US Politics: Deep State Solution

[Fragile Bird]

56 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Sweden is second only to Lesotho in rapes per capita

My God, more of your brain dead bullshit reporting. There is so much that's misleading in that report. First of all, Sweden has very wide definition of rape. The USA, for example, for statistics gathering used an 80 year old definition of rape until just 2011, that required force to be rape.

Secondly, cases get labelled as rapes on initial complaints and stay labelled as rapes all through the investigation and court process even if it turns out they were not rapes.

Thirdly, Sweden has worked to make sure they ZERO unreported cases of rape. Women have high confidence in the Swedish police force, so they report sexual assaults at a very high rate. The US number on that chart is 26.6, but the estimate is that only about 34% of rapes are reported, so the US figure of 26.6 per 100,000 could very well be about triple that, or about 79 per 100,000 versus the 69 per 100,000 in the Sweden.

And fourth, in the US rapes are reported by number of victims, not number of rapists, as is done in Sweden. In Sweden if a woman is gang raped by 5 men, 5 rapes are reported. Not so in the US, yet over 20% of reported rapes in the US are gang rapes.

Fifth, comparing the 1975 number of rapes in Sweden with the 2014 number is also bullshit, because since 1975 the Swedish government strived to increase the number of rapes reported.

Sixth, there are countries, like Egypt, that report rapes as assaults.

Seventh, 67 out of the 129 countries in that UN report DON'T TRACK RAPE STATISTICS. So saying "Sweden has the 2nd highest number of rapes in the world after Lesotho" is absolutely fucking bullshit. Other research reports have found, for example, in many Asian countries 25% of men have admitted to committing rapes

Eighth, talk about a misleading chart - where the flying fuck is Lesotho, the very country that Sweden is being compared to????

And I did this with cursory, brief research. Dropping that story without comment is absolutely a cheap, foul and nonsensical piece of bullshit.

It ranks with "80% of the 9th Circuit Appeal Court's decisions are overturned on appeal". Absolutely fucking brain dead bullshit.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

The thing that gets to me though is how Trumpers can love how Trump went off on the media over something that's true. Nothing about the leaks over the investigation into campaign ties to Russia has been misreported by CNN/NBC/ABC/NYT/or the WP.

[Larry of the Lawn]

19 minutes ago, Samantha Stark said:

I actually have acknowledged it before, and the fact remains the left maintains a monopoly on political violence in America today. See: Antifa.

The epic fail belongs to you alone, I'm afraid.

This is beyond ignorant.  Gun violence alone refutes any point you're trying to makes. And while I realize we're just going to talk ourselves in pointless circles of no communication here, as long as we're making sweeping generalities about the left and right, the right has been a proud champion of violence in terms of police brutality, gun legislation, refusal to acknowledge systemic racism and sexism, perpetuating rape culture on a policy level, the war on drugs, etc.  'The left has a monopoly on violence' is a Trump level lie.  

 

For fucks sake, could we for once get a right-wing poster that actually has something of substance to add to the conversation?  This is beyond ignorant and is just charging into 'outrighr falsehood' territory 

[felice]

13 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

For fucks sake, could we for once get a right-wing poster that actually has something of substance to add to the conversation?

Well no, of course not. Right-wing positions are substantially indefensible.

[Altherion]

16 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I don't think the question can be about the legitimacy or necessity of affirmative action, because it was both legitimate and necessary when it was first implemented. The question may be whether today, things have evolved enough for us (or them) to consider alternative solutions or strategies.

This is an interesting question that is difficult to answer. I completely agree with you that it was necessary when first implemented. Somebody mentioned the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and if you look at the voting record for that, it passed both the House and the Senate with bipartisan supermajorities the likes of which I'm not sure that we'll ever see in the future for such a far-reaching piece of legislation. However, note that this was more than half a century ago and that the state of the matter today is complicated by several factors.

First, all of the identity-based movements follow a similar trajectory in that at the beginning of its successful phase, the leadership is not part of the establishment, but the movement makes rapid progress because the vast majority of people acknowledge that their cause is just. However, as the most obvious issues are addressed, an industry of activists grows up around the cause and these typically become more and more aligned with the establishment as time goes on. They work to keep people paying attention to their cause -- and are well paid for it. At the highest tiers, the revenue is on the order of ten million dollars (see, for example, this one who owed several millions in taxes and extrapolate the original profit). Of course, people who make that much are rare, but there are also professors, journalists, lawyers, etc. all of whom are motivated generators of propaganda (it's literally their job) on how bad things are for a particular group. It's entirely possible that if one spent that much effort to publicize a group without so much representation (e.g. Native Americans, Appalachians, etc.) to the same extent that they'd look just as bad or worse.

Second, many of the remaining issues regarding various identity groups have been in place for decades despite affirmative action and its more extreme kin (e.g. forced busing which was hated by both white and black people and arguably made things worse) and are unlikely to disappear barring radical changes. For example, certain inner cities effectively have their own culture and values which are not discarded with infusions of cash and run counter to the prevailing culture and values of our time. For a different example, many of the main issues specific to women are very nearly impossible to change without a drastic modification of the mainstream system of resource distribution. The above mentioned horde of activists use these "impossible" issues for propaganda, but do not try to address them and instead, focus on fighting for advantages for the subset of their identity group which is in a position to increase their own influence as well as on protecting the elites via diversion (you can see a regurgitation of their standard "But wait! What about our specific issues?!" reply to calls for solidarity in attacking the 1% in this very thread).

In short, there are still problems, but the old solutions have outlived their usefulness and only exist because there are entire industries of parasites defending them.

[Altherion]

18 hours ago, mormont said:

Here's the thing: if identity politics is inherently, hopelessly divisive, how come black voters and female voters and LGBTQ+ voters and Latinx voters and Muslim voters can all unite behind one candidate? Why aren't they divided? According to Altherion, if their interests don't align they should be divided.

I addressed this in one of my posts above, but here it is again: they are united because in the United States, there are only two credible political parties and if you want to be taken seriously, you must ally yourself with either one of them or the other. These groups are slightly closer to each other (and also to the various other groups that comprise the Democratic party) that they are to the groups on the Republican side. The latter is similarly an assortment of groups with interests that only barely align, but which tolerate each other slightly better than they do the Democratic groups.

10 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Omg Scot, you are...well, I guess I'll say at least you aren't Commodore or Altherion or Free Northman Reborn.  I guess I could have used one of them but I can barely stomach even thinking about them.

There's no need to get so upset: reasonable people can disagree on things without personally disliking each other. For example, I think that the views of quite a few posters in this thread (including yourself) are detrimental to the well-being of humanity in general and Americans in particular, but I have no antipathy towards the vast majority of the people who hold them.

[Samantha Stark]

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

This is beyond ignorant.  Gun violence alone refutes any point you're trying to makes. And while I realize we're just going to talk ourselves in pointless circles of no communication here, as long as we're making sweeping generalities about the left and right, the right has been a proud champion of violence in terms of police brutality, gun legislation, refusal to acknowledge systemic racism and sexism, perpetuating rape culture on a policy level, the war on drugs, etc.  'The left has a monopoly on violence' is a Trump level lie.  

 

For fucks sake, could we for once get a right-wing poster that actually has something of substance to add to the conversation?  This is beyond ignorant and is just charging into 'outrighr falsehood' territory 

I just got home from work. Will reply to posts in ascending order!

And of all the left wing positions and buzzterms "Gun Violence" is the most laughable one out there! A gun is an inanimate object incapable of producing violence in and of it self. Gun control laws are a bad joke and one only needs to look at cities like Chicago for proof of that. They have strict gun control laws, and how has that worked out for them? And gun control is not necessarily a right/left issue. There are pro gun democrats and anti gun republicans.

I agree that there is a problem in the police forces in America...again, not really a left/right issue despite attempts to frame it that way. 

Systematic sexism and racism? Yeah....just another hollow left wing rallying cry. I am a woman and have visited America several times and never was I oppressed by the mythical super villain known as PATRIARCHY. 

How do they perpetuate rape culture?

And the democrats have had the white house and control of congress numerous times since the war on drugs began. What have they done to end it? Nothing.

[Samantha Stark]

2 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

https://news.vice.com/article/violence-caused-by-far-right-extremists-has-surpassed-that-caused-by-domestic-jihadists-study-says

http://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_ECDB_FarRightViolence_FactSheet_June2014.pdf

http://ijr.com/2016/01/518045-a-study-showed-right-wing-extremism-kills-more-than-islamic-terrorism-then-a-real-researcher-looked-into-it/

[TrueMetis]

43 minutes ago, Samantha Stark said:

And of all the left wing positions and buzzterms "Gun Violence" is the most laughable one out there! A gun is an inanimate object incapable of producing violence in and of it self.

Is English not your first language? Yes obviously when people say gun violence they don't mean the gun doing things on it's own. The fuck even is this?

... Why'd you capitalize gun violence btw?

Quote

Gun control laws are a bad joke and one only needs to look at cities like Chicago for proof of that. They have strict gun control laws, and how has that worked out for them?

Ah I see, it's obviously more of a critical thinking issue. City aren't islands, so putting in gun control is going to be stymied by the fact that people can get guns from outside Chicago and bring them in. This make Chicago gun control really more of a symbolic gesture.

[Samantha Stark]

4 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Is English not your first language? Yes obviously when people say gun violence they don't mean the gun doing things on it's own. The fuck even is this?

... Why'd you capitalize gun violence btw?

Ah I see, it's obviously more of a critical thinking issue. City aren't islands, so putting in gun control is going to be stymied by the fact that people can get guns from outside Chicago and bring them in. This make Chicago gun control really more of a symbolic gesture.

Sandy Hook took place in a state that had strict gun control laws. Columbine took place during the height of the old AWB. It's not me that has the critical thinking issue. Sad!

[The guy from the Vale]

22 minutes ago, Samantha Stark said:

Sandy Hook took place in a state that had strict gun control laws. Columbine took place during the height of the old AWB. It's not me that has the critical thinking issue. Sad!

And how far was Sandy Hook from a state with lax gun control laws?

...oh, right.

There's a proven way to reduce such massacres. Australia did it. But you refuse to consider it.

[Samantha Stark]

1 minute ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

And how far was Sandy Hook from a state with lax gun control laws?

...oh, right.

There's a proven way to reduce such massacres. Australia did it. But you refuse to consider it.

You do know that the Sandy Hook shooter had to commit a murder to illegally seize the weapon he used to commit that atrocity, right? It didn't magically appear from Texas. And by the way most of, if not all, new england has very strict gun control laws.

Gun control doesn't work. You refuse to acknowledge it. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Samantha Stark said:

Sandy Hook took place in a state that had strict gun control laws. Columbine took place during the height of the old AWB. It's not me that has the critical thinking issue. Sad!

Well you've come up with about three data points for your extensive empirical investigation into the effectiveness of gun control laws. That's very impressive.

Don't be shy though about your research. What other covariates did use, besides the strength of gun regulations to resolve this issue? And what kind of p-value were you looking for to reject the null hypothesis that gun regulation doesn't work?

[Samantha Stark]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well you've come up with about three data points for your extensive empirical investigation into the effectiveness of gun control laws. That's very impressive.

Don't be shy though about your research. What other covariates did use, besides the strength of gun regulations to resolve this issue? And what kind of p-value were you looking for to reject the null hypothesis that gun regulation doesn't work?

The National Firearms Act.

The Gun Control act.

The Federal Assault Weapons ban during the 90s, and the local ones that still exist at state levels.

How effective have those been? The answer is obviously not very. But by all means keep holding gun control up as a cornerstorne of the democratic party. I love sitting up here in Canada and watching the 'crats get crushed because of it!

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Samantha Stark said:

The National Firearms Act.

The Gun Control act.

The Federal Assault Weapons ban during the 90s, and the local ones that still exist at state levels.

How effective have those been? The answer is obviously not very. But by all means keep holding gun control up as a cornerstorne of the democratic party. I love sitting up here in Canada and watching the 'crats get crushed because of it!

Well I was kind of hoping to read your paper on this matter. I was really looking forward to the section where you explained your statistical methodology.

But, it looks like I'm gonna be disappointed. Darn.

[Samantha Stark]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well I was kind of hoping to read your paper on this matter. I was really looking forward to the section where you explained your statistical methodology.

But, it looks like I'm gonna be disappointed. Darn.

Here is a fairly neutral article on the matter. Please note how minimal of an impact the AWB had.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

 

[felice]

10 minutes ago, Samantha Stark said:

You do know that the Sandy Hook shooter had to commit a murder to illegally seize the weapon he used to commit that atrocity, right?

And how did he commit that murder? And why did the person he seized the weapon from have a weapon to seize?

Using this sort of thing as evidence that gun control doesn't work is like using a condemned building collapsing in an earthquake as evidence that construction standards don't work.

[Samantha Stark]

1 minute ago, felice said:

And how did he commit that murder? And why did the person he seized the weapon from have a weapon to seize?

Using this sort of thing as evidence that gun control doesn't work is like using a condemned building collapsing in an earthquake as evidence that construction standards don't work.

Because gun ownership in and of itself is not a crime, despite the fact many want it to be.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Samantha Stark said:

Here is a fairly neutral article on the matter. Please note how minimal of an impact the AWB had.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

 

Maybe you should parse that article a little more carefully. The law dealt with assault weapons only, not the only type of fire arm out there.The author of the study gave the reasons why the law didn't have a large impact.

He concludes with:

Quote

Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”

 

I do not think this study means, what you think it means.

[Samantha Stark]

19 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Maybe you should parse that article a little more carefully. The law dealt with assault weapons only, not the only type of fire arm out there.The author of the study gave the reasons why the law didn't have a large impact.

He concludes with:

 

I do not think this study means, what you think it means.

And again, what effect on gun violence did the NFA and GCA (whom have a far broader focus) and state level gun control measures do? I know pro-gun control arguments are hard to come by in any form that isn't "B-B-BUT AUSTRALIA!" but at least present something.