Are you a terrorism threat? New rule from Homeland Security (1 Viewer)

[FreeBaGeL]

By putting it down on an official paper like this, the government is already “doing something about it.” The paper ITSELF is a damper on free speech. This is not a question of slippery slopes; I don’t believe in those and never argue them. The paper is bad all by itself. 

These advisories come out every few months, about all kinds of stuff.  There was one in November warning about violence at religious mass gathering holiday events with December approaching and inter-religious tensions being high after the Afghan withdrawal.  That doesn't mean they were calling everyone who is religious a terrorist.

 

[timschochet]

These advisories come out every few months, about all kinds of stuff.  There was one in November warning about violence at religious mass gathering holiday events with December approaching and inter-religious tensions being high after the Afghan withdrawal.  That doesn't mean they were calling everyone who is religious a terrorist.

I didn’t know that. OK that info might change my perception of this. By itself though it looks bad. 

 

[glvsav37]

This reads to me like the Rico Act. Whereas they can find you for 1 thing and then by association lump on a ton of other somewhat related acts against you. 

 

[-fish-]

Eliminate Section 230 immunity.    Providers will stop allowing people to publish and amplify conspiracies and misinformation when they face a risk of civil liability.  

 

[Sand]

I was at one time - i had a offshore betting account.

I miss Neteller.

 

[ekbeats]

Serious question - does “false or misleading narratives” apply to claims that unarmed black men are disproportionately being killed by police?

 

[-fish-]

Serious question - does “false or misleading narratives” apply to claims that unarmed black men are disproportionately being killed by police?

I'm assuming you're parsing out "unarmed," since it's pretty well established that black men are killed at about 3x the rate of white men in police encounters.*  You can certainly make the argument that racial disparity is only significant in armed encounters, but I don't really see the point.

* link to that liberal stronghold Harvard.

 

[ekbeats]

I'm assuming you're parsing out "unarmed," since it's pretty well established that black men are killed at about 3x the rate of white men in police encounters.*  You can certainly make the argument that racial disparity is only significant in armed encounters, but I don't really see the point.

* link to that liberal stronghold Harvard.

Another link to that liberal stronghold Harvard.

And yes, I am focusing on unarmed, and the reason is obvious  Racial malice is more obvious in cases where the person is unarmed. Almost all of the big outrage with police shootings has involved someone who wasn’t armed, where there’s the magic leap to evidence of racial bias.  Ie - “The cops are gunning down black men” 

 

[ekbeats]

And this… no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across fatal police shootings

There are studies on both sides, and we can go back and forth on it all night.  AT BEST - it’s a wash, and there is no conclusive statistical evidence either way suggesting that police are racist against blacks with regard to deadly use of force.  Yet that became the established narrative of the media and the Democratic Party.  It was fake news.  Misinformation.  And it led to billions in riot damage and the loss of many lives.

So I ask again, is thus going to be adjudicated fairly?  Are we going to “follow the science” as they say?

 

[-fish-]

Another link to that liberal stronghold Harvard.

And yes, I am focusing on unarmed, and the reason is obvious  Racial malice is more obvious in cases where the person is unarmed. Almost all of the big outrage with police shootings has involved someone who wasn’t armed, where there’s the magic leap to evidence of racial bias.  Ie - “The cops are gunning down black men” 

So your response to the typical argument (blacks are being killed by police disproportionately)  is to reframe it into a narrower discussion that fits your narrative better and ignores the actual point.  

It doesn't seem to matter to you that black men are more than 3x more likely to get killed in a police encounter overall.    There's a blatant and obvious racial bias, and your solution is to cherry pick statistics so that you can make a separate and different argument. 

That's not a "false or misleading narrative,"   but neither is the actual argument before you reframe it to fit yours.

 

[ekbeats]

So your response to the typical argument (blacks are being killed by police disproportionately)  is to reframe it into a narrower discussion that fits your narrative better and ignores the actual point.  

It doesn't seem to matter to you that black men are more than 3x more likely to get killed in a police encounter overall.    There's a blatant and obvious racial bias, and your solution is to cherry pick statistics so that you can make a separate and different argument. 

That's not a "false or misleading narrative,"   but neither is the actual argument before you reframe it to fit yours.

Not at all.  The studies I reference normalize the variables in the police encounters - ie - incidents where the suspect was unarmed.  The study you referenced treats all police killings equally, ignoring the fact that a higher preponderance of the blacks that were killed were armed during the encounter.  Why on earth would anyone expect similar killing rates between armed and unarmed encounters?

And by the way - can it with the holier than thou crap about me not caring that blacks are being killed at a higher rate than whites.  I am from a mixed race family.  The unacceptable rates of violence affecting blacks is due to other factors besides racist police, and clowns like you who keep pushing that false narrative are preventing us from getting to the true root causes.

 

[joffer]

Not at all.  The studies I reference normalize the variables in the police encounters - ie - incidents where the suspect was unarmed.  The study you referenced treats all police killings equally, ignoring the fact that a higher preponderance of the blacks that were killed were armed during the encounter.  Why on earth would anyone expect similar killing rates between armed and unarmed encounters?

And by the way - can it with the holier than thou crap about me not caring that blacks are being killed at a higher rate than whites.  I am from a mixed race family.  The unacceptable rates of violence affecting blacks is due to other factors besides racist police, and clowns like you who keep pushing that false narrative are preventing us from getting to the true root causes.

classy.  be better right?