, it would be the most serious right?

You're right, but white people also weren't talking about white lives matter either until the BLM movement.

I have stated there should be better training for Police many times, for the betterment of all people. If we want to improve the lives of Black people, however, this isn't even close to the biggest issue to tackle.

Plus there is ZERO reason they couldn't pick up the notion that black on black violence kills (vast majority of black deaths) and put that under their banner at the sametime, makes the movement far more genuine.

But that wouldn't fit a narrative so you know sick

samhain
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Says the white guy


Pretty sure I've heard Darth Thor say he was Muslim, doesn't mean he's not white I suppose but I wouldn't bet on it. Think it was Darth Thor anyway, could have been somebody else.

Darth Thor
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't know what you're talking about in all of this, right here. You're incorrect if you claim they are not covered in those stats: they are. Literally. It's literally the foundations of those stats. A black dead body is a black dead body and all those dead bodies are counted and broken out including the suicides in other data sets. I can't even comprehend what you are trying to accomplish, here.


You are claiming (correct me if I'm wrong), that we can basically judge racism by comparing the number of violent offenders of each race, to the numbers of homicides to that particular race.

What I'm saying is:

1) That would assume homicides are a direct result of offenders being violent. But the few cases that lead to the BLM protests had nothing to do with violence.

2) Stats Can Not measure racism. In fact your stats by their nature are presuming there is no inherent racism in making these arrests.




Originally posted by dadudemon
By pretending like those dead bodies don't matter because they are of known crimes, you are performing mental gymnastics to avoid reality and it appears very racist of you and anyone who does that.

I never once implied dead bodies do not matter. Neither is making claims of me performing mental gymnastics a proper rebuttal to the points I am making.

I'm addressing your specific way of measuring racism, by comparing dead bodies of a race to violent crimes of the same race. There's just so many flaws in that logic for reasons I've already pointed out.





Originally posted by dadudemon
In 70% of cases, yes. But 30% of those offenders are not black.

You DO know we also collect data on victimization, right?

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf


Why is it that you want to fight so strongly against the fact that black people are being murdered so much? It seems like such a racist stance to take. What is your real objective, here?


Okay you're going a bit loopy here now accusing me of racism. And trying to come out with a conspiracy of what I'm trying to prove.

I was simply baffled by your stats because it seems clear to me that as a black person has a much higher likliehood of being killed by police than a white person.

So Let me explain this to you again. Try to stay logical in your rebuttal without getting defensive or making accusations (which I seem to be getting a lot from the non-lefties around here).

You are claiming less black people are killed in comparison to the violent crimes they commit, implying police only come and kill when a violent crime is involved.

The you talk about all the black dead bodies as proof of black violence. So I assumed you were talking about black on black violence.

So I'm asking you are you claiming police mostly kill black people whilst trying to defend other black people?

Darth Thor
Originally posted by snowdragon
Plus there is ZERO reason they couldn't pick up the notion that black on black violence kills (vast majority of black deaths) and put that under their banner at the sametime, makes the movement far more genuine.

But that wouldn't fit a narrative so you know sick


Because the movement is against inherent racism especially in the establishment. Presumably blacks do not kill blacks because they are racist towards blacks.

But I'm pretty sure the victims families are not okay with it. Not are the black families scared for their kids in those neighbourhoods.

Surtur
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Bloody hell DDM, how many posts in a row?

I count 3 posts in a row. I've seen you or your pals perform such things in the past, no doubt you called it out and I missed it.

Surtur
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Because the movement is against inherent racism especially in the establishment. Presumably blacks do not kill blacks because they are racist towards blacks.

But I'm pretty sure the victims families are not okay with it. Not are the black families scared for their kids in those neighbourhoods.

The movement should change its name then.

HCA. Hold Cops Accountable. Boom, right on point and they can freely ignore the rampant black on black violence without having to worry about being questioned over it. Then they can stop deflecting and blaming outside forces for every single problem in the community. After all, the name says hold cops accountable, not them.

snowdragon
There are just about more deaths in a long weekend in Chicago from black on black violence then an entire year of the whole USA.



Did you mistype this sentance, I'm not clear on it.




Perfect

Surtur
Originally posted by socool8520
They also have a disproportionate involvement in criminal activity. It's unfortunate, but it's true. This does not excuse police brutality though, but it will skew the death numbers.

Bingo, and it might not excuse the brutality, but it perhaps offers us up an explanation for the number of deaths and number in prison that goes beyond simply "it's racism".

It's mostly a training issue, and tragedies as a result of this training are obviously going to be more likely to occur in places with a higher police presence. Likewise, arrests for drug offenses are gonna be more frequent in areas with more cops.

snowdragon
Originally posted by Surtur
Bingo, and it might not excuse the brutality, but it perhaps offers us up an explanation for the number of deaths and number in prison that goes beyond simply "it's racism".

It's mostly a training issue, and tragedies as a result of this training are obviously going to be more likely to occur in places with a higher police presence.

Right but the war on drugs has caused alot of pain in the black communities which is a serious problem, probably more so then blm overall. Alot of prison cells filled with wasted drug incarcerations.

DarthAloysius
It's not really fair or honest to treat state-sanctioned violence against blacks and black-on-black crime is seperate issues, or to suggest that the BLM movement is only interested in one of them. Especially when a huge number of black activists are involved in tackling these problems.

But political activists lecturing criminals on the value of black lives is not going to cause black-on-black crime to decrease, encouraging better policing and a more accountable criminal justice system on the other hand might actually work to heal the current rift between police and the black community. Which in turn could serve as a basis for a community based policing model that is actually effective in reducing violent crime in these neighbourhoods.

What does the 'White Lives Matter' movement do to further any of this? Other than providing a smoke-screen for racists trolls to downplay the issue? There are a lot people in this thread who seem very concerned about issue black-on-black crime, and yet only seem to be proferring excuses for why the BLM movement is flawed and should be disregarded. Why?

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by DarthAloysius
It's not really fair or honest to treat state-sanctioned violence against blacks and black-on-black crime is seperate issues, or to suggest that the BLM movement is only interested in one of them. Especially when a huge number of black activists are involved in tackling these problems.

But political activists lecturing criminals on the value of black lives is not going to cause black-on-black crime to decrease, encouraging better policing and a more accountable criminal justice system on the other hand might actually work to heal the current rift between police and the black community. Which in turn could serve as a basis for a community based policing model that is actually effective in reducing violent crime in these neighbourhoods.

What does the 'White Lives Matter' movement do to further any of this? Other than providing a smoke-screen for racists trolls to downplay the issue? There are a lot people in this thread who seem very concerned about issue black-on-black crime, and yet only seem to be proferring excuses for why the BLM movement is flawed and should be disregarded. Why? Perfect post thumb up

snowdragon
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Perfect post thumb up

Don't post under a secondary account and I would respond, bingo/bang on wink

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by snowdragon
Don't post under a secondary account and I would respond, bingo/bang on wink nothing to do with me mate. I guarantee it.

cdtm
Originally posted by Darth Thor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53145201


Poor white people. So oppressed in the world today.


How much does it cost to buy a banner?


If its a troll, its an expensive troll.

snowdragon
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
nothing to do with me mate. I guarantee it. wink

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by snowdragon
wink syntax is different.

Surtur
Originally posted by DarthAloysius
It's not really fair or honest to treat state-sanctioned violence against blacks and black-on-black crime is seperate issues, or to suggest that the BLM movement is only interested in one of them. Especially when a huge number of black activists are involved in tackling these problems.

But political activists lecturing criminals on the value of black lives is not going to cause black-on-black crime to decrease, encouraging better policing and a more accountable criminal justice system on the other hand might actually work to heal the current rift between police and the black community. Which in turn could serve as a basis for a community based policing model that is actually effective in reducing violent crime in these neighbourhoods.

What does the 'White Lives Matter' movement do to further any of this? Other than providing a smoke-screen for racists trolls to downplay the issue? There are a lot people in this thread who seem very concerned about issue black-on-black crime, and yet only seem to be proferring excuses for why the BLM movement is flawed and should be disregarded. Why?

^This response is neither fair nor honest. Hilarious.

cdtm
Originally posted by DarthAloysius
It's not really fair or honest to treat state-sanctioned violence against blacks and black-on-black crime is seperate issues, or to suggest that the BLM movement is only interested in one of them. Especially when a huge number of black activists are involved in tackling these problems.

But political activists lecturing criminals on the value of black lives is not going to cause black-on-black crime to decrease, encouraging better policing and a more accountable criminal justice system on the other hand might actually work to heal the current rift between police and the black community. Which in turn could serve as a basis for a community based policing model that is actually effective in reducing violent crime in these neighbourhoods.

What does the 'White Lives Matter' movement do to further any of this? Other than providing a smoke-screen for racists trolls to downplay the issue? There are a lot people in this thread who seem very concerned about issue black-on-black crime, and yet only seem to be proferring excuses for why the BLM movement is flawed and should be disregarded. Why?



Impossible.


You know how bad the CIA and homeland security is? How many rules they break, with the Guantanamo Bays and shit?


I am against that. I also understand why they do it.


Because the "bad guys" have no depths they won't sink to. They know how to "game the system", and so we get underhanded tactics and black ops shit to cut through their BS.


And innocent people get caught in the middle.



My point, is clean up the police, and you've still got the Crips. If the cleaned up, not racist new law enforcement can't handle gang violence, then people stop complaining about police brutality, and start complaining about an inability to addesss crime.

This either leads to increasing pressure to produce, leading to more "racist" police, or it leads to demands for the "state" to take more drastic action, and we end up with a Gestapo...


Bottom line, bad law enforcement don't exist in a vacuum. We have to ask how they got so bad, and what can be done about the conditions that corrupted them, if anything can be done about it.

snowdragon
Originally posted by Surtur
^This response is neither fair nor honest. Hilarious.

And it's clearly a secondary account....but you know bang on/bingo.

Surtur
Originally posted by snowdragon
And it's clearly a secondary account....but you know bang on/bingo.

Hilarious part is the guy who is socking and responding to himself also busts out the "woah chill out guys, we're under a ban hammer" spiel. Too funny.

snowdragon
Originally posted by Surtur
Hilarious part is the guy who is socking and responding to himself also busts out the "woah chill out guys, we're under a ban hammer" spiel. Too funny.

The only times black lives matter is during elections since induction, talk about being redactive but concise:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=black%20lives%20matter

Google trends and listening to their mssg is garbage without all the word salad presented because, hey lets be honest or not bingo/bang on.

Surtur
Well yeah, about every 4 years democrats act like they give a shit about minorities.

Of course defunding the cops in crime infested areas with high minority populations sure will teach white people a lesson, I guess?

cdtm
Originally posted by Surtur
Well yeah, about every 4 years democrats act like they give a shit about minorities.

Of course defunding the cops in crime infested areas with high minority populations sure will teach white people a lesson, I guess?


It lets them redirect funds away from ghetto's.


It's a form of gentrification for the police.


Mark my words, this is all smoke and mirrors to screw minorities even worse then they have been.

DarthAloysius
I am not a Whirly sock, but believe what you like. For a website undergoing a slow heat death you guys seem unusually hostile to new membership.
Originally posted by cdtm
Impossible.


You know how bad the CIA and homeland security is? How many rules they break, with the Guantanamo Bays and shit?


I am against that. I also understand why they do it.


Because the "bad guys" have no depths they won't sink to. They know how to "game the system", and so we get underhanded tactics and black ops shit to cut through their BS.


And innocent people get caught in the middle.



My point, is clean up the police, and you've still got the Crips. If the cleaned up, not racist new law enforcement can't handle gang violence, then people stop complaining about police brutality, and start complaining about an inability to addesss crime.

This either leads to increasing pressure to produce, leading to more "racist" police, or it leads to demands for the "state" to take more drastic action, and we end up with a Gestapo...That's why it's not enough to just "clean up law enforcement", you need a new model of policing. There a proven strategies for dealing with gang violence, and none of them involve more heavy-handed policing, but rather providing community support and exit strategies for those involved. Starve them of membership and street gangs will dissappear. But that can't happen without state funding, and a reappriasal of how the state views and treats black people.

In a lot of cases I would start from scratch, dissolve existing police organisations and rebuild them from the ground up.

Surtur
A county in oregon legit tried to say blacks should be exempt from mask rules

I can't even keep up with this shit anymore. I thought they were more heavily impacted by the virus but...I don't even know.

After people pointed out "that's racist" they changed their mind.

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by Surtur
Hilarious part is the guy who is socking and responding to himself also busts out the "woah chill out guys, we're under a ban hammer" spiel. Too funny. Darth whatever his name is, is assuredly not me. I wouldn't want anyone banned, words here aren't that important to me. But crack on.

Surtur
Originally posted by DarthAloysius
I am not a Whirly sock, but believe what you like. For a website undergoing a slow heat death you guys seem unusually hostile to new membership.
That's why it's not enough to just "clean up law enforcement", you need a new model of policing. There a proven strategies for dealing with gang violence, and none of them involve more heavy-handed policing, but rather providing community support and exit strategies for those involved. Starve them of membership and street gangs will dissappear. But that can't happen without state funding, and a reappriasal of how the state views and treats black people.

In a lot of cases I would start from scratch, dissolve existing police organisations and rebuild them from the ground up.

Okay champ, you're not new. You're a sock, probably Whirly's, but you are someones sock. No need to hide behind another user name kiddo

Surtur
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Darth whatever his name is, is assuredly not me. I wouldn't want anyone banned, words here aren't that important to me. But crack on.

Problem is you've lied before about socking.

The little boy who cried "i'm not a sock"

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by Surtur
Problem is you've lied before about socking.

The little boy who cried "i'm not a sock" haha, never to the mods.

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by DarthAloysius
It's not really fair or honest to treat state-sanctioned violence against blacks and black-on-black crime is seperate issues, or to suggest that the BLM movement is only interested in one of them. Especially when a huge number of black activists are involved in tackling these problems.

But political activists lecturing criminals on the value of black lives is not going to cause black-on-black crime to decrease, encouraging better policing and a more accountable criminal justice system on the other hand might actually work to heal the current rift between police and the black community. Which in turn could serve as a basis for a community based policing model that is actually effective in reducing violent crime in these neighbourhoods.

What does the 'White Lives Matter' movement do to further any of this? Other than providing a smoke-screen for racists trolls to downplay the issue? There are a lot people in this thread who seem very concerned about issue black-on-black crime, and yet only seem to be proferring excuses for why the BLM movement is flawed and should be disregarded. Why? back on topic, excellent post. Wish I had written it, it destroys the right narrative.

snowdragon
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
back on topic, excellent post. Wish I had written it, it destroys the right narrative.

I know right, bingo/crack on.......there is no significant right narrative on this forum. Generally speaking it's just ppl looking to dispell the garbage of narrative policing without facts....also bingo/crack on. wink

DarthAloysius
Originally posted by Surtur
Okay champ, you're not new. You're a sock, probably Whirly's, but you are someones sock. No need to hide behind another user name kiddo You are right, I am not new, just making an observation.

I know enough about you on the other hand to be aware that you are not worthing paying attention to. thumb up

cdtm
Teg maybe? He hasn't poster as much.

snowdragon
I have spoken about cleaning up law enforcement in the past, so I'm not going into that mssging in particular. That said the BLM mssging is clearly political and has very little to do with said lives. If you believe in the USA there is a problem with racism I would respond with a simple "racism is an individual belief that cannot be routed out by laws." Look at the culture of the USA, dominated by black influence well beyond its population and to fix thebad parts requires community influence not legislation.

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by DarthAloysius
You are right, I am not new, just making an observation.

I know enough about you on the other hand to be aware that you are not worthing paying attention to. thumb up Whoever you are you want to engage in logical polite debate, with carefully thought through and nuances arguments. I respect that, I'd respect it if your politics were different. thumb up

Surtur
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Whoever you are you want to engage in logical polite debate, with carefully thought through and nuances arguments. I respect that, I'd respect it if your politics were different. thumb up

I laughed. You used so many words incorrectly it's not even funny.

I'm gonna allow this farce smile

DarthAloysius
Originally posted by snowdragon
I have spoken about cleaning up law enforcement in the past, so I'm not going into that mssging in particular. That said the BLM mssging is clearly political and has very little to do with said lives. If you believe in the USA there is a problem with racism I would respond with a simple "racism is an individual belief that cannot be routed out by laws." Look at the culture of the USA, dominated by black influence well beyond its population and to fix thebad parts requires community influence not legislation. The USA does have a problem with racism, and the way to deal with it is by curbing the ability of racists to act. So long as police feel empowered to kill innocent blacks with little more than a slap wrist and a few months leave, they will continue to do so. They need to be held accountable, and their ability to execute civilians needs to be restricted.

When people say Black Lives Matter they mean that it is not acceptable to treat black people as expendable, and that the state-sanctioned taking of those lives should be met with consequences. Is that a political statement? Yeah, it relates to the public sphere, I also don't see a problem with it.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
When black people are being disproportionately killed by police

Wrong.

Unless you mean to say they are killed less often than white people proportionally to their violent crime prevalence?

Highly unlikely that you do not mean that at all.





If you can't even discuss police brutality with honesty, you shouldn't discuss the topic at all.

DarthAloysius
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Whoever you are you want to engage in logical polite debate, with carefully thought through and nuances arguments. I respect that, I'd respect it if your politics were different. thumb up Thanks. thumb up

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by DarthAloysius
The USA does have a problem with racism, and the way to deal with it is by curbing the ability of racists to act. So long as police feel empowered to kill innocent blacks with little more than a slap wrist and a few months leave, they will continue to do so. They need to be held accountable, and their ability to execute civilians needs to be restricted.

When people say Black Lives Matter they mean that it is not acceptable to treat black people as expendable, and that the state-sanctioned taking of those lives should be met with consequences. Is that a political statement? Yeah, it relates to the public sphere, I also don't see a problem with it. brilliant post again. thumb up

dadudemon
Originally posted by Darth Thor
You are claiming (correct me if I'm wrong), that we can basically judge racism by comparing the number of violent offenders of each race, to the numbers of homicides to that particular race.

No.

The science says you can predict fatal police encounters in each city by the prevalence of race in the city and the amount of violent crime those races commit. It holds true across the board in every city they looked at. That includes white dominated cities, black dominated cities, and Hispanic dominated cities.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
1) That would assume homicides are a direct result of offenders being violent. But the few cases that lead to the BLM protests had nothing to do with violence.

2) Stats Can Not measure racism. In fact your stats by their nature are presuming there is no inherent racism in making these arrests.

So you are stating their movement is not legit based on the science and these one off events, of which there are much more for white people, are exceptions? I highly doubt that this is what you're saying. It seems to contradict you entire point which I still do not understand.

Yes, almost no racism is involved with fatal police encounters. When you look at statistics, it generalizes to the population or the sample. When you look at one specific case, you have details about that case. It's the same problem everyone has with statistics: they cannot wrap their brain around the population statistics because they are laser focused on what is called the exception fallacy. The statistics still remain true even if you find even dozens of exceptions.

Silent Master
Originally posted by DarthAloysius
The USA does have a problem with racism, and the way to deal with it is by curbing the ability of racists to act. So long as police feel empowered to kill innocent blacks with little more than a slap wrist and a few months leave, they will continue to do so. They need to be held accountable, and their ability to execute civilians needs to be restricted.

When people say Black Lives Matter they mean that it is not acceptable to treat black people as expendable, and that the state-sanctioned taking of those lives should be met with consequences. Is that a political statement? Yeah, it relates to the public sphere, I also don't see a problem with it.

Post this under your non-sock account if you want to be taken seriously

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by Silent Master
Post this under your non-sock account if you want to be taken seriously soppy sod, I'd never write a post that long under any account.

snowdragon
Originally posted by DarthAloysius
So long as police feel empowered to kill innocent blacks with little more than a slap wrist and a few months leave, they will continue to do so.

Most of your point is simply disengenous words when you say "empowered" because that is the opposite of what happens to police and your use of "innocent" is questionable as well.



The more appropitate answer to this is simply a question, if there is so much racism why do most the minority cities with problems boast a significant black leadership? Come back to me with an honest response and we can have a discussion in good faith.

Silent Master
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
soppy sod, I'd never write a post that long under any account.

I never said it was your sock.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthAloysius
It's not really fair or honest to treat state-sanctioned violence against blacks and black-on-black crime is seperate issues, or to suggest that the BLM movement is only interested in one of them. Especially when a huge number of black activists are involved in tackling these problems.


Too true.

BLM is also interested in getting Democrats elected. They use ActBlue as their charity funds manager. Here's the top recipients of ActBlue money:

https://i.imgur.com/VUaVrlt.png


Opensecrets said that none of the BLM donations are going to the DNC so you can mark off that $30 million at the #9 slot from that list.

https://twitter.com/OpenSecretsDC/status/1272939242927218688


And it should be obvious why BLM is interested in electing Democrats.

It says it right on their website in their "What Matters" section:



They use an "ActBlue" charity company to funnel funds to Democrats to get them elected or reelected.


If they actually cared about those issues, they'd vote for Trump, the Libertarians, or the Greens.


And they make it VERY clear they want to destroy the nuclear family (when we have mountains of science that shows the standard nuclear family to be the best possible starting point for children):

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement..."

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/






WTF? Burn this organization to the ground. Destroy it. Post-haste.

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by dadudemon
Too true.

BLM is also interested in getting Democrats elected. They use ActBlue as their charity funds manager. Here's the top recipients of ActBlue money:

https://i.imgur.com/VUaVrlt.png


Opensecrets said that none of the BLM donations are going to the DNC so you can mark off that $30 million at the #9 slot from that list.

https://twitter.com/OpenSecretsDC/status/1272939242927218688


And it should be obvious why BLM is interested in electing Democrats.

It says it right on their website in their "What Matters" section:



They use an "ActBlue" charity company to funnel funds to Democrats to get them elected or reelected.


If they actually cared about those issues, they'd vote for Trump, the Libertarians, or the Greens.


And they make it VERY clear they want to destroy the nuclear family (when we have mountains of science that shows the standard nuclear family to be the best possible starting point for children):

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement..."

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/






WTF? Burn this organization to the ground. Destroy it. Post-haste. Tell me DDM, who are "open secrets".

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by dadudemon
Too true.

BLM is also interested in getting Democrats elected. They use ActBlue as their charity funds manager. Here's the top recipients of ActBlue money:

https://i.imgur.com/VUaVrlt.png


Opensecrets said that none of the BLM donations are going to the DNC so you can mark off that $30 million at the #9 slot from that list.

https://twitter.com/OpenSecretsDC/status/1272939242927218688


And it should be obvious why BLM is interested in electing Democrats.

It says it right on their website in their "What Matters" section:



They use an "ActBlue" charity company to funnel funds to Democrats to get them elected or reelected.


If they actually cared about those issues, they'd vote for Trump, the Libertarians, or the Greens.


And they make it VERY clear they want to destroy the nuclear family (when we have mountains of science that shows the standard nuclear family to be the best possible starting point for children):

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement..."

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/






WTF? Burn this organization to the ground. Destroy it. Post-haste. Tell me DDM, who are "open secrets".

https://i.imgur.com/5JNOZMK.jpg

Where are your figures from?

The Blaze?

dadudemon
Originally posted by dadudemon
Thttps://i.imgur.com/VUaVrlt.png


Opensecrets said that none of the BLM donations are going to the DNC so you can mark off that $30 million at the #9 slot from that list.

https://twitter.com/OpenSecretsDC/status/1272939242927218688

Old Man Whirly!
Where is your source DDM? The Blaze?

https://i.imgur.com/5JNOZMK.jpg

dadudemon
Originally posted by dadudemon
Too true.

BLM is also interested in getting Democrats elected. They use ActBlue as their charity funds manager. Here's the top recipients of ActBlue money:

https://i.imgur.com/VUaVrlt.png


Opensecrets said that none of the BLM donations are going to the DNC so you can mark off that $30 million at the #9 slot from that list.

https://twitter.com/OpenSecretsDC/status/1272939242927218688

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cycle=2020&cmte=C00401224

https://i.imgur.com/6KDY4Gy.png





Troll harder, Whirly.

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by dadudemon
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cycle=2020&cmte=C00401224

https://i.imgur.com/6KDY4Gy.png





Troll harder, Whirly. Who are your source DDM, that's not trolling, who verifies them. Do you know act blue are channelling BLM money to the dems... can you prove it? Or are act Blue just dealing with BLM.

Silent Master
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center-for-responsive-politics-open-secrets/

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by Silent Master
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center-for-responsive-politics-open-secrets/ thanks for that so DDM needs to prove his point as open secrets who disagree with DDM say this.

https://i.imgur.com/5JNOZMK.jpg

And you say they are really solid. So where is DDM getting his inferences?

Cheers for supporting truth S and M

snowdragon
All that said was the blm didn't pull in money directly, not that the organization didn't use it's branding to pull in money from another name...........so disingenuous, so much the actor.

So much the provocateur without answering any questions themselves. rarely if ever do you provide substance yet require that from those you engage with, typically reffered to as trolling.

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by snowdragon
All that said was the blm didn't pull in money directly, not that the organization didn't use it's branding to pull in money from another name...........so disingenuous, so much the actor.

So much the provocateur without answering any questions themselves. rarely if ever do you provide substance yet require that from those you engage with, typically reffered to as trolling. Disagree DDM says this

https://i.imgur.com/5JNOZMK.jpg

Is not true, however S and M says it's a site of top integrity.

DDM posted names and numbers from a group who handles accounts for multiple purposes. He needs to prove the names and figures of money come from the BLM source or other sources also managed by the same group. He hasn't yet.

Old Man Whirly!
Here you go... the real skinny!

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/want-know-where-all-those-corporate-donations-blm-are-going-n1225371


This report also conflicts from far right social media propaganda on where the money is going.

Silent Master
Your source is listed as left-center bias



Why are they better than a site listed as least biased?

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by Silent Master
Your source is listed as left-center bias



Why are they better than a site listed as least biased? Originally posted by Silent Master
Your source is listed as left-center bias



Why are they better than a site listed as least biased? what do you mean, I'm agree with open secrets. DDM isn't. I'll agree with them as all other sources seem to agree with them too. DDM needs to provide more than a table which doesn't show flow in from BLM.

dadudemon
https://i.imgur.com/8pVqKG2.png


Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Is not true, however S and M says it's a site of top integrity.

DDM posted names and numbers from a group who handles accounts for multiple purposes. He needs to prove the names and figures of money come from the BLM source or other sources also managed by the same group. He hasn't yet.

BLM uses ActBlue. ActBlue, as the name implies, is a Democratic Party affiliated fund-raising organization. They get Democrats elected. That is their goal.

https://i.imgur.com/76PTat5.png


The burden of proof is on you to contradict these facts. You have the evidence. Now it's time for you to prove a counter position also with facts.

Before you even entered this conversation, I already - because I'm an honest actor - pointed out that ActBlue's 9th largest donation recipient is not getting money from BLM. That still leaves 1-8 and 10.



Since your trolling won't work and literally everyone else who sees this convo will see you're wrong and dishonest in your game, your trolling attempt has failed.


You quoted that StarWars person 2-3 times, trying to incite others to responding. You were trolling. It was obvious. I bit because I had the facts. I took the bait. Now everyone has the facts and no amount of trolling on your part, or misdirection will change this.

Old Man Whirly!
Double post, but you need to show a pathway. You aren't your making an inference.

Old Man Whirly!
Act Blue work with others too, can you show me the cash flow too that chart of name please. Till then you have no proof and I'll go with S and M's top source open secrets.

All you are doing is posting the right wing false propaganda open secrets talks about.

Silent Master
What color is the sky in your world?

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by Silent Master
What color is the sky in your world? open secrets themselves say this on their twitter feed.

https://i.imgur.com/5JNOZMK.jpg

Now imagine granny gives mum 25 dollars and grand pa gives mum 25 dollars. Mum has 50 dollars she give 25 dollars from gran to Jo Biden none of grand pa's money has gone to Jo Biden. Prove where the money came in and went out in your table DDM.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Silent Master
What color is the sky in your world?

At this point, it doesn't matter. The data is raw and right out there for anyone to plainly see.

smile


I remember in the past, Ushgarak would ban posters for doing what Whirly is trying to do.

haermm

DarthAloysius

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by dadudemon
At this point, it doesn't matter. The data is raw and right out there for anyone to plainly see.

smile


I remember in the past, Ushgarak would ban posters for doing what Whirly is trying to do.

haermm no he wouldn't, I'm asking you to prove money from a specific source held centrally by a company that holds money from many sources is the source of the donations you talk about. When the source of your charts say.

https://i.imgur.com/5JNOZMK.jpg

DarthAloysius
Originally posted by dadudemon
Too true.

BLM is also interested in getting Democrats elected. They use ActBlue as their charity funds manager. Here's the top recipients of ActBlue money:


Opensecrets said that none of the BLM donations are going to the DNC so you can mark off that $30 million at the #9 slot from that list.


And it should be obvious why BLM is interested in electing Democrats.

It says it right on their website in their "What Matters" section:


They use an "ActBlue" charity company to funnel funds to Democrats to get them elected or reelected.


If they actually cared about those issues, they'd vote for Trump, the Libertarians, or the Greens.


And they make it VERY clear they want to destroy the nuclear family (when we have mountains of science that shows the standard nuclear family to be the best possible starting point for children):

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement..."




WTF? Burn this organization to the ground. Destroy it. Post-haste. BLM started with a hashtag opposing police brutality. The organisation known as 'Black Lives Matter' has piggy-backed itself on the back of that, but the movement itself remains decentralised and leaderless, and frankly has grown way larger to encompass racism against black people in general.

Personally, I do not donate to the organisation known as 'Black Lives Matter', there are better orgs to donate to under the same banner that are making it clear where the money is going and what they are doing with it. I also think the stuff the BLM org is saying about patriarchy and the nuclear family is distracting from the central issue, which is a shame.

Do you believe Black people are mostly being treated fairly by the police? Honest question. You talk a lot about how the statistics don't support this and yet incidents like the George Floyd murder keep occurring and police mistrust amongst the black community remains high.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthAloysius
Personally, I do not donate to the organisation known as 'Black Lives Matter', there are better orgs to donate to under the same banner that are making it clear where the money is going and what they are doing with it. I also think the stuff the BLM org is saying about patriarchy and the nuclear family is distracting from the central issue, which is a shame.

Top-Notch!

thumb up

Whirly is right, you are a great addition to the GDF. Super glad to have you around. I also donate and spend time with other orgs that help the black community without all the politics and anti-science junk.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
Do you believe Black people are mostly being treated fairly by the police?

Drug War: no
Stop and Frisk: no

Black people are veritably, with solid nonpartisan science, disparately impacted by those 2 policies. Relative to white people, population prevalence, and violent crime prevalence, white people are disproportionately killed by police compared to any other race demographics.

The US Police, in general, need to improve across the board. It's an American problem, not just a black problem. By improving the police, we help black lives: that message should not get lost. And the uppity white people getting their panties in a bunch because of the people who want police to stop manhandling and killing black people need to take note that the policies people - who are well-read and intelligent - want, will help literally everyone else, too.


Originally posted by DarthAloysius
Honest question. You talk a lot about how the statistics don't support this and yet incidents like the George Floyd murder keep occurring and police mistrust amongst the black community remains high.

That's a media created problem and a black culture problem. The exceptions do not make the science.

Better regulations with the media could have saved dozens of lives that have been lost directly related to the George Floyd riots. Directly, dozens of people died because of these actions. And the hate and anger was almost entirely driven by the Mainstream Media. That is not protected speech. Round the clock news coverage of George Floyd's death, inciting anger, shaming the public, fear-mongering the people - not proteted speech under the first amendment. It directly led to lost lives. Were the 20+ lives lost during the riots worth the coverage of George Floyd's death? Was 1 life worth those other 20+?. I say, no. Not even close.

snowdragon
To be abundantly clear, policing is done on a local level. It's not controlled federally like the FBI.



Our system is setup so communities can vote in officials locally to decide what happens, not nationally for policing. So my question stands that you danced around, how is it the problems generally reside in communities that are led by democratically elected black officials who can dictate the change when in office.

Most of these problems are literally not supposed to be a part of the presidents arsenal of power.

Scribble
Originally posted by snowdragon
To be abundantly clear, policing is done on a local level. It's not controlled federally like the FBI.

Our system is setup so communities can vote in officials locally to decide what happens, not nationally for policing. So my question stands that you danced around, how is it the problems generally reside in communities that are led by democratically elected black officials who can dictate the change when in office.

Most of these problems are literally not supposed to be a part of the presidents arsenal of power. thumb up

dadudemon
snowdragon, I disagree with you.

Don't get mad at me. Read my whole post first. Then hate me.

estahuh



The US should have a federally regulated level of quality for both gun control and local police.

A minimum level. This would be a federal law that regulates the quality of police.


Police do get federal funds:

https://www.spacesaver.com/markets/public-safety-storage/space-optimization/funding-sources-for-police-departments/



So the American people should get a say in the quality of the police that police us.


That's a minimum level of regulation. I am all for no-nonsense regulations.



Check it out: if I am required to run IT Enterprises with a certain level of Separation of Duties to meet Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, local police should be regulated to a minimum standard, as well. They can kill people. I cannot. So why do I get the stiffer regulations? Because Enron execs stole lots of money. You read that right: police are not nationally regulated through law like companies are because some rich people stole tons of money and other rich people got mad. So we got a law that regulates trillions of dollars but not laws that regulates the loss of life. Also, the prison systems have hundreds of billions of dollars to throw around so they don't want police to regulate. smile



Here, I have your very valid and honest counter-argument to my position.

"Great. Nice lofty goals. Have any specifics or are these just more empty platitudes you're speaking to placate the masses? I've seen hot air from politicians, before. We don't need more overly bloated regulations that just end up costing tax payers money but do nothing to change the social and financial problems that plague the US."


Good point. And that's a legit concern to have about more regulations.



But I've been clear about the regulations I want to see from this:

Science-based de-escalation procedures that focuses, with the utmost priority, saving lives during police engagements.

Psych-evals required to be hired and maintain your ability to interface with the public (street patrols, detectives, etc.). If you fail, you can be moved to administrative duties until deemed fit for duty by a licensed and relevant mental health professional (no signed documents from therapists for, say, childhood therapists who specialize in auditory sensory, for example. You need to get your documentation signed and/or peer reviewed by someone specializing in violence, PTSD, etc. Directly relevant to policing).

In addition, regulation related to weapons and tactical engagement. Other police forces, in the world, handle violent offenders with less-lethal outcomes compared to the US. Some of those police forces are required to have degrees and years of training before they can hit the streets. Why not the US?

We also need physical fitness requirements. No more 350lbs police trying to make arrests. No more 110lbs women patrolling the streets without partners. You need to have to meet the same or similar standards that firemen do if you're expected to wrestle and safely cuff a 210lbs man who is high on PCP and/or meth.



I wrote this during a meeting. So forgive any errors - 0 proofreading was done.

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Where is your source DDM? The Blaze?

https://i.imgur.com/5JNOZMK.jpg Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Disagree DDM says this

https://i.imgur.com/5JNOZMK.jpg

Is not true, however S and M says it's a site of top integrity.

DDM posted names and numbers from a group who handles accounts for multiple purposes. He needs to prove the names and figures of money come from the BLM source or other sources also managed by the same group. He hasn't yet. Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Here you go... the real skinny!

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/want-know-where-all-those-corporate-donations-blm-are-going-n1225371


This report also conflicts from far right social media propaganda on where the money is going. Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
open secrets themselves say this on their twitter feed.

https://i.imgur.com/5JNOZMK.jpg

Now imagine granny gives mum 25 dollars and grand pa gives mum 25 dollars. Mum has 50 dollars she give 25 dollars from gran to Jo Biden none of grand pa's money has gone to Jo Biden. Prove where the money came in and went out in your table DDM. Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
no he wouldn't, I'm asking you to prove money from a specific source held centrally by a company that holds money from many sources is the source of the donations you talk about. When the source of your charts say.

https://i.imgur.com/5JNOZMK.jpg

dadudemon
Reported.

Robtard

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by dadudemon
Reported. no probs, I'll reiterate show me that b gave money from a to c when b has money from multiple sources and your own source said a did not give money to c though. No one is disputing b gave c money, just as the source you got your tables from said, it didn't come from a. No one is going to ban me for wanting that proof.

Surtur
This made me chuckle:

Lefty Minneapolis neighborhood decided to virtue signal and refuse calling the police. Now they're overrun with crime and homeless.

"Last week, Mitchell Erickson was cornered outside his home by two black teenagers, and one stuck a gun in his chest.

They demanded his car keys, but when he mistakenly gave them his house keys, the boys got frustrated and ran off before reportedly stealing someone else's car.

After the altercation, Erickson decided to call the police, a decision he now says he "regrets."

"Been thinking more about it," Erickson wrote in a text to a New York Times reporter. "I regret calling the police. It was my instinct but I wish it hadn't been. I put those boys in danger of death by calling the cops."

The reporter allegedly responded asking about the fact that the boys put his life in danger.

Erickson replied: "Yeah I know and yeah it was scary but the cops didn't really have much to add after I called them. I haven't been forced to think like this before. So I would have lost my car. So what? At least no one would have been killed."

Old Man Whirly!
Dear mods please click the link.

https://www.khou.com/article/news/verify/verify-black-lives-matter-donations-do-not-go-to-democratic-party/285-0277ba48-e79e-49fb-8cc6-4376d18e7626

Robtard
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Dear mods please click the link.

https://www.khou.com/article/news/verify/verify-black-lives-matter-donations-do-not-go-to-democratic-party/285-0277ba48-e79e-49fb-8cc6-4376d18e7626

It's a Rightist talking point/distraction and attack meant to target BLM and Democrats. Old tactics, newer topic.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>