Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 235: Autopsy-Turvy

(+) Yeah! (+)

Corrik7 posted...

I didn't argue stereotyping is bad actually. Maybe you should use your brain.

Corrik7 posted...

Oh, I insulted you? Okay.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

corrik: "liberals don't use their brains"
also corrik: "stereotyping is bad yo"

I didn't argue stereotyping is bad actually. Maybe you should use your brain.

Corrik7 posted...

I got a ban for saying they were being hypocrites because they were stereotyping police officers while also arguing against stereotyping African Americans. I said both was wrong, and it was hypocritical.

---

Thanks, Jakyl. Both of those instances would be wrong.

Stereotypes can be bad. Stereotypes can be useful. It depends on how you apply them.

Both of those stereotypes are bad.

And people saying stereotyping people is terrible while also stereotyping others is hypocritical.

---

Whats an example of a good stereotype?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Whats an example of a good stereotype?

I'll respond to this when I get to work in a few hours.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Whats an example of a good stereotype?

Republicans are racist

---

jesus there's less than 20 posts on page 2
---

If an officer hears gunshots. Someone is laying there bleeding. And 3 people are fleeing the scene in 3 different directions. The cop doesn't have time to have a coin toss tournament to randomly decide who to chase to possibly catch the perpetrator. (We will assume his partner is tending to the victim but the victim is unable to respond.)

One direction you have a white male running away, one direction an African American woman, and in another direction an Asian woman.

The cop using stereotypes would be best to chase the white male if he had to randomly just choose one. Stereotype that the white male is likelier the suspect because gun violence is overwhelming committed by males.

Could this be wrong? Hell yes it could be wrong. Which is why if stereotyping you should be doing so based on data that supports the stereotype and also not assume it is correct either. It can be used as a basis, but not as an absolute.

If someone commits a tech crime. And the suspects are a cheerleader, a special needs student, and the chess champion /computer gamer. Gonna stereotype the gamer as the first lead to go on.

If choosing a team of people at the Y for pickup basketball and you know absolutely no one, you are picking completely on stereotypes. I am going absolutely with the tall dudes, African American dudes, and the not fat dudes.

Sorry, but at that point you are playing the odds. Can this burn you hard? Absolutely. For all you know, you just picked a ton of weakass players based on preconceptions that were wrong. However, you are also using a stereotype based on data. NBA and top college players are overwhelmingly not fat, tall, and African American.

If a business is burglarized in a city where most crime is overwhelming committed by skinhead gangs, I am looking for a skinhead based on stereotypes formed based on that data.

You should never assume this is absolutely correct but you can make estimations based on data available. You should make sure your data is valid, somewhat applicable, and that you do not go to far with the stereotype.

Like, if you shoot that white male in example 1 because "white males commit the most gun violence so I assumed he had a gun" that is too far. It has to make sense also.

Stereotypes do not have to be inherently bad. They just can be very wrong and make an ass out of you when you create them and try to make them have to be correct.

Like, if you pick a bunch of African American kids on your basketball team and they suck. You can't go berating them for being a failure to their race for not being good at basketball. I mean, that's obviously not an applicable stereotype and just racist stereotype.


---

Corrik7 posted...

Lol this argument is so bad. Haha.

its actually very good thanks

in the metaphor pissing is stereotyping and cops are toilets

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

its actually very good thanks

in the metaphor pissing is stereotyping and cops are toilets

Yeah. The entire argument was terrible. Especially when I said I properly apply the antifa label to the actual terrorists and not the people who are just anti fascism in their views.

---

Corrik7 posted...

If an officer hears gunshots. Someone is laying there bleeding. And 3 people are fleeing the scene in 3 different directions. The cop doesn't have time to have a coin toss tournament to randomly decide who to chase to possibly catch the perpetrator. (We will assume his partner is tending to the victim but the victim is unable to respond.)

One direction you have a white male running away, one direction an African American woman, and in another direction an Asian woman.

The cop using stereotypes would be best to chase the white male if he had to randomly just choose one. Stereotype that the white male is likelier the suspect because gun violence is overwhelming committed by males.

Could this be wrong? Hell yes it could be wrong. Which is why if stereotyping you should be doing so based on data that supports the stereotype and also not assume it is correct either. It can be used as a basis, but not as an absolute.

If someone commits a tech crime. And the suspects are a cheerleader, a special needs student, and the chess champion /computer gamer. Gonna stereotype the gamer as the first lead to go on.

If choosing a team of people at the Y for pickup basketball and you know absolutely no one, you are picking completely on stereotypes. I am going absolutely with the tall dudes, African American dudes, and the not fat dudes.

Sorry, but at that point you are playing the odds. Can this burn you hard? Absolutely. For all you know, you just picked a ton of weakass players based on preconceptions that were wrong. However, you are also using a stereotype based on data. NBA and top college players are overwhelmingly not fat, tall, and African American.

If a business is burglarized in a city where most crime is overwhelming committed by skinhead gangs, I am looking for a skinhead based on stereotypes formed based on that data.

You should never assume this is absolutely correct but you can make estimations based on data available. You should make sure your data is valid, somewhat applicable, and that you do not go to far with the stereotype.

Like, if you shoot that white male in example 1 because "white males commit the most gun violence so I assumed he had a gun" that is too far. It has to make sense also.

Stereotypes do not have to be inherently bad. They just can be very wrong and make an ass out of you when you create them and try to make them have to be correct.

Like, if you pick a bunch of African American kids on your basketball team and they suck. You can't go berating them for being a failure to their race for not being good at basketball. I mean, that's obviously not an applicable stereotype and just racist stereotype.

But the result of this is if you are a black man, you are always going to be suspect #1. Your whole life everytime you are near an incident you are going to be the top suspect. Are you okay with society treating an innocent person this way?

I feel if that's how it's going to be he should at least be entitled to compensation, since police are employed by the state after all.
---

Corrik7 posted...

Yeah. The entire argument was terrible. Especially when I said I properly apply the antifa label to the actual terrorists and not the people who are just anti fascism in their views.

this feels like the exact opposite of your position on the incel thing. then anyone who doesnt have sex was an incel whether they identify as such or not, here being antifascist doesnt make you antifa unless you do terrorism?

---

red sox 777 posted...

But the result of this is if you are a black man, you are always going to be suspect #1. Your whole life everytime you are near an incident you are going to be the top suspect. Are you okay with society treating an innocent person this way?

I feel if that's how it's going to be he should at least be entitled to compensation, since police are employed by the state after all.

If the data in that area supports that, I see nothing wrong with looking in that direction first. You aren't arresting the person or treating them as they are guilty by looking there first. If they are, they are going too far. It has to be applicable to data that supports it in the area, be used in a not malicious way, and not overextend it's usage

Stereotypes don't have to be inherently bad.

Saying I will never call the cops because they are the real evil fucking murders. Fuck the police. Fucking pigs.

That's terrible. It's hard to take someone stereotyping police that way seriously when they make arguments against stereotyping.

That was my point I made there. But that forum is a cesspool where you are told how to think, if you question the mods you are banned, and it's a fight to be as far left as possible. They have banned transgender members for transphobia because their beliefs regarding themselves didn't align with the approved thought. That's just crazy. There was a huge ass thread calling etika every insult in the book and claiming he was a racist against black people(including a moderator). The members called it out and after the fact they scrubbed it from their forum.

Being banned from there isn't some proof of anything lol. They ban a ton of people lol. The entire Conservative OffTopic group is a graveyard of bans. None left lol. If you are a moderate democrat you are considered part of the problem too there. That forum is so far left it is wild.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

this feels like the exact opposite of your position on the incel thing. then anyone who doesnt have sex was an incel whether they identify as such or not, here being antifascist doesnt make you antifa unless you do terrorism?

I said I didn't know they were referring to the singular forum based on the wording and dropped it when clarified.

---

I am sure we can see the difference between someone making a topic saying
"Is anyone here anti fascism"

And

"Is anyone here Antifa"

The topic was "is anyone here an incel"

---

to a cool informer internet user like myself incel and antifa seem like similar terms. Theyre both fun shortenings of two words that people use to self-identify and have baggage associated that goes beyond the meaning of the phrase theyre shortening.

The incel equivalent of is anyone here anti fascism would be hey any of yall not fucking but wanna be?

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

to a cool informer internet user like myself incel and antifa seem like similar terms. Theyre both fun shortenings of two words that people use to self-identify and have baggage associated that goes beyond the meaning of the phrase theyre shortening.

The incel equivalent of is anyone here anti fascism would be hey any of yall not fucking but wanna be?

It contextually doesn't make a ton of sense for it to refer to a group of people who are a forum of violent and abusive people basically.

It would be like asking. Hey anyone here beat their wife?

It makes much more sense them to be referring to incel as the term was coined. Not the violent forum that has sprung up from it.

That said, it was clarified, and I dropped it.

I have also clarified when I use Antifa I am not referring to people who don't want fascism but am referring to people who think it is their mission to violently oppose any political beliefs they feel represent fascism. That is why I say Antifa is clearly a terrorist group. They conduct violence based on political beliefs.

---

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/457800-maher-rails-against-anti-israel-
boycott-movement-a-bulls-purity-test-for

Used to love watching his show. Don't always agree with him, but he at least makes a lot of sense with his arguments most the time.

---

https://news.sky.com/story/three-potential-mass-shootings-foiled-in-three-days-11788934

This is the kind of shit we need to be blasting from the news sites. That these attacks can be stopped if people stay vigilant and report things. I wonder how many of foiled attempts like this even go unreported.

---

When I use the term Antifa I am referring to people who I consider to be classic fascists- who believe in using violent force to shut down people who don't share their views.
---

Corrik7 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

But the result of this is if you are a black man, you are always going to be suspect #1. Your whole life everytime you are near an incident you are going to be the top suspect. Are you okay with society treating an innocent person this way?

I feel if that's how it's going to be he should at least be entitled to compensation, since police are employed by the state after all.

If the data in that area supports that, I see nothing wrong with looking in that direction first. You aren't arresting the person or treating them as they are guilty by looking there first. If they are, they are going too far. It has to be applicable to data that supports it in the area, be used in a not malicious way, and not overextend it's usage

Stereotypes don't have to be inherently bad.

Saying I will never call the cops because they are the real evil fucking murders. Fuck the police. Fucking pigs.

That's terrible. It's hard to take someone stereotyping police that way seriously when they make arguments against stereotyping.

That was my point I made there. But that forum is a cesspool where you are told how to think, if you question the mods you are banned, and it's a fight to be as far left as possible. They have banned transgender members for transphobia because their beliefs regarding themselves didn't align with the approved thought. That's just crazy. There was a huge ass thread calling etika every insult in the book and claiming he was a racist against black people(including a moderator). The members called it out and after the fact they scrubbed it from their forum.

Being banned from there isn't some proof of anything lol. They ban a ton of people lol. The entire Conservative OffTopic group is a graveyard of bans. None left lol. If you are a moderate democrat you are considered part of the problem too there. That forum is so far left it is wild.

That sounds like a place not worth posting at.

But I feel like if we are going to support a colorblind society, we need to really do that. We are never going to reach colorblindness if we continue to perpetuate policies that discriminate based on race. That includes those that are statistically warranted at this time in the sense you're saying- if I want to give a boost of 100 SAT points to all black applicants for instance because they probably didn't have a family that motivated them to prepare extensively for the test and shelled out for the resources to do so - that would probably make my admissions results better in the short run. Because the average black applicant with SAT score X is going to be smarter than the average applicant with score X across all races.

But if this kind of shortcut is used....are we ever going to make progress towards colorblindness? It may be more like the dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR which was started in the 1920s as a stepping stone to true Communism and was still being practiced in 1991. They made no progress whatsoever toward true Communism in 7 decades and by the end no one in Russia expected it to ever happen.
---

red sox 777 posted...

That sounds like a place not worth posting at.

It is the best forum for video game news though.

---

red sox 777 posted...

When I use the term Antifa I am referring to people who I consider to be classic fascists- who believe in using violent force to shut down people who don't share their views.

They are literally only going after white supremacists and Nazis. These are not people attacking Joe Biden rallies, whom they also probably universally dislike. They are acting out of self defense, as white supremacists and Nazis threaten the lives of all marginalized people in this country. Think about it like this, you have freedom of speech, but if someone is threatening violence the state legally says that is unacceptable. However, state is not protecting people from these threats, so antifa is stepping in to protect their community.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O-iLk1G_ng" data-time="

That Bernie episode of Rogan is up to 9 million views and 16,000 comments, and I scrolled for 10 seconds and didnt see a single negative one. (Theyre definitely there, but with a 10:1 ratio of likes to dislikes, I think going on JRE is something more Politicians should do).
---

Nrrr posted...

red sox 777 posted...

When I use the term Antifa I am referring to people who I consider to be classic fascists- who believe in using violent force to shut down people who don't share their views.

They are literally only going after white supremacists and Nazis. These are not people attacking Joe Biden rallies, whom they also probably universally dislike. They are acting out of self defense, as white supremacists and Nazis threaten the lives of all marginalized people in this country. Think about it like this, you have freedom of speech, but if someone is threatening violence the state legally says that is unacceptable. However, state is not protecting people from these threats, so antifa is stepping in to protect their community.

When the Nazis started in Germany, they only used violence against Communists, and yeah, the KPD was committed to overthrowing the electoral system of Weimar Germany as well. History shows us (in my opinion at least) that we need to draw a very sharp line in the sand on this issue. Extrajudicial violence that is not self-defense (in a legal sense, using the least aggressive means of averting an imminent danger started by another) is never okay.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O-iLk1G_ng" data-time="

That Bernie episode of Rogan is up to 9 million views and 16,000 comments, and I scrolled for 10 seconds and didnt see a single negative one. (Theyre definitely there, but with a 10:1 ratio of likes to dislikes, I think going on JRE is something more Politicians should do).

I have one (only one) negative thing to say about Bernie after watching the whole episode last week. Once Im at my computer Ill get the time stamp.
---

https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/1163532937377320961?s=21

---

Lujan (#4 House Dem) backs impeachment:

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1163500937480232962?s=21

---

Again, Trump will never be removed from office via impeachment proceedings because he cannot be indicted with a republican senate. It is a pointless headline to care about.

It literally is only being spung up to keep it in the news to try and hurt Trump upon re-election. Pointless.

---

Impeach Trump, and he will be acquitted. But don't be surprised when every Democratic president for the next 50 years gets impeached in retaliation.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Impeach Trump, and he will be acquitted. But don't be surprised when every Democratic president for the next 50 years gets impeached in retaliation.

*Shrug* they will never actually do it because impeachment tends to make the president more popular if you can't get the indictment. Just wanna keep it in the headlines for the sheep.

---

I'm pretty sure a strategy of "We did our job in the House, but the Republican Senators were too corrupt to do theirs" is better than giving Trump the ability to say that he is completely exonerated by the lack of even the beginning of impeachment proceedings.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

I'm pretty sure a strategy of "We did our job in the House, but the Republican Senators were too corrupt to do theirs" is better than giving Trump the ability to say that he is completely exonerated by the lack of even the beginning of impeachment proceedings.

damn right
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

I'm pretty sure a strategy of "We did our job in the House, but the Republican Senators were too corrupt to do theirs" is better than giving Trump the ability to say that he is completely exonerated by the lack of even the beginning of impeachment proceedings.

Sure worked with Clinton. Lol.

But, like I said, they will never do it because once Trump can show he was acquitted by the government and the sheep realizes it never had a chance, he will get more popular. And the sheep will feel betrayed they were made to think it was possible.

---

https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/bacon-FOREIGNPOLICY-0819-1.png


---

Trump's misconduct in office completely dwarfs Clinton's. Nixon is a much better comparison (honestly, Nixon probably did less).

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Trump's misconduct in office completely dwarfs Clinton's. Nixon is a much better comparison (honestly, Nixon probably did less).

Bill Clinton undeniably committed a crime. Trump didn't.

---

The President cannot commit a crime.
---

Corrik7 posted...

Bill Clinton undeniably committed a crime. Trump didn't.

Yes he did. For instance, he illegally directed Michael Cohen to make a $130000 hush money payment (for which Cohen is currently serving time). If Trump wasn't president, he would have been charged.

Similarly, Mueller found substantial evidence that Trump committed obstruction of justice on at least ten occasions, and all but said that the only reason he wasn't being charged was the OLC memo that a sitting president couldn't be indicted. Of course, the only way that memo makes any sense whatsoever is together with the assumption that crimes committed by the president will result in impeachment.

If you say both that he can't be indicted because he's the president and that he can't be impeached because he wasn't charged with a crime, what you're really saying is that the president is above the law.

---

I think some of you are relatively unversed in the Clinton proceedings tbqh. Read up on it. It is fun.

Obviously it was dumb because they didn't have the votes for it to pass so no reason to bring it up anyways. And, it backfired on them for doing so.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

all but said

This means you are interpreting it the way you want to. Just full stop there.

---

What crime did Bill Clinton commit, exactly? Because even the perjury charge was not a valid crime, since he didn't actually lie, under the guidelines laid out prior to his questioning.
---

Ye iirc bill said "i didn't have intercourse hehehe" when he actually got a blow job
---

banananor posted...

Ye iirc bill said "i didn't have intercourse hehehe" when he got a blow job

Which is technically correct but irritating

"According to the Starr report, after Lewinsky appeared on the witness list Clinton began taking steps to conceal their relationship, including suggesting she file a false affidavit, suggesting she use cover stories, concealing gifts he had given her, and helping her obtain a job to her liking.
Clinton gave a sworn deposition on January 17, 1998, where he denied having a "sexual relationship", "sexual affair" or "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. He also denied that he was ever alone with her. His lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, stated with Clinton present that Lewinsky's affidavit showed that there was no sex in any manner, shape or form between Clinton and Lewinsky. The Starr Report states that the following day, Clinton "coached" his secretary Betty Currie into repeating his denials should she be called to testify."

This is just some excerpts from Wikipedia, but you can follow sources and find all the material if you are truly interested.

It never had a chance cuz a 2/3rd majority didn't exist in the Senate and Clinton's popularity soared during the process. Lol.

Then there was a question of whether or not these crimes actually made him unfit to lead anyways.

The point is that you can outright point to his perjury and obstruction without having to twist it. The fact remains though, it doesn't mean shit without a super majority in the Senate and that it just made him more popular.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton is honestly amazing in retrospect compared to today.


---

Like it honestly best to not even try to engage in defending that if your position is this on Trump. Just say 'hey, we have grown as a society or something since then" lol.

---

Clinton lied about an extra marital affair.

Trump lies about almost everything. He lies whether or not the lies have any significance and he does it so pathologically he has branded himself an incredibly untrustworthy person.

That's disregarding that some of the things he appears to be lying about involve the very campaign that (narrowly) got him elected to begin with.
---

If Denmark is so adamant that Greenland is its own place, and it could never sell it because Greenland is Greenlandic not Danish.

Then why doesn't Denmark just release it outright?

I mean, I know exactly why the United States would be interested in buying Greenland is moreso than strategic but also the rare earth metals that China has been gobbling up deposits of around the globe to try and create a monopoly on.

So, I understand our reasoning. However, the Denmark reasoning for why it is absurd kind of doesn't make sense either.

---

Corrik7 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

all but said

This means you are interpreting it the way you want to. Just full stop there.

no, worse than that.
he explicitly corrected this.

mueller was asked if that OCL opinion was the reason he didn't indict the president, said yes, then later said he'd like to correct the record to say they never made a determination on whether or not a crime was committed. as in, he never goes so far as to deal with a crime, he just puts out the facts. now you can try to say his earlier comment was a "mistake" or you can say his earlier comment was an actual mistake. but both are valid interpretations and the most recent one is saying "no, that's not why, we just never bothered going that far."
---

Wanglicious posted...

no, worse than that.
he explicitly corrected this.

mueller was asked if that OCL opinion was the reason he didn't indict the president, said yes, then later said he'd like to correct the record to say they never made a determination on whether or not a crime was committed. as in, he never goes so far as to deal with a crime, he just puts out the facts. now you can try to say his earlier comment was a "mistake" or you can say his earlier comment was an actual mistake. but both are valid interpretations and the most recent one is saying "no, that's not why, we just never bothered going that far."

Mueller apparently has the belief that, given the OLC memo, it would be inappropriate for him to say that Trump has committed crimes without actually indicting him, as he then has no way to clear himself. However, the evidence that he laid out is very convincing of the fact that Trump did obstruct justice. Hence the if we could exonerate the president, we would have done so line.

I mean, what the hell else are you supposed to call Trump ordering Don McGahn to fire Mueller? Are any of you going to argue that that was acceptable behavior for a president and not an abuse of his office?

---

oh i'm totally in the camp that he's obstructed justice and does plenty of unacceptable behavior. just that Mueller didn't say anything and explicitly corrected the record to go "I ain't saying shit, fuck off." he could have, and literally did, say exactly what you did and then went back to correct that record to say naaaah, that was wrong. it's just not a point worth arguing one way or the other because you'll find evidence on both in the form of explicit testimony from the man himself.

that said, don't think it's any cause to remove him from office and the impeachment process totally would make him look better since he'll walk away from it. the only ones who want him impeached are just hardline dems and it's gonna get worse and worse. you want him out, vote him out. impeachment is a sham that just puts his name in the news for something with zero punishment, it favors him completely. but if your plan is to improve his odds of re-election or chase ratings with glorified reality TV, by all means go for it.

and for record, i also didn't think clinton did anything that was cause to remove him - yes he broke the law but nobody really cared about that, the guy was cheating on his wife with a chubby intern. of course he lied under oath and asked what "is" is, the fuck is he supposed to do. that was a bad idea, this one's a bad idea, but hey.

i'm also in the camp that laughs hard when Trump posts shit like this:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1163603361423351808

i believe him on that one!
---