So when the news came out that the affidavit *did* in fact mention the political nature of the dossier, did you just plug your ears and hum? Or are you deliberately lying in your post?
That's perfectly ok, because respecting other womens decisions is fundamentally unacceptable to women today. Some women choose to be housewives, and some choose to be strippers or prostitutes. Some choose to use sex to get ahead. In all these cases and more, the far-left thinks women should not in fact be free to make those choices (by punishing men for them, incidentally, and having police enforce it at gunpoint in the case of some choices).
We're defending them because of *our* interests, not theirs. It's not a charity act. It's to exert power and control and provide a buffer against Russia. They don't pay because it's not for them, it's for us, and they know it, so attempting to extort protection money isn't working. I happen to agree that it should stop because of a principled belief that the military should be relegated to domestic defense only, but it's not happening no matter how much or how little Europe pays.
Oh please. The US (nearly all (R) and a good percent of (D)) has zero interest in becoming less involved in world affairs. We love wars and won't stop. Trump is about to start another one. All that whining about providing defense for Europe is just extortion. We're just as bad as ever at playing world police, anyone who thinks we're actually doing less of that or becoming isolationists in military matters is outright deluded.
The US just does as it wants. There's other things that could legal in your home US state, legal in Elbonia, but if you travel there to do them, you can be imprisoned by the US for years, because of federal extraterritorial enforcement.
Well let's start with the big ones right here in the US. Civil asset forfeiture, the drug war, warrantless mass surveillance... there's a good start for you. There's no legal recourse since the courts have ok'd it despite being clearly unconstitutional and tyrannical. The telecoms' regulatory capture just lost us net neutrality, that's pretty tyrannical too.
If all that isn't tyranny to you but banning private vehicles from cities is, you've got a really warped view of tyranny and shouldn't be talking like you're not part of the problem yourself.
Oh please. If you meant what you said there's a vast array of ongoing injustice and tyranny that you'd already be out burning down. Banning all cars besides Uber from a city center ranks about 500,000th on the list of oppressive injustice, if it ever comes to being. Go do something about the 499,999 that exist right now.
These pharmacies served a regional hospital and in all likelihood a pain management practice, which people from all over the state and even other states would be coming to. It's extremely hard for people in severe chronic pain to find a good pain specialist. Some people have a legit need for lots of opiates, and a doctor willing to prescribe them, even when clearly medically justified, is so rare that they'll attract patients statewide. Then they'll want to fill right away at a pharmacy prepared for the volume, since many don't stock large quantities and waiting on an order means withdrawal. The idea that all these pills were for exclusively in town patients is exceptionally unlikely, and all the people making that assumption are very unfamiliar with the realities of chronic pain patients and the large obstacles and hoops to jump through to get treatment these days. What I described is the exact scenario I've seen over and over in 15 years dealing with chronic pain, so would definitely explain this story. A bit less dramatic than the entire tiny town getting all the pills, but the politicians and media with their opioid hysteria aren't usually telling the whole story-- and refuse to acknowledge what the panic has done to the people who really need these drugs.
If you think that's a reach then you've obviously never dealt with pain management patients. I have, for 15 years. Even before the crackdown on doctors, good pain doctors were exceptionally hard to find. You talk to people in the lobby, majority are from hours away. Then, what pharmacy will have stock? Most people will go to the ones known for handling patients from pain management practices, because normal pharmacies often don't keep enough on hand (and timely filling is critical because there's no extras allowed so you'll get sick if it's wait til tomorrow). It's not a reach, it's the norm, especially post-crackdown, and I find the idea these pharmacies served exclusively in town customers absurd. As would everyone needing more than a few percs from their GP so had to find a pain specialist, people that account for the bulk of pills. Pray you never have to find out how hard it is to get treatment for severe chronic pain.
It could absolutely move the needle. Finding a doctor that adequately treats pain isn't like finding some GP to look at your rash, nor is finding a pharmacy that keeps lots of pain meds in stock so you're not waiting days. Driving several hours to whole other states is very common. It's appalling how many people in this thread don't know the first thing about pain management yet comment like they're experts stating obvious facts. The media and politicians have done an excellent job whipping the population into a hysteria rivaling the crack panic of the 80s. Meanwhile dead silence about the mountains of dead bodies that lay right at the feet of those who didn't listen about what would happen when hundreds of thousands of people were kicked off quality controlled meds obtained from medical professionals; the OD epidemic surprised no one who had even the smallest inkling of knowledge about the drug war.
You do realize the vast majority of suffering inflicted by opiates is because of the War on Drugs right? Your solution would increase total suffering by at least a couple orders of magnitude. Education, prevention, and treatment are what minimize the harm caused by dangerous drugs. Prohibition maximizes it, and you take it further by inflicting suffering on people who aren't even abusing drugs. You're an ignorant sadomoralist of the worst kind, the kind that foolishly believes they're helping. Could you look down at your own young child, dying of cancer, crying from the pain all day and night, and say "Sorry, there's a 1-2% chance you'll start abusing pain meds, and we're obligated to financially destroy you, lock you in a cage as we flush your future down the toilet, and make you play Russian roulette with fentanyl analogs, instead of help you in the event that happens, so just toughen up buttercup!"?
An entire town being prescribed them is beyond insane and there is no way you can feasibly make it out to sound like everyone in town -- every man, woman, and child -- needs them.
Thanks to the overcorrection in opioid prescribing, I know dozens of people who are in extremely severe pain (from injuries fully backed by MRIs etc, so not faking), who were basically told "I know you like playing with your grandchildren, but I'm cutting your dosage so much you'll no longer be able to get out of bed" or "Here's some tylenol to replace your morphine pump, I'm discharging you"... these people then drive hours, sometimes to entirely different states, to find a doctor that hasn't been pressured into sadism. Filling at the nearest pharmacy to the doctor is common.
What evidence is there that these pharmacies served only the local population? My scenario is the norm for pain doctors and pharmacies that keep enough opiates in stock to always fill scripts right away. Did you have evidence that's not the case here, or like the politicians and drug warriors are you engaging in scapegoating due to opioid hysteria when you don't actually know what life is like for people whose doctors deny them the only medications that make life tolerable? Is making sure the 1-2 in 100 people using their meds recreationally switch to street drugs and OD so much more important?
You've fallen for propaganda.
Youre assuming people in surrounding areas have pharmacies and doctors that will treat pain. Many pain patients have to drive hours to find a doctor who will help them, then fill scripts right there. I lived it every month for years. They almost certainly served the entire state, maybe others.
He's alluding to the problem that, from all indications, the Dems have learned nothing from losing to Trump and will find a way to do it again. Probably by trying to run Kamala Harris for instance. So they lose everyone not cool with 'equality is racism/sexism and white men are evil' and eliminating all due process for sex crimes (particularly on college campuses) to staying home or even going (R), then doubly alienate everyone concerned with civil rights (she's a "tough on crime" prosecutor notorious for shitting all over the 1st Amendment and trying to destroy Section 230 from the Backpage case- truly awash in misconduct; defending the conviction of a man based on a confession inserted into a transcript (and saying it wasn't prosecutorial misconduct to submit it when the prosecutor *knew* it was fraudulent), and fighting tooth and nail against improving prison conditions/reducing overcrowding when those were so bad it got ruled cruel and unusual punishment... I could go on).
We're in a *lot* more trouble on the left with party-fracturing ideologies. There's a couple others that are at the top of the list that will have similar problems with getting people to vote instead of stay home (which is how Trump won; not from people switching sides, but so many many more Dems simply not voting over 2012/2008 then R's). Also consider that Trump absolutely 100% is enough of a megalomaniac nutjob to start a war with NK in his 3rd year because someone informs him that wartime presidents are a lock for re-election, which unfortunately is true. Dems would need to put up someone truly compelling, and the writing is already on the wall that they intend to do no such thing. So yeah, 7 more years of Trump. The best we can realistically hope for is taking back the house or senate to block the R's from their worst bs.
Are you stupid, trolling, or being malicious? Do you not recall the whole Netflix throttling issue that brought this to prominence? Or Comcast blocking all Bittorrent (not just illegal torrents, the entire protocol)? Here's a list with those and a dozen more. It's very clear where the internet was heading without net neutrality in place
Then of course there's simple logic... you don't spend millions lobbying and buying ads to get a rule overturned unless you plan on breaking it.
Yes, net neutrality *should* be enshrined in law by the legislature, however until that happens, regulations should enforce it. But let's face it, with the Repulicans in control of the house/senate/presidency, any NN legislation actually introduced will contain outs making it useless (case in point, Marsha Blackburn's bill), and I think the anti-NN folks are counting on that, knowing that "it should be a legislative issue" is more palatable than "There should be no NN".
If only the public mind translated to the publics votes, it might be worth something. (R) or (D) the country is still controlled by the elites, and they even elected the worse of the two for house, senate, and presidency, because trickle down will surely work this time if we just give the ultra-rich a little more and get rid of the brown people interfering with that. Nope, the elites are still firmly in control and people continually vote against their own interests, thanks to the little 'us versus them' side show the media is doing.
The foolishness of the progressives pushing things like that never ceases to amaze me. Say they got their laws criminalizing "hate speech". You know who would define what hate speech is? Donald Trump and the Republicans. Are progressives (as others have pointed out, not liberals) really deluded enough to believe it wouldn't be groups like Antifa and the 'white men are evil' crowd on the receiving end of hate speech charges? What am I talking about of course they are. Yes, go ahead, keep up with the right not to be offended, I'm sure it wouldn't be used against you by that megalomaniac racist buffoon and the party of 'let's fuck everyone not rich and white'.
You're going to make the argument far left academics have nothing to do with progressives? Or that the voices that dominate politics on the left haven't fully embraced identity politics madness?
And equal treatment is equal treatment. When 'sympathy' gives rise to discrimination, it's no longer equal treatment.
MLK: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
People today: "Racist! Uncle Tom! Oppressor! Nazi! Judging by character promotes white supremacy!"
Just the other day I saw an article complaining about another extremely racist policy: Color-blind assessment. (See here) That's a big part of why so many of us on the left aren't thrilled about the progressives are doing... "equality" now means simply switching which groups get preferential treatment, as punishment for past wrongs. It's a completely untenable position. And part of the reason why Trump won... a lot of Democrats just stayed home. Your whole life you advocate for everyone to receive equal treatment, now that makes you a right-wing racist because equal treatment isn't good enough... that alienates people.
Well then if civil copyright is out, why then should you be able to imprison someone for decades because their 1s and 0s were in a bad order? That's the logical conclusion of that argument, if just a number can't be copyrighted, how could it be criminalized right? So out with the laws against possession of CP. Just a number-- if it CAN be criminalized, why then not copyrighted, because of what it represents.
Indeed it's already been known for a long time that having an IQ too high often disqualifies you from being a police officer. (They claim because high IQ people would be bored, but I'd bet the real reason is that high IQ is associated with inability to tolerate manifest injustice like ruining some kids life because he had the wrong type of pill is his pocket and other instances being asked to carry out orders you know are wrong.)
Of course you disagree, disagreeing with basic facts about reality is all the rage these days; as is screaming "racist!" at everyone who disagrees with you (Asians commit less crimes than whites; does saying that fact make me a white Asian-supremecist?). Serious violent crimes are not ignored because the perpetrator is white, so what's the cause of the large disparity there? (In fact, case clearance rate is *higher* with white people, making them less likely to get away with it). Same goes for crime with a complaining victim (since the vast majority of crime is between members of the same race, do you believe there's an epidemic of crimes called in by white victims being ignored because the criminal is white?). Or is the FBI lying about their statistics too?
If you say race doesn't predict recidivism independently despite a bunch of studies saying it does, how's about citing one that comes to the opposite conclusion? You're also laser-focused on petty infractions like pedestrian citations, but when looking at recidivism for serious violent crimes, there's value in the statistics about violent crimes. All statistics about crime rates aren't magically negated because some offenses are disproportionately enforced against minorities. And beyond that, even if we wanted to just look at petty offenses where the is racially disparate enforcement... *there's racially disparate enforcement*, so a black person *is* more likely to be rearrested on that petty offense.
Finally, you claim they are not valid based on no evidence. And ultimately, you're the kind of person that perpetuates racial inequality in this country. You want to pretend the problem either doesn't exist or is exclusively the fault of white people; and I'm saying we've gotta fix this and that starts with acknowledging the problem (i.e. there is a disparity in crime rate and it's predominantly because of poverty and limited education opportunities, but culture is also a part of it and can't be ignored).
We can build a better world, but not by sticking our fingers in our ears and yelling 'racist!' at anyone who brings up a fact that offends them.
Slashdot Mirror
So when the news came out that the affidavit *did* in fact mention the political nature of the dossier, did you just plug your ears and hum? Or are you deliberately lying in your post?
Abolishing due process, limiting free speech, and overt retaliatory discrimination aren't progress, and that's what 'progressives' stand for.
That's perfectly ok, because respecting other womens decisions is fundamentally unacceptable to women today. Some women choose to be housewives, and some choose to be strippers or prostitutes. Some choose to use sex to get ahead. In all these cases and more, the far-left thinks women should not in fact be free to make those choices (by punishing men for them, incidentally, and having police enforce it at gunpoint in the case of some choices).
We're defending them because of *our* interests, not theirs. It's not a charity act. It's to exert power and control and provide a buffer against Russia. They don't pay because it's not for them, it's for us, and they know it, so attempting to extort protection money isn't working. I happen to agree that it should stop because of a principled belief that the military should be relegated to domestic defense only, but it's not happening no matter how much or how little Europe pays.
Oh please. The US (nearly all (R) and a good percent of (D)) has zero interest in becoming less involved in world affairs. We love wars and won't stop. Trump is about to start another one. All that whining about providing defense for Europe is just extortion. We're just as bad as ever at playing world police, anyone who thinks we're actually doing less of that or becoming isolationists in military matters is outright deluded.
The US just does as it wants. There's other things that could legal in your home US state, legal in Elbonia, but if you travel there to do them, you can be imprisoned by the US for years, because of federal extraterritorial enforcement.
Well let's start with the big ones right here in the US. Civil asset forfeiture, the drug war, warrantless mass surveillance... there's a good start for you. There's no legal recourse since the courts have ok'd it despite being clearly unconstitutional and tyrannical. The telecoms' regulatory capture just lost us net neutrality, that's pretty tyrannical too.
If all that isn't tyranny to you but banning private vehicles from cities is, you've got a really warped view of tyranny and shouldn't be talking like you're not part of the problem yourself.
Oh please. If you meant what you said there's a vast array of ongoing injustice and tyranny that you'd already be out burning down. Banning all cars besides Uber from a city center ranks about 500,000th on the list of oppressive injustice, if it ever comes to being. Go do something about the 499,999 that exist right now.
These pharmacies served a regional hospital and in all likelihood a pain management practice, which people from all over the state and even other states would be coming to. It's extremely hard for people in severe chronic pain to find a good pain specialist. Some people have a legit need for lots of opiates, and a doctor willing to prescribe them, even when clearly medically justified, is so rare that they'll attract patients statewide. Then they'll want to fill right away at a pharmacy prepared for the volume, since many don't stock large quantities and waiting on an order means withdrawal. The idea that all these pills were for exclusively in town patients is exceptionally unlikely, and all the people making that assumption are very unfamiliar with the realities of chronic pain patients and the large obstacles and hoops to jump through to get treatment these days. What I described is the exact scenario I've seen over and over in 15 years dealing with chronic pain, so would definitely explain this story. A bit less dramatic than the entire tiny town getting all the pills, but the politicians and media with their opioid hysteria aren't usually telling the whole story-- and refuse to acknowledge what the panic has done to the people who really need these drugs.
If you think that's a reach then you've obviously never dealt with pain management patients. I have, for 15 years. Even before the crackdown on doctors, good pain doctors were exceptionally hard to find. You talk to people in the lobby, majority are from hours away. Then, what pharmacy will have stock? Most people will go to the ones known for handling patients from pain management practices, because normal pharmacies often don't keep enough on hand (and timely filling is critical because there's no extras allowed so you'll get sick if it's wait til tomorrow). It's not a reach, it's the norm, especially post-crackdown, and I find the idea these pharmacies served exclusively in town customers absurd. As would everyone needing more than a few percs from their GP so had to find a pain specialist, people that account for the bulk of pills.
Pray you never have to find out how hard it is to get treatment for severe chronic pain.
It could absolutely move the needle. Finding a doctor that adequately treats pain isn't like finding some GP to look at your rash, nor is finding a pharmacy that keeps lots of pain meds in stock so you're not waiting days. Driving several hours to whole other states is very common. It's appalling how many people in this thread don't know the first thing about pain management yet comment like they're experts stating obvious facts. The media and politicians have done an excellent job whipping the population into a hysteria rivaling the crack panic of the 80s. Meanwhile dead silence about the mountains of dead bodies that lay right at the feet of those who didn't listen about what would happen when hundreds of thousands of people were kicked off quality controlled meds obtained from medical professionals; the OD epidemic surprised no one who had even the smallest inkling of knowledge about the drug war.
You do realize the vast majority of suffering inflicted by opiates is because of the War on Drugs right? Your solution would increase total suffering by at least a couple orders of magnitude. Education, prevention, and treatment are what minimize the harm caused by dangerous drugs. Prohibition maximizes it, and you take it further by inflicting suffering on people who aren't even abusing drugs.
You're an ignorant sadomoralist of the worst kind, the kind that foolishly believes they're helping. Could you look down at your own young child, dying of cancer, crying from the pain all day and night, and say "Sorry, there's a 1-2% chance you'll start abusing pain meds, and we're obligated to financially destroy you, lock you in a cage as we flush your future down the toilet, and make you play Russian roulette with fentanyl analogs, instead of help you in the event that happens, so just toughen up buttercup!"?
An entire town being prescribed them is beyond insane and there is no way you can feasibly make it out to sound like everyone in town -- every man, woman, and child -- needs them.
Thanks to the overcorrection in opioid prescribing, I know dozens of people who are in extremely severe pain (from injuries fully backed by MRIs etc, so not faking), who were basically told "I know you like playing with your grandchildren, but I'm cutting your dosage so much you'll no longer be able to get out of bed" or "Here's some tylenol to replace your morphine pump, I'm discharging you"... these people then drive hours, sometimes to entirely different states, to find a doctor that hasn't been pressured into sadism. Filling at the nearest pharmacy to the doctor is common.
What evidence is there that these pharmacies served only the local population? My scenario is the norm for pain doctors and pharmacies that keep enough opiates in stock to always fill scripts right away. Did you have evidence that's not the case here, or like the politicians and drug warriors are you engaging in scapegoating due to opioid hysteria when you don't actually know what life is like for people whose doctors deny them the only medications that make life tolerable? Is making sure the 1-2 in 100 people using their meds recreationally switch to street drugs and OD so much more important?
You've fallen for propaganda.
Youre assuming people in surrounding areas have pharmacies and doctors that will treat pain. Many pain patients have to drive hours to find a doctor who will help them, then fill scripts right there. I lived it every month for years. They almost certainly served the entire state, maybe others.
That worked when kids could go outside and find something to do, but now if you let them outside without an adult CPS will take them.
He's alluding to the problem that, from all indications, the Dems have learned nothing from losing to Trump and will find a way to do it again. Probably by trying to run Kamala Harris for instance. So they lose everyone not cool with 'equality is racism/sexism and white men are evil' and eliminating all due process for sex crimes (particularly on college campuses) to staying home or even going (R), then doubly alienate everyone concerned with civil rights (she's a "tough on crime" prosecutor notorious for shitting all over the 1st Amendment and trying to destroy Section 230 from the Backpage case- truly awash in misconduct; defending the conviction of a man based on a confession inserted into a transcript (and saying it wasn't prosecutorial misconduct to submit it when the prosecutor *knew* it was fraudulent), and fighting tooth and nail against improving prison conditions/reducing overcrowding when those were so bad it got ruled cruel and unusual punishment... I could go on).
We're in a *lot* more trouble on the left with party-fracturing ideologies. There's a couple others that are at the top of the list that will have similar problems with getting people to vote instead of stay home (which is how Trump won; not from people switching sides, but so many many more Dems simply not voting over 2012/2008 then R's). Also consider that Trump absolutely 100% is enough of a megalomaniac nutjob to start a war with NK in his 3rd year because someone informs him that wartime presidents are a lock for re-election, which unfortunately is true. Dems would need to put up someone truly compelling, and the writing is already on the wall that they intend to do no such thing. So yeah, 7 more years of Trump. The best we can realistically hope for is taking back the house or senate to block the R's from their worst bs.
Are you stupid, trolling, or being malicious? Do you not recall the whole Netflix throttling issue that brought this to prominence? Or Comcast blocking all Bittorrent (not just illegal torrents, the entire protocol)? Here's a list with those and a dozen more. It's very clear where the internet was heading without net neutrality in place
Then of course there's simple logic... you don't spend millions lobbying and buying ads to get a rule overturned unless you plan on breaking it.
Yes, net neutrality *should* be enshrined in law by the legislature, however until that happens, regulations should enforce it. But let's face it, with the Repulicans in control of the house/senate/presidency, any NN legislation actually introduced will contain outs making it useless (case in point, Marsha Blackburn's bill), and I think the anti-NN folks are counting on that, knowing that "it should be a legislative issue" is more palatable than "There should be no NN".
If only the public mind translated to the publics votes, it might be worth something. (R) or (D) the country is still controlled by the elites, and they even elected the worse of the two for house, senate, and presidency, because trickle down will surely work this time if we just give the ultra-rich a little more and get rid of the brown people interfering with that. Nope, the elites are still firmly in control and people continually vote against their own interests, thanks to the little 'us versus them' side show the media is doing.
The foolishness of the progressives pushing things like that never ceases to amaze me. Say they got their laws criminalizing "hate speech". You know who would define what hate speech is? Donald Trump and the Republicans. Are progressives (as others have pointed out, not liberals) really deluded enough to believe it wouldn't be groups like Antifa and the 'white men are evil' crowd on the receiving end of hate speech charges? What am I talking about of course they are. Yes, go ahead, keep up with the right not to be offended, I'm sure it wouldn't be used against you by that megalomaniac racist buffoon and the party of 'let's fuck everyone not rich and white'.
You're going to make the argument far left academics have nothing to do with progressives? Or that the voices that dominate politics on the left haven't fully embraced identity politics madness?
And equal treatment is equal treatment. When 'sympathy' gives rise to discrimination, it's no longer equal treatment.
MLK: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
People today: "Racist! Uncle Tom! Oppressor! Nazi! Judging by character promotes white supremacy!"
Just the other day I saw an article complaining about another extremely racist policy: Color-blind assessment. (See here)
That's a big part of why so many of us on the left aren't thrilled about the progressives are doing... "equality" now means simply switching which groups get preferential treatment, as punishment for past wrongs. It's a completely untenable position. And part of the reason why Trump won... a lot of Democrats just stayed home. Your whole life you advocate for everyone to receive equal treatment, now that makes you a right-wing racist because equal treatment isn't good enough... that alienates people.
Well then if civil copyright is out, why then should you be able to imprison someone for decades because their 1s and 0s were in a bad order? That's the logical conclusion of that argument, if just a number can't be copyrighted, how could it be criminalized right? So out with the laws against possession of CP. Just a number-- if it CAN be criminalized, why then not copyrighted, because of what it represents.
Indeed it's already been known for a long time that having an IQ too high often disqualifies you from being a police officer. (They claim because high IQ people would be bored, but I'd bet the real reason is that high IQ is associated with inability to tolerate manifest injustice like ruining some kids life because he had the wrong type of pill is his pocket and other instances being asked to carry out orders you know are wrong.)
Of course you disagree, disagreeing with basic facts about reality is all the rage these days; as is screaming "racist!" at everyone who disagrees with you (Asians commit less crimes than whites; does saying that fact make me a white Asian-supremecist?). Serious violent crimes are not ignored because the perpetrator is white, so what's the cause of the large disparity there? (In fact, case clearance rate is *higher* with white people, making them less likely to get away with it). Same goes for crime with a complaining victim (since the vast majority of crime is between members of the same race, do you believe there's an epidemic of crimes called in by white victims being ignored because the criminal is white?). Or is the FBI lying about their statistics too?
If you say race doesn't predict recidivism independently despite a bunch of studies saying it does, how's about citing one that comes to the opposite conclusion? You're also laser-focused on petty infractions like pedestrian citations, but when looking at recidivism for serious violent crimes, there's value in the statistics about violent crimes. All statistics about crime rates aren't magically negated because some offenses are disproportionately enforced against minorities. And beyond that, even if we wanted to just look at petty offenses where the is racially disparate enforcement... *there's racially disparate enforcement*, so a black person *is* more likely to be rearrested on that petty offense.
Finally, you claim they are not valid based on no evidence. And ultimately, you're the kind of person that perpetuates racial inequality in this country. You want to pretend the problem either doesn't exist or is exclusively the fault of white people; and I'm saying we've gotta fix this and that starts with acknowledging the problem (i.e. there is a disparity in crime rate and it's predominantly because of poverty and limited education opportunities, but culture is also a part of it and can't be ignored).
We can build a better world, but not by sticking our fingers in our ears and yelling 'racist!' at anyone who brings up a fact that offends them.