Uh oh. you got me. I read that somewhere and I can't remember where. So I can't support it. Everything else I said was true and that last sentence doesn't change the point I was making.
I did not assert "after the election". Maybe you need to reread the comment. I said "in 2016" because that was when we started to see the "spike in hate crime" narrative start "because Trump".
were hate crimes against gays?
Maybe you need to read the links I sent a bit more because saying that makes you look like an idiot. I cited single bias incidents. There were 32 multiple bias incidents in 2016. If you want to contest that the single bias incidents that were classified as racially motivated but were really about sexual orientation, by all means I would like to see your in depth analysis of the data of why the FBI classified those wrong. If you want to contest that the 32 multiple bias incidents is enough to offset the increase of racially motivated hate crimes against white people then by all means. I am open to hear your interpretation.
Your desperate to show somehow that right-wing hate crimes perpetrated by white people are not increasing.
No that is your projection. I said that the "spike in 2016" often talked about wasn't a spike. If there was a spike the largest increase was racially motivated hate crimes against white people. I also said that the number of reporting agencies have increased which increases the number of incidents. Note that is for 2017 where we see the narrative is "17% super scary increase". Which amounts to about a single reported incident per additional reporting agency. But if you want to contest why a simplistic year to year comparison is a valid analysis even though the FBI cautioned against that very type of analysis, I would like to hear why you think you are smarter than the FBI.
You have failed to do so and have instead resorted to red herrings.
Yes, you absolutely refuted the data I presented with nothing but faulty assumptions and misrepresentation. Everything you said was bullshit. Everything I said was backed by data. You called me a liar for supporting my statements with FBI statistics and data. Care to try again?
Here's the article you're probably referencing [nbcnews.com]. Since it was the 1st hit on google.
What does that 17% mean? Do you think NBC did due diligence in understanding the numbers to give you an accurate picture of reality? Or do you think they headlined a specific narrative?
Now if you ignore what the media say and go to the actual FBI press release you will understand why there was a super scary increase in hate crime for 2017.
. Although the numbers increased last year, so did the number of law enforcement agencies reporting hate crime data—with approximately 1,000 additional agencies contributing information.
That is a very different reality than what narrative is being pushed. Now you may think that a year to year raw comprison is valid but the FBI doesn't as they caution against that very type of analysis.
Valid assessments about crime, including hate crime, are possible only with careful study and analysis of the various conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. (See Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics: Their Proper Use.) In addition, some data in this publication may not be comparable to those in prior editions of Hate Crime Statistics because of differing levels of participation from year to year. Therefore, the reader is cautioned against making simplistic comparisons between the statistical data of this program and that of others with differing methodologies or even comparing individual reporting units solely on the basis of their agency type.
NBC and others did exactly what the FBI cautioned against. Color me shocked.
Or you could actually ask for supporting data like a reasonable person instead of calling me a liar. Now, that you have supporting data; Am I still a liar or are you the one in a fantasy because everything you said is bullshit.
6121 in 2016. 5850 in 2015. This is the 4% total hate crime incident spike talked about for 2016.
3489 in 2016 were racially motivated 3310 in 2015 were racially motivated This is a 5% to describe the racially motivated spike many news outlets were talking about for 2016.
Of those racially motivated attacks the largest single share increase year over was anti-white motivations with a +107 increase. That was the largest "spike" in any other specific hate crime incident. But it is hardly a spike and that is why I said it had a "marginal effect".
The "spike" often reported by news and partisans is a simplistic view of the data that doesn't go into the details. Keep in mind that even the FBI cautions people from making simplistic year to year comparisons without careful analysis. Partly because the methodology changes which has a larger impact on the data which is why I said "big effect".
Not really. There was a "spike" in 2016 but the increase came about because of increased hate crime against white people (marginal effect) and because of an increase of reporting agencies participating with the FBI to gather the statistics (big effect). Since after the election the trend has been going down.
Should we just take people being murdered because of these internet clowns in stride?
You shouldn't use an anecdote to base your opinion. By all metrics and by all statistics it isn't as bad as the media or you portray it.
>Warren gets more done she,like a lot of Democrats Except for when it comes to voting on their own proposals. Then all of the sudden they can't be bothered to do the only job they have to do which is to vote yea or nay.
>the other side isn't negotiating in good faith Right. I believe the side that put forward the ACA that was designed to fail so that single payer medicare for all would be put in its place. That's good faith politics.
>I want Warren and the whole of the Dems to stop reaching across the isle. Did you know that the Dems reach across the isle less? Whoops.
>are overwhelmingly popular. Right until you ask the details of how those programs will pay and how it will affect their lives through their economic impact. Whoops. Why can't you do those things in your own state instead of forcing them on the entire nation? Why does Montana need a $15 minimum wage because Silicon Valley can't fix their damn housing problems?
That was a trick! You see even though the democrats sponsored and support the GND they didn't intend to vote on it.
The best part of that was Mike Lee. Reagon on a dinosaur, TaunTauns, Aquaman, and the "documentary" Sharknado 4 are forever part of congressional history.
Or you get it by having redundant capability spread across different branches and by isolating the budget and command structure to prioritize the needs of space capabilities that are not a priority under the AF.
These kind of things does highlight the importance of having people dedicated to address the growing concern of space challenges.
But Yes. I do want a Space Force with maybe a different name.
DOE has since determined that the legal basis underlying those revisions misconstrued existing law. As a result, DOE is issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to withdraw the definitions established in the January 19, 2017, final rules. DOE proposes to maintain the existing regulatory definitions of GSL and GSIL, which are the same as the statutory definitions of those terms.
What's that you say? Obama's legal basis underlying the revisions misconstrued existing law? The story of Obama's legacy. Maybe Obama shouldn't have ignored every law that went against his agenda to always have this happen.
The next question is; do you think the government should be able to ignore or misconstrue law for anything it wants? If the summary I quoted is true, then I do wnat the government to reign in on faulty legal actions taken by prior administrations. Just as I want future administrations to do the same for this one. I like it when the government follows the law> I don't like the government ignoring the law because some VIP has an agenda to push to buy off voters who don't actually care how they achieve their goal.
Remember, you can still setup your own server and host your own livestream
Up until your hosting providers cuts you off. Or until you are de-indexed. Or your payment processor cuts you off. Or your bank refuses your business.
What we have learned is that it doesn't matter if it is "your own ". Harpies will form a mob until that person/entity/idea is gone from the internet and destitute in meat space.
At what point is it of similar burden to create your own phone network to make a phone call to your neighbor than it is to air a controversial opinion online? Why is it acceptable for "nazi's" to speak hate speech on a phone line and not the internet?
This. I had a lovely experience with a similar credit system but for water. The EPA made it too expensive to upgrade a waste processing facility and so it was cheaper for the company to buy "clean water credits" instead of actually fixing an actual problem with their waste processing plant because of what the EPA regulations. Why fix a problem when you can buy "clean" whatever EPA measures and say "Oh look see we are clean!".
I lost a lot of respect for the EPA after that experience. When they make it more difficult to upgrade a waste processing facility to reduce pollution and instead focus on empty credit systems that do nothing,
You can read his manifesto. I am not going to link to it here. I am sure you have the ability to find it. I read it once and that was enough for me. I do not want to waste any more time looking for it just so you can ignore it and still act in a way the killer wanted by pointing the finger at people he named dropped to cause division.
" flirting with the far right" making jokes are bad mmmkay. Was Monty Python flirting with the far right as well? Everything is "far right" when you are an extreme leftist.
"defeat the far right is to win the argument by debating their ideas directly and preserving free speech."
Yes, free speech is paramount and it's kinda sad that NZ and others like you think that censorship is the answer. When has censorship worked?
Fundamentally PDP is not "flirting with far right" for making edgy jokes or "alt lite" for reviewing Jordan Petersons book. When everything is racist nothing is. The boy who cried racist becomes an annoyance even if there might be a racist this time.
but that guy who murdered 50 people in Christchurch last week did tell people to subscribe to him on his live stream right before doing it
Did you know that the NZ terrorist did that on purpose for useful idiots to parade that talking point? He knew that by just mentioning PDP the useful tools on the internet would point the finger at PDP and fan the flames of the culture war. He understood the internet and how the media would report things. He wanted people to attack PDP because he wanted PDP youtube community to fight with everyone else.
How does it feel to be doing exactly what the NZ killer wanted?
the crown of largest number of subscribers on Youtube is not worth being advertised by a mass murdering gunman during a live stream of a shooting" and ask Youtube to either remove any mention of number of subscribers from his public facing account.
The entire subscriber count between PDP and TSeries is a meme and is about what YouTube is and whether it is more for corporations or for people like how it started out. People that don't even care about PDP subscribe to him just because of that. Hell, even Blizzard comedy fanfic is jumping on because as they say "As the whole event has been happening, I thought it was pretty cool how so many of us have came together for a common cause, for the YouTube community; For creators not corporations. " T-Series is a polished corporation with corporate money backing. PDP is just some dude with a camera.
The NZ terrorist understood meme culture, the internet, and the media and knew that name dropping PDP would cause people to point the finger at him to fan the flames of the culture war to start a civil war in the US.
"That cost is normalizing a certain form of behavior. "
making edgy jokes? Uh oh. The Joke Nazi's are out goose stepping their way into normalizing fascist behavior again. Let's round up all the comedians and put them in camps where they can concentrate on Correct Funny Jokes that are approved by the Central Committee of Approved Comedians and Jokes. They have cookies!
"He's not starting an honest discussion of racial issues" Obviously. Was Monty Python? Was CK Louis? Was Dave Chapelle? Does everything have to "start an honest discussion"? What ever happened to just making jokes for the sake of jokes. If you find it funny great if not move on.
You sound like a puritan nanny upset the kiddies listen to rap in the 90's. Or upset about D&D spreading satanism in the 80's.
You are missing a very important point. Risk. What does the employee risk and what capital are they investing to do the job?
For a McDonalds burger flipper. What does it take for them to make a profit? A steady supply line, brand recognition, consistent product consistency, equipment, financial stability for consistent pay. All of that for a burger flipper to flip a patty.
Nothing was invested for the burger flipper to do their job. In fact the job requires the bare basics of responsibility and work ethics. If they find another gig good for them. They are a small piece of a large organization that provides the opportunity for them to trade their labor for money.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh oh. you got me. I read that somewhere and I can't remember where. So I can't support it. Everything else I said was true and that last sentence doesn't change the point I was making.
I did not assert "after the election". Maybe you need to reread the comment. I said "in 2016" because that was when we started to see the "spike in hate crime" narrative start "because Trump".
were hate crimes against gays?
Maybe you need to read the links I sent a bit more because saying that makes you look like an idiot. I cited single bias incidents. There were 32 multiple bias incidents in 2016. If you want to contest that the single bias incidents that were classified as racially motivated but were really about sexual orientation, by all means I would like to see your in depth analysis of the data of why the FBI classified those wrong. If you want to contest that the 32 multiple bias incidents is enough to offset the increase of racially motivated hate crimes against white people then by all means. I am open to hear your interpretation.
Your desperate to show somehow that right-wing hate crimes perpetrated by white people are not increasing.
No that is your projection. I said that the "spike in 2016" often talked about wasn't a spike. If there was a spike the largest increase was racially motivated hate crimes against white people. I also said that the number of reporting agencies have increased which increases the number of incidents. Note that is for 2017 where we see the narrative is "17% super scary increase". Which amounts to about a single reported incident per additional reporting agency. But if you want to contest why a simplistic year to year comparison is a valid analysis even though the FBI cautioned against that very type of analysis, I would like to hear why you think you are smarter than the FBI.
You have failed to do so and have instead resorted to red herrings.
Yes, you absolutely refuted the data I presented with nothing but faulty assumptions and misrepresentation. Everything you said was bullshit. Everything I said was backed by data. You called me a liar for supporting my statements with FBI statistics and data. Care to try again?
Here's the article you're probably referencing [nbcnews.com]. Since it was the 1st hit on google.
What does that 17% mean? Do you think NBC did due diligence in understanding the numbers to give you an accurate picture of reality? Or do you think they headlined a specific narrative?
Now if you ignore what the media say and go to the actual FBI press release you will understand why there was a super scary increase in hate crime for 2017.
. Although the numbers increased last year, so did the number of law enforcement agencies reporting hate crime data—with approximately 1,000 additional agencies contributing information.
That is a very different reality than what narrative is being pushed. Now you may think that a year to year raw comprison is valid but the FBI doesn't as they caution against that very type of analysis.
Valid assessments about crime, including hate crime, are possible only with careful study and analysis of the various conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. (See Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics: Their Proper Use.) In addition, some data in this publication may not be comparable to those in prior editions of Hate Crime Statistics because of differing levels of participation from year to year. Therefore, the reader is cautioned against making simplistic comparisons between the statistical data of this program and that of others with differing methodologies or even comparing individual reporting units solely on the basis of their agency type.
NBC and others did exactly what the FBI cautioned against. Color me shocked.
Or you could actually ask for supporting data like a reasonable person instead of calling me a liar. Now, that you have supporting data; Am I still a liar or are you the one in a fantasy because everything you said is bullshit.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime...
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime...
6121 in 2016.
5850 in 2015.
This is the 4% total hate crime incident spike talked about for 2016.
3489 in 2016 were racially motivated
3310 in 2015 were racially motivated
This is a 5% to describe the racially motivated spike many news outlets were talking about for 2016.
Of those racially motivated attacks the largest single share increase year over was anti-white motivations with a +107 increase. That was the largest "spike" in any other specific hate crime incident. But it is hardly a spike and that is why I said it had a "marginal effect".
The "spike" often reported by news and partisans is a simplistic view of the data that doesn't go into the details. Keep in mind that even the FBI cautions people from making simplistic year to year comparisons without careful analysis. Partly because the methodology changes which has a larger impact on the data which is why I said "big effect".
Oh, well you said it so it must be true.
However, hate crimes have been spiking
Not really. There was a "spike" in 2016 but the increase came about because of increased hate crime against white people (marginal effect) and because of an increase of reporting agencies participating with the FBI to gather the statistics (big effect). Since after the election the trend has been going down.
Should we just take people being murdered because of these internet clowns in stride?
You shouldn't use an anecdote to base your opinion. By all metrics and by all statistics it isn't as bad as the media or you portray it.
>Warren gets more done she,like a lot of Democrats
Except for when it comes to voting on their own proposals. Then all of the sudden they can't be bothered to do the only job they have to do which is to vote yea or nay.
>the other side isn't negotiating in good faith
Right. I believe the side that put forward the ACA that was designed to fail so that single payer medicare for all would be put in its place. That's good faith politics.
>I want Warren and the whole of the Dems to stop reaching across the isle.
Did you know that the Dems reach across the isle less? Whoops.
>are overwhelmingly popular.
Right until you ask the details of how those programs will pay and how it will affect their lives through their economic impact. Whoops. Why can't you do those things in your own state instead of forcing them on the entire nation? Why does Montana need a $15 minimum wage because Silicon Valley can't fix their damn housing problems?
He brought the Green New Deal up for a vote
That was a trick! You see even though the democrats sponsored and support the GND they didn't intend to vote on it.
The best part of that was Mike Lee. Reagon on a dinosaur, TaunTauns, Aquaman, and the "documentary" Sharknado 4 are forever part of congressional history.
Hours? Days? Weeks?
That's not soon enough. We are talking about pollution here! We demand clean LEO at all times. /s
Or you get it by having redundant capability spread across different branches and by isolating the budget and command structure to prioritize the needs of space capabilities that are not a priority under the AF.
These kind of things does highlight the importance of having people dedicated to address the growing concern of space challenges.
But Yes. I do want a Space Force with maybe a different name.
>Name one thing that was illegal.
DACA.
Are you really that blind or just stupid?
DOE has since determined that the legal basis underlying those revisions misconstrued existing law. As a result, DOE is issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to withdraw the definitions established in the January 19, 2017, final rules. DOE proposes to maintain the existing regulatory definitions of GSL and GSIL, which are the same as the statutory definitions of those terms.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/02/f59/withdrawal-of-gsl-definition-nopr.pdf
What's that you say? Obama's legal basis underlying the revisions misconstrued existing law? The story of Obama's legacy. Maybe Obama shouldn't have ignored every law that went against his agenda to always have this happen.
The next question is; do you think the government should be able to ignore or misconstrue law for anything it wants? If the summary I quoted is true, then I do wnat the government to reign in on faulty legal actions taken by prior administrations. Just as I want future administrations to do the same for this one. I like it when the government follows the law> I don't like the government ignoring the law because some VIP has an agenda to push to buy off voters who don't actually care how they achieve their goal.
Remember, you can still setup your own server and host your own livestream
Up until your hosting providers cuts you off. Or until you are de-indexed. Or your payment processor cuts you off. Or your bank refuses your business.
What we have learned is that it doesn't matter if it is "your own ". Harpies will form a mob until that person/entity/idea is gone from the internet and destitute in meat space.
At what point is it of similar burden to create your own phone network to make a phone call to your neighbor than it is to air a controversial opinion online? Why is it acceptable for "nazi's" to speak hate speech on a phone line and not the internet?
STOP carbon credit systemic manipulation.
This. I had a lovely experience with a similar credit system but for water. The EPA made it too expensive to upgrade a waste processing facility and so it was cheaper for the company to buy "clean water credits" instead of actually fixing an actual problem with their waste processing plant because of what the EPA regulations. Why fix a problem when you can buy "clean" whatever EPA measures and say "Oh look see we are clean!".
I lost a lot of respect for the EPA after that experience. When they make it more difficult to upgrade a waste processing facility to reduce pollution and instead focus on empty credit systems that do nothing,
>Nazis using PDP and other YouTubers like him to recruit.
Can you show me the nazi's that use PDP and other Youtubers to recruit.
Oi. You got a license for that opinion.
Oh, so you are the comedy and joke police. Whatever you think must be true.
You can read his manifesto. I am not going to link to it here. I am sure you have the ability to find it. I read it once and that was enough for me. I do not want to waste any more time looking for it just so you can ignore it and still act in a way the killer wanted by pointing the finger at people he named dropped to cause division.
" flirting with the far right"
making jokes are bad mmmkay. Was Monty Python flirting with the far right as well? Everything is "far right" when you are an extreme leftist.
"defeat the far right is to win the argument by debating their ideas directly and preserving free speech."
Yes, free speech is paramount and it's kinda sad that NZ and others like you think that censorship is the answer. When has censorship worked?
Fundamentally PDP is not "flirting with far right" for making edgy jokes or "alt lite" for reviewing Jordan Petersons book. When everything is racist nothing is. The boy who cried racist becomes an annoyance even if there might be a racist this time.
but that guy who murdered 50 people in Christchurch last week did tell people to subscribe to him on his live stream right before doing it
Did you know that the NZ terrorist did that on purpose for useful idiots to parade that talking point? He knew that by just mentioning PDP the useful tools on the internet would point the finger at PDP and fan the flames of the culture war. He understood the internet and how the media would report things. He wanted people to attack PDP because he wanted PDP youtube community to fight with everyone else.
How does it feel to be doing exactly what the NZ killer wanted?
What is good enough for you to denounce a tragedy in your name?
Is this? This?
"Funny thing about the Tide Pod"
They look delicious.
the crown of largest number of subscribers on Youtube is not worth being advertised by a mass murdering gunman during a live stream of a shooting" and ask Youtube to either remove any mention of number of subscribers from his public facing account.
The entire subscriber count between PDP and TSeries is a meme and is about what YouTube is and whether it is more for corporations or for people like how it started out. People that don't even care about PDP subscribe to him just because of that. Hell, even Blizzard comedy fanfic is jumping on because as they say "As the whole event has been happening, I thought it was pretty cool how so many of us have came together for a common cause, for the YouTube community; For creators not corporations. " T-Series is a polished corporation with corporate money backing. PDP is just some dude with a camera.
The NZ terrorist understood meme culture, the internet, and the media and knew that name dropping PDP would cause people to point the finger at him to fan the flames of the culture war to start a civil war in the US.
"That cost is normalizing a certain form of behavior. "
making edgy jokes? Uh oh. The Joke Nazi's are out goose stepping their way into normalizing fascist behavior again. Let's round up all the comedians and put them in camps where they can concentrate on Correct Funny Jokes that are approved by the Central Committee of Approved Comedians and Jokes. They have cookies!
"He's not starting an honest discussion of racial issues"
Obviously. Was Monty Python? Was CK Louis? Was Dave Chapelle? Does everything have to "start an honest discussion"? What ever happened to just making jokes for the sake of jokes. If you find it funny great if not move on.
You sound like a puritan nanny upset the kiddies listen to rap in the 90's. Or upset about D&D spreading satanism in the 80's.
The new fad is a super computing race! Who needs to go to space when you can simulate it in your back yard.
You are missing a very important point. Risk. What does the employee risk and what capital are they investing to do the job?
For a McDonalds burger flipper. What does it take for them to make a profit? A steady supply line, brand recognition, consistent product consistency, equipment, financial stability for consistent pay. All of that for a burger flipper to flip a patty.
Nothing was invested for the burger flipper to do their job. In fact the job requires the bare basics of responsibility and work ethics. If they find another gig good for them. They are a small piece of a large organization that provides the opportunity for them to trade their labor for money.