If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

Well, your response seems to suggest that you didn't actually read his post, so I'm not going to bother responding to all your comments on "retribution."

I did read it. He said tit for tat was effective game theory. He said the cost of shooting blacks was low. He said "[blacks] are being mowed down like mayflies". And this is in what he "didn't want to publish" (but of course did, now). His detachment from reality informs the rest of his writing. From his gut, as he says. An impregnably reputable source.

They keep getting killed. He isn't talking about black on white crime. He "wants the fuckers to pay". Well if blacks are merely "reprising" whites, he can help them collect and put a bullet in his own brain for them with a suicide note that says "For They".

His final take on the whole thing? "Inspired reprisals". Reprisals aka Retribution. So my question is relevant and stands. Maybe unjustified police shootings are simply reprisals? I'm sure it never crossed his gut.

Of course I'd prefer to see incidents in their own details and pulling in supporting data but I'm sure that's just my privilege of living in low income housing in a high crime, high minority/black population locale. From my ivory tower.

 

[Dak]

http://qz.com/730399/the-us-governm...r-a-robot-is-probably-going-to-take-your-job/

The Council of Economic Advisers ranked the occupations in the Oxford University study to see where automation was likely to strike first. They found those with the least skills and wages were by far the most vulnerable: 83% of jobs paying less than $20 per hour were considered likely to be automated.

Furman pointed out that automation, like most technologies, will create more jobs over time and, if the history of technology holds true, improve overall wealth. But it is unlikely to be distributed evenly. Even if the Council’s estimates are off, automation will drive more income inequality, causing acute disruption among the poor and middle class.

For professions paying more than $40 per hour, it may only be a matter of time before the machines come for them as well. Lawyers and paralegals already compete with software that can sift through trial documents. Computer vision algorithms routinely outperform doctors in detecting and diagnosing some cancers. Journalists also facealgorithms that can generate thousands of articles per day about sports and financial news.

Obviously we can reduce these risks by raising the minimum wage to at least 21$ an hour to begin with, and aggressively raising it past $40 in the near future to stymie the robot takeover.

 

[Einherjar86]

I did read it. He said tit for tat was effective game theory. He said the cost of shooting blacks was low. He said "[blacks] are being mowed down like mayflies". And this is in what he "didn't want to publish" (but of course did, now). His detachment from reality informs the rest of his writing. From his gut, as he says. An impregnably reputable source.

He knows it's a disreputable source. He's detached from reality to the same extent we all are - and what's better, he's aware of it.

]They keep getting killed

. He isn't talking about black on white crime. He "wants the fuckers to pay". Well if blacks are merely "reprising" whites, he can help them collect and put a bullet in his own brain for them with a suicide note that says "For They".

Why? He wants cops to pay - not whites in general.

His final take on the whole thing? "Inspired reprisals". Reprisals aka Retribution. So my question is relevant and stands. Maybe unjustified police shootings are simply reprisals? I'm sure it never crossed his gut.

Of course I'd prefer to see incidents in their own details and pulling in supporting data but I'm sure that's just my privilege of living in low income housing in a high crime, high minority/black population locale. From my ivory tower.

He also knows it would be unjustified. He says it flat out. He recognizes the full pathological attitude of his entire proposal.

The point is that he still feels that way; and if he feels this way, the he's asking himself: "why shouldn't those who are actually being killed?"

He knows it's irrational and unjustified. That isn't the point. The point, in fact, runs parallel to your apology for people who deny climate change. In other words:

The big picture is of no immediate benefit to those in black communities suffering the immediate repercussions of police violence. Their most immediately identifiable and effective method for changing things is retaliation.

That's his point.

 

[Dak]

He knows it's a disreputable source. He's detached from reality to the same extent we all are - and what's better, he's aware of it.

Well knowing one is a solipsist is not exclusive from being a solipsist. Reminds me of this gem from Sterlings "babymama":

“I do not believe in my heart that there was a gun,” she said.

Why? He wants cops to pay - not whites in general.

Being cops isn't the important thing. It's race. It's whites killing blacks "like so many mayflies". Except it's not true.

The point is that he still feels that way; and if he feels this way, the he's asking himself: "why shouldn't those who are actually being killed?"

He knows it's irrational and unjustified. That isn't the point. The point, in fact, runs parallel to your apology for people who deny climate change. In other words:

The big picture is of no immediate benefit to those in black communities suffering the immediate repercussions of police violence. Their most immediately identifiable and effective method for changing things is retaliation.

That's his point.

Since it's irrational and unjustified, a more intelligent question is not to ask "why shouldn't they" but "why do they"?

There's no irrationality in ACC skepticism. The data on economic impact is pretty clear. They aren't imagining losing their jobs. The benefits are fairly vague and removed. In comparison, the crime and police shooting statistics paint a pretty clear picture of the immediate threat in terms of homicide, and who should be afraid of who, if there's any fear to be had. Reducing the handful of unjustified police shootings to nil is going to make almost zero real difference because it isn't about facts (very clearly). When a movement is based on feelings at odds with facts, no change matters.

 

[Carpe Mortem]

http://qz.com/730399/the-us-governm...r-a-robot-is-probably-going-to-take-your-job/





Obviously we can reduce these risks by raising the minimum wage to at least 21$ an hour to begin with, and aggressively raising it past $40 in the near future to stymie the robot takeover.

This is unfortunately unlikely anytime soon, but I'm all fucking for more automation. If your job is so mindless that a robot could do it you're inflicting on yourself a serious disservice of intellectual advancement in maintaining that position. The more we force people to use actual skills to earn their value, the better it is for the human race. Let's ADVANCE, man.

 

[Dak]

This is unfortunately unlikely anytime soon, but I'm all fucking for more automation. If your job is so mindless that a robot could do it you're inflicting on yourself a serious disservice of intellectual advancement in maintaining that position. The more we force people to use actual skills to earn their value, the better it is for the human race. Let's ADVANCE, man.

It's only better for humanity insofar as intelligence advances are reproduced. There doesn't seem to be much evidence of a positive correlation between intelligence and fertility.

 

[Carpe Mortem]

It's only better for humanity insofar as intelligence advances are reproduced. There doesn't seem to be much evidence of a positive correlation between intelligence and fertility.

If the day comes where there is even more widespread robotic labor, people will have no choice but to adapt into a more intellectually-fueled position or fall into poverty, and thus pass those values/skills onto offspring as the status quo.

The downside being an already existing hefty federal assistance system that basically rewards a lack of improvement and celebrates widespread poverty.

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

If the day comes where there is even more widespread robotic labor, people will have no choice but to adapt into a more intellectually-fueled position or fall into poverty, and thus pass those values/skills onto offspring as the status quo.

The downside being an already existing hefty federal assistance system that basically rewards a lack of improvement and celebrates widespread poverty.

This assumes that the only work being replaced will be on the low end retail / physical labor front. That is anything but the case. We already have ai being taught how to create more ai, etc. The future of the work force as we know it is highly questionable, expecially with populations sitting where they are.

 

[Carpe Mortem]

In my humble opinion, no machine will replace any sort of position requiring creativity. They can adapt only within limited parameters. A machine can fill out a lawyer's documents, but it can't be a lawyer.

Not yet, anyways. Not anytime soon. When they can, we'll all be working on the enterprise.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well knowing one is a solipsist is not exclusive from being a solipsist. Reminds me of this gem from Sterlings "babymama":

It's better than being an ignorant solipsist.

Being cops isn't the important thing. It's race. It's whites killing blacks "like so many mayflies". Except it's not true.

Except it is true that cops disproportionately kill blacks. And that is the important thing.

I feel like we're running in circles. I'm dizzy.

Since it's irrational and unjustified, a more intelligent question is not to ask "why shouldn't they" but "why do they"?

There's no irrationality in ACC skepticism. The data on economic impact is pretty clear. They aren't imagining losing their jobs. The benefits are fairly vague and removed. In comparison, the crime and police shooting statistics paint a pretty clear picture of the immediate threat in terms of homicide, and who should be afraid of who, if there's any fear to be had. Reducing the handful of unjustified police shootings to nil is going to make almost zero real difference because it isn't about facts (very clearly). When a movement is based on feelings at odds with facts, no change matters.

You just pick and choose. That's what you do. You pick and choose. I find myself so confounded sometimes about how certain things just don't seem to compute for you. This isn't a fault of yours or a criticism, it's just a matter of the perspectival gulf that separates how we see these things.

To say that the proposed solutions to police violence toward blacks should be intellectually comprehensible and immediately actionable for those in black communities is to completely ignore the division which you so emphasize when it comes to people who reject the solutions on climate change. The aspects of the two issues may be very different, but the epistemological disjunction is of the same kind.

For blacks in the communities that are affected by police violence, the benefits of the proposed solutions are vague and removed. This is why the most effective actions appears, to them, to be violence.

You're making a presumptuous move to say that you know well enough to tell those in black communities that they should know better, but that no intellectual has the authority to tell climate-change deniers that they don't know better. You're just choosing your battles here.

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

In my humble opinion, no machine will replace any sort of position requiring creativity. They can adapt only within limited parameters. A machine can fill out a lawyer's documents, but it can't be a lawyer.

Not yet, anyways. Not anytime soon. When they can, we'll all be working on the enterprise.

Just keep in mind the level of advancement with AI over the last decade versus the level of advancement with effectively moving robots. Its pretty heavy leaning towards ai.

 

[Dak]

Except it is true that cops disproportionately kill blacks. And that is the important thing.

I feel like we're running in circles. I'm dizzy.

You need an argument for why that in itself is important. There are important differences between "police killing people", "policing killing unarmed people", "police killing people unjustifiably", etc. Then you tack on the race of the police personnel involved and/or the victim and you get other differences between these things. I'm seeing a lot stats thrown out about all sorts of different things from "cops kill X numbers of people" to "white cops kill x percent of black unarmed, compliant civilians". All of these provide different sorts of information. There's the old adage about stats and lies, but really stats don't lie (unless you specifically fudged the numbers either in data entry or using the wrong sorts of analyses). They tell you specific things, but then apparently most people have poor reading comprehension and try to apply them where they don't actually support. Then you have people like Watts using odd phrases like "mowing down mayflies" to describe something that in relative terms is less common than any number of other manner of death, to supposedly include lightning strikes.

My response to "cops disproportionately kill blacks" is like it is with many disparate things: "Interesting. I wonder why that is?" I don't care about how many people cops are killing if it's justified. This is very akin to the gun debate when all these different stats get trotted out, and as far as I can tell in both the gun control debate and in this "racist killer cop" debate or whatever, the most contextless of stats (like "gun deaths") are trotted out by the "liberal" side as evidence of essentially nothing.

I provided that NYT article where a black researcher led team did do much deeper digging into the statistics of police-civilian altercations. He found evidence of disproportionate usage of physical force, but not shooting. In fact blacks were potentially less likely to be shot, even when controlling for a variety of factors. I know this PLOS article is making the rounds as support, but the abstract says almost nothing, and it is PLOS. I haven't been sufficiently motivated to go digging into it via my uni's access but I'm not expecting to see anything in detail that conflicts with the research the NYT covered. If it does, now we merely have at minimum two studies that disagree. There simply isn't support for this outrage machine in it's current rhetorical configuration. Of course, BLM was founded by community organizers. These are Alinskyites. So we know what that means. The enemy must be Satan incarnate. Why is the enemy the enemy? Because they aren't providing gimmedats et al.

You just pick and choose. That's what you do. You pick and choose. I find myself so confounded sometimes about how certain things just don't seem to compute for you. This isn't a fault of yours or a criticism, it's just a matter of the perspectival gulf that separates how we see these things.

To say that the proposed solutions to police violence toward blacks should be intellectually comprehensible and immediately actionable for those in black communities is to completely ignore the division which you so emphasize when it comes to people who reject the solutions on climate change. The aspects of the two issues may be very different, but the epistemological disjunction is of the same kind.

For blacks in the communities that are affected by police violence, the benefits of the proposed solutions are vague and removed. This is why the most effective actions appears, to them, to be violence.

Follow the law + don't associate with those who don't + don't look like those who don't = don't get into trouble with law enforcement. I don't see what about this advice is race specific, is relatively very difficult, or merely providing "vague and removed benefits". In comparison, having your job shut down and the costs of everything go up so that some animals supposedly won't die out and coastal properties won't go underwater doesn't seem to have the same lack of difficulty nor general application.

You're making a presumptuous move to say that you know well enough to tell those in black communities that they should know better, but that no intellectual has the authority to tell climate-change deniers that they don't know better. You're just choosing your battles here.

I never said intellectuals had no authority to tell a ACC skeptic that they don't know better. I tried to explain that coastal elites don't understand that former coalminers et al don't have the luxury of caring about rising sea levels over 100 years. They need to eat. They need housing. They are trying to support families. Now where, you could attempt to pull a parallel here is to say well blacks don't have the luxury of caring about laws. They need to eat, they need housing, they need to support families. But what does killing each other have to do with providing housing and food? What do the numbers of single parent households/babymamas do to support families (not a law issue, but definitely a black issue)? What does gang membership do to enrich the community?

Chief Brown in Dallas is a role model of making the best of a bad personal situation. Notice his words about people putting their time into fixing their communities instead of "protesting". And it fell on deaf ears of those who needed to hear probably in most cases.

 

[Dak]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-idaho-voyeurism-arrest-idUSKCN0ZU04W

Ha. It wouldn't happen they said. Everyone who said it would is a paranoid idiot they said.

Gloating aside, it's obviously only one incident and could have happened without the whole trans thing (and does). But it is hilarious given the context.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Do gays or lesbians ever do this? I mean I'm pretty cute and paranoid and I've never caught anyone sneaking a cell phone under the stall. Is heterosexual lust so strong that, fuck-minded as homosexuals are, a transgender one is unable to resist?

 

[Dak]

Do gays or lesbians ever do this? I mean I'm pretty cute and paranoid and I've never caught anyone sneaking a cell phone under the stall. Is heterosexual lust so strong that, fuck-minded as homosexuals are, a transgender one is unable to resist?

I think the typical pearl clutching argument is that, at least originally male trans people, are quite sexually uh, "problematic" in general.

 

[CiG]

So this is interesting.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...s_view_blacks_as_racist_than_whites_hispanics

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Rasmussen has a blatant conservative bias in their polling, and I don't think those percentages mean much when you consider the relative proportions of whites, blacks, and Hispanics (e.g. if we assume self-hating cucks are negligible in the real world, then naturally white people are going to be viewed as less racist since there are less people capable of viewing them as non-racist).

 

[Einherjar86]

You need an argument for why that in itself is important. There are important differences between "police killing people", "policing killing unarmed people", "police killing people unjustifiably", etc. Then you tack on the race of the police personnel involved and/or the victim and you get other differences between these things. I'm seeing a lot stats thrown out about all sorts of different things from "cops kill X numbers of people" to "white cops kill x percent of black unarmed, compliant civilians". All of these provide different sorts of information. There's the old adage about stats and lies, but really stats don't lie (unless you specifically fudged the numbers either in data entry or using the wrong sorts of analyses). They tell you specific things, but then apparently most people have poor reading comprehension and try to apply them where they don't actually support. Then you have people like Watts using odd phrases like "mowing down mayflies" to describe something that in relative terms is less common than any number of other manner of death, to supposedly include lightning strikes.

But I'm not making an argument; I'm not advocating violent behavior. I'm saying (as is Watts) that it is conceivable, given the circumstances, as to why violence against cops emerges, and why advice that blacks "just obey the law" rings hollow. If they're subject to social forces extending from providing for a family to maintaining some kind of image on which they fear their life depends, then the entire situation is far more complex than simply being a law-abiding citizen can solve.

My response to "cops disproportionately kill blacks" is like it is with many disparate things: "Interesting. I wonder why that is?" I don't care about how many people cops are killing if it's justified. This is very akin to the gun debate when all these different stats get trotted out, and as far as I can tell in both the gun control debate and in this "racist killer cop" debate or whatever, the most contextless of stats (like "gun deaths") are trotted out by the "liberal" side as evidence of essentially nothing.

I provided that NYT article where a black researcher led team did do much deeper digging into the statistics of police-civilian altercations. He found evidence of disproportionate usage of physical force, but not shooting. In fact blacks were potentially less likely to be shot, even when controlling for a variety of factors. I know this PLOS article is making the rounds as support, but the abstract says almost nothing, and it is PLOS. I haven't been sufficiently motivated to go digging into it via my uni's access but I'm not expecting to see anything in detail that conflicts with the research the NYT covered. If it does, now we merely have at minimum two studies that disagree. There simply isn't support for this outrage machine in it's current rhetorical configuration. Of course, BLM was founded by community organizers. These are Alinskyites. So we know what that means. The enemy must be Satan incarnate. Why is the enemy the enemy? Because they aren't providing gimmedats et al.

The veracity of stats isn't worth debating. If you doubt certain findings, then I can't do anything about that.

Follow the law + don't associate with those who don't + don't look like those who don't = don't get into trouble with law enforcement. I don't see what about this advice is race specific, is relatively very difficult, or merely providing "vague and removed benefits". In comparison, having your job shut down and the costs of everything go up so that some animals supposedly won't die out and coastal properties won't go underwater doesn't seem to have the same lack of difficulty nor general application.

I know you don't see how it's race-specific. That's fine.

I never said intellectuals had no authority to tell a ACC skeptic that they don't know better. I tried to explain that coastal elites don't understand that former coalminers et al don't have the luxury of caring about rising sea levels over 100 years. They need to eat. They need housing. They are trying to support families. Now where, you could attempt to pull a parallel here is to say well blacks don't have the luxury of caring about laws. They need to eat, they need housing, they need to support families. But what does killing each other have to do with providing housing and food? What do the numbers of single parent households/babymamas do to support families (not a law issue, but definitely a black issue)? What does gang membership do to enrich the community?

You're picking a specific behavior of gang activity and singling that out as the crucial factor; but gang membership occasionally necessitates killing, and this in turn ensures one's membership in the gang. These are organized crime syndicates, there are aspects of the "job" that do not conform to the law.

Coalminers care about the law only to the extent that the job they have been (likely) born into doesn't conflict with legal boundaries. If coalmining was suddenly outlawed, I wouldn't be surprised if criminal organizations involving the mining of coal began to emerge, and who knows? Violence between such organizations could even break out.

The point of crossover between coalmining and gang membership is that both of these activities contribute to some form of larger systemic problem (climate and race relations) that members of neither group are interested in solving in a complex manner. The only option that seems immediately effective is to just keep doing what they're doing. With the issue of race relations, it unfortunately affects those not involved in gangs; and these individuals are often driven to some form of violence as well.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-idaho-voyeurism-arrest-idUSKCN0ZU04W

Ha. It wouldn't happen they said. Everyone who said it would is a paranoid idiot they said.

Gloating aside, it's obviously only one incident and could have happened without the whole trans thing (and does). But it is hilarious given the context.

Just to be clear - what I said (won't presume to know what others said) was that the argument about voyeurism wasn't a valid argument against transgender-friendly bathrooms, because stopping transgender people from using the bathrooms of their gender isn't going to prevent voyeurism.

This doesn't mean that voyeurs, transgender or not, wouldn't use public bathrooms.

 

[Dak]

But I'm not making an argument; I'm not advocating violent behavior. I'm saying (as is Watts) that it is conceivable, given the circumstances, as to why violence against cops emerges, and why advice that blacks "just obey the law" rings hollow. If they're subject to social forces extending from providing for a family to maintaining some kind of image on which they fear their life depends, then the entire situation is far more complex than simply being a law-abiding citizen can solve.

You and Watts are arguing that violent behavior against police is emerging primarily due to a belief that following the law does not grant any sort of protection, or at least an inconsequential measure. Where does this belief come from? It can't come from all of the rhetoric could it? We are also talking about a disproportionately violent population (YBMs). I'm sure the original propensity to violence couldn't possibly have a role. I use rhetoric and belief because that's exactly what it is. You, Watts, BLM, whoever have no basis for blacks fearing being gunned down by cops "willy nilly". Or even not willy nilly.

The veracity of stats isn't worth debating. If you doubt certain findings, then I can't do anything about that.

So I delayed responding until I could read the article. For one thing, the NYT research disagrees with certain findings. However they used radically different methodologies (Bayesian vs non Bayesian being the biggest difference) and statistical bases. I won't catalogue all the differences because that would take its own paper or Scott Alexander worthy blogposting, but I want to quote the opening paragraph of the Discussion from the PLOS article:

It is important to reiterate that these risk ratios come only from the sample of individuals who were shot by police and census data on race/ethnicity-specific population information. The USPSD does not have information on encounter rates between police and subjects according to ethnicity. As such, the data cannot speak to the relative risk of being shot by a police officer conditional on being encountered by police, and do not give us a direct window into the psychology of the officers who are pulling the triggers. The racial biases and behaviors of officers upon encountering a suspect could clearly be components of the relative risk effects observed in the data, but other social factors could also contribute to the observed patterns in the data. More specifically, heterogeneity in encounter rates between suspects and police as a function of race could play a strong role in the racial biases in shooting rates presented here.

So we have a source of data in the USPSD. That's this:

https://us-police-shootings-database.silk.co/

This site says:

The data behind this Silk comes from a crowdsourced collection of incidents of police shootings posted on Twitter by Sean McElwee. The accuracy of the data is not guaranteed as the collection and verification process remains unfinished.

Of course the PLOS article claims conspiracy and that, among other things, officer's names are critical. I don't understand how the names are critical to study unless they are being used as a proxy race indicator. So scientific. But it is possible that filings are incomplete so I'll let this go. But what about the veracity of crowdsourced tweets? How many are duplicates? How many are initial press releases that weren't accurate? How many "unarmed" people were making an attempt to grab a deadly weapon, whether the officers or another? How many were physically assaulting a smaller/weaker person? Etc.

Moving on from data source/veracity, let's talk about data that was analyzed. We are talking about only these crowdsourced shootings (not killings), judged by race and armed/unarmed status. That says zero about justification. That doesn't talk about relative to crime stats in the area. Doesn't give a ratio of liklihood in total terms. And so on and so on. There are 1457 reports on the website the data is pulled from, and that's probably more than when the data was analyzed. Assuming it is the same amount that was analyzed, that comes out to 86 (rounded) per year as per years listed on the database (and one isn't even an actual year). We know by official statistics there are more killings than that per year, much less shootings. The WaPo link I provided gave total killings in a year and then provided a statistical breakdown of justified, probably justified, maybe justified, and unknown percentages. By applying the percentages to the absolute numbers and granting the best possible case to the Satan Incarnate Alinsyite rhetoric, we have 59 black people killed unjustly by police in a year. Out of a population of 8.8 million as per a somewhat outdated census figure, without any further analyses, this isn't even a blip. Hell, if every police killing were a white person killing a black person unjustifiably, the >600 total in a population of 8.8 million would be a blip. But neither situation is the case.

But even more detailed analyses was provided by the NYT, and it found not only that blacks were less likely to be shot, but also countered Watt's opening assumption of "low costs":

Mr. Fryer wonders if the divide between lethal force — where he did not find racial disparities — and nonlethal force — where he did — might be related to costs. Officers face costs, legal and psychological, when they unnecessarily fire their guns

I know you don't see how it's race-specific. That's fine.

Laws do not specify race. Associating with law breakers and/or adopting mannerisms of lawbreakers is racially nonspecific. You don't have an argument to support your position as of yet.

You're picking a specific behavior of gang activity and singling that out as the crucial factor; but gang membership occasionally necessitates killing, and this in turn ensures one's membership in the gang. These are organized crime syndicates, there are aspects of the "job" that do not conform to the law.

I don't see how that is a counterpoint. Yes, and?

Coalminers care about the law only to the extent that the job they have been (likely) born into doesn't conflict with legal boundaries. If coalmining was suddenly outlawed, I wouldn't be surprised if criminal organizations involving the mining of coal began to emerge, and who knows? Violence between such organizations could even break out.

It's not coal mining itself so much as coal-fired power plants. Those are what would be outlawed, and thus simply reduce demand. What criminal organization is going to take over an enterprise with little to no demand?

The point of crossover between coalmining and gang membership is that both of these activities contribute to some form of larger systemic problem (climate and race relations) that members of neither group are interested in solving in a complex manner. The only option that seems immediately effective is to just keep doing what they're doing. With the issue of race relations, it unfortunately affects those not involved in gangs; and these individuals are often driven to some form of violence as well.

Why do coalminers mine? There's a civilizational demand for thermodynamic power generation (a positive in itself). Why do gangmembers gang? Because of a failing of their families/extended community.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.216.5620&rep=rep1&type=pdf

I won't quote the whole Discussion but yeah.

In closing on this issue, I don't expect the analyses I provided of the different analyses/data above to have any effect on you, or Watts, because like with BLM you all do not care about data in this case except as unexamined afterthoughts. Any links are tossed out with no discussion of their details or how they support. (Watts' other link was a "Police killings" site http://killedbypolice.net/, again, no context.) The implicit argument is that the killing of civilians by police is inherently or possibly always wrong. One has the right to carry that opinion, but I see no arguments for it. Watts might be a decorated scifi writer, and may be a very knowledgeable biologist, but he's certainly lacking in key skills or orientations required to deal with social/political statistics or basics of logic and reasoning. In addition, according to wiki he had his own encounter with US CBP. I'm sure that has nothing to do with his gut though.

The interesting extrapolation from such similar arguments as made by Watt et al is that we should turn the middle east into a glass parking lot.

Just to be clear - what I said (won't presume to know what others said) was that the argument about voyeurism wasn't a valid argument against transgender-friendly bathrooms, because stopping transgender people from using the bathrooms of their gender isn't going to prevent voyeurism.

This doesn't mean that voyeurs, transgender or not, wouldn't use public bathrooms.

Yeah that's why I said what I did. It doesn't have much to do with transgenderism, but it did occur, and some (not you, maybe not anyone on this board) argued that transgender men were so specially sacred they couldn't possibly do such a thing.

 

[CiG]

I wonder how Obama and his cronies around the globe will spin this latest attack in Nice.

Ban assault trucks? Screaming "allahu akbar" is a secular, non-Islamic action? It's white French people at fault?