Lord Ratner

You're referring to the text that you got caught plagiarizing? You literally accused the conservatives here of not thinking for themselves in a post you stole from someone else... It's not that your post can't be responded to effectively, it's that no one is interested in responding to you personally. It seems like that's a bit upsetting to you, but it's well earned.

I did, and like all studies, there are weaknesses. So much of this boils down to "systemic." POC *are* more of a threat. This is an inescapable statistic fact in 2020. Racist answer: black people are genetically prone to violence Systemic racism: The punishment for carrying a weapon is 5 to 10 years if you're white, 10 to 20 if you're black. Racist judge: sentences white people to fewer years in prison for the same crime as black people Racist cop: gives black people tickets for all speeding infractions, gives white people a warning Three of the four exist. The second does not in 2020 America. There's a very real and critical conversation to have about why people of color are a bigger threat. And it has nothing to do with the amount of pigment in someone's skin. Putting 18-year-olds in prison for decades because they committed a crime that anyone of us would have committed had we grown up in a broken home, in a shitty neighborhood, with no schooling, and no opportunities is insane. The modern disincentives towards a two-parent household, which is affecting all races, but black families at an alarmingly higher rate, is another problem we need to address. Conservatives have no interest in acknowledging the disparities that exist today, and that fixing them will require a tremendous allocation of resources. Liberals have no interest in a solution that doesn't involve racism as the primary driver and focus. So neither side is going to get anything done. Racism started this whole mess. Actually, slavery started this whole mess, it just happened to be black people that were the slaves in America. The racism part has been solved systemically. Making up for the after-effects of that racist system (and the good-intentioned policies that have made things worse) is the problem we face today. But the people who are around today, who are not racists and who are not responsible for the racist systems that caused these problems, are not going to be a part of the solution if that solution mandates labeling them as racist by association. And calling the system racist *is* akin to calling the people involved with the system racists. Because what decent person would be involved in a system that is so blatantly racist?

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877 Maybe spend more than two minutes next time. Nice chart though. Read up on the hazards of trend lines. Also interesting that you skimmed over the whole part about rates of violent crime by race. Statistics matter.

If you reach into your pocket when you were told not to, you can be shot. No weapon. It has happened and the officers walked. I get it. Dangerous job. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect police officers to adhere to some of the same standards that military members must follow, and in some cases you have to get shot at first before you get to shoot back. many of these situations don't take into account the proportion of officers to assailants. In a one-to-one situation like Michael Brown, and officer absolutely should use deadly force to protect themselves. But what if there were 3 officers? Six officers? Ten officers? at a certain point bodily harm is part of the job, that's what makes it noble. Responding with deadly force is not always the right answer to someone posing a physical risk. And to be clear, I don't blame the officers and many of these cases. Like I said the problem is with policing philosophy in general, not those who are taught it.

Comparing the rates of use of force and police violence to the raw population composition is a statistical mistake. Compare it to the rates of violent crime perpetuated by each of the various races, and you get a much more realistic look at why this is happening. The racist narrative falls apart especially when you look at the race of the police conducting these interactions. Minority police have a higher representation in use of violence against minorities than white police. All of this to say, we absolutely do not have a systemic problem with racism in policing interactions. What we do have is a problem with policing philosophy in the United States, the use of force, and an officer's right to self defense before a threat has materialized. But as long as we insist on including racism as a component, and in fact a dominant component of the conversation, we will get nowhere.

Space missiles. Nothing nuclear, but enough punch and accuracy to take out a power substation. Build about a million of them. I suppose some sort of long range cruise missile can do it too. Build a million of those. Then take out anything that generates power within 100 miles of their major cities.

1. The numbers of single, childless, and in many cases white young adults participating in the riots indicates more that just hopelessness. Given a green light to destroy, many will. 2. Which leaders? Many of the thought leaders on the left, cited and lauded by media and political figures, are doing no such pleading. And I'm not sure a single (D) politician has condemned Antifa. How many Republicans have condemned the white supremacists? (All of them, including Trump, who is awful). 3. When you define racism as "far right" it becomes hard to find racist leftists. If you include "the soft bigotry of low expectations," as Sowell describes, the left is overwhelmingly racist. It doesn't help that we are redefining racism to fit a progressive narrative. Couple all this with the fact that the data completely disproves the narrative of systemic police racism targeting and killing black people, and the whole thing becomes impossible to resolve. You can not, under any circumstances, have a productive discourse if the facts are treated like lies, or worse, if presenting the facts makes you racist. Unfortunately, the public figures of "your side" are not engaging honestly in the debate, as you are.

Kavanaugh really did change things. I wasn't around for Bork or Thomas. The Kavanaugh hearings were the first time I could see an actual difference between the parties in terms of morality. And it was stark. Honestly I don't even like using the term "Democrats" anymore, because it does not draw a distinction between voters who are registered with or consider themselves a part of the Democratic party, and the politicians in the party at the federal level. The voters I have no beef with, just a disagreement on the best way to accomplish largely the same goals. The politicians however, I believe to be in many cases irredeemable.

So dorky, but Crenshaw might be the savior of the party, so why not?

No, there's just evidence. And the evidence reflects strongly on our system.

And where exactly are the philosophical "facts" in your post? What higher truth says that votes for federal office should be based on equal voter weight? We. Do. Not. Live. In. A. Democracy. We live in a republic, which is specifically designed to give you, the voter, some control over the life you live, through choosing the state you live in. You would instead doom us to 50 identical states as the concept of pure democracy eventually takes everything over, which is why those silly 20-something year olds were against it. You like how California is doing things? Move there. Want big guns? Go to Texas. Healthcare? Massachusetts. The logical extension of your argument is for a world government with worldwide pure democratic voting. Why is a nation the level by which one vote equals one vote, as opposed to the state within a nation? Inconsistent. And in all of this, let's not forget that our system has vastly outperformed the competition in virtually every metric. For all the talk of systemic racism and oppression, there is no country on Earth with significant minority populations where it is better to be a minority. This "experiment" is doing pretty well.

The contradictions re: slavery were well understood and agonized over by some of the founders. Our "system" did not enable slavery, it existed long before and worldwide. You couldn't flip the table overnight, still can't, so the system was set up, and the language chosen carefully, to sow the seeds for the eventual demise of slavery. And it worked. The rest of your post is just hysteria.

Yup. Human nature isn't so easily changed. https://fortune.com/2020/09/14/jpmorgan-work-from-home-wfh-worker-productivity/

I've had to explain to a few wives that they weren't choosing between living close to their family and not living close. They were choosing between whether their kids got to see dad or the grandparents more. Obviously a simplification, but most do not realize that it's *a lot* more than just the hubby having to leave earlier in the morning to catch their commuter flight.

I wish it wasn't so simple. But it is.

Republicans did. Twice. George Bush was easily a good man. They called him a Nazi. So then, a few years later, they picked Romney. Maybe the most ethical person to ever run. Biden accused him of wanting to re-enslave black people (metaphorically), and then he was called a sexist for having resumes from females. I believe that most politicians are corrupt, but the final straw was the Kavanaugh hearing. The (D) party tried to paint a good man as a serial rapist on absolutely zero evidence. I do not blame Democratic voters for buying into the bullshit; I expect no complex thought from the average voter. But the Senators and Representatives who knowingly participated in that smear campaign are evil people, who did evil things. So yeah, the Republican party is a bit tired of being lectured about "human decency." There aren't many parallels. The highest levels of (D) party leadership enthusiastically lied about the characters of good people. Not just one or two random representatives. The whole damn party.

Add to that stopping illegal immigration and late term abortions. You are citing selective polls. The Medicare/Medicare poll results flip once the cost is added to the question. It's like asking "who wants to be an astronaut" vs "who is willing to do what it takes to become an astronaut." Minimum wage is a combination of not understanding economics, employment, or the reality of who makes minimum wage. But that's another topic.

The free market does not mean the stock market. One of the ugliest manifestations of crony capitalism, supported by both Democrats and Republicans, is to favor any policy or legislation that directly supports the prices in the stock market.

What a cool conversation. I wanna thank the black guy for participating. Really adds a lot. I think the biggest part missed is that racism is human nature. If you disagree, you probably haven't spent much time in other parts of the world. It's *everywhere.* Like so many other negative elements of human nature it takes tremendous effort to overcome. We're doing that, and in fact is working. America is, systemically, no longer racist. There are no laws, organizations, or functions that discriminate based solely on skin color. But like all major societal changes, the time required to get from point A to point B isn't measured in days, months, or years, it's measured in generations. And for better or worse, we probably need one or two more generations to die off before we truly get there. But step one is to fix the system, which we largely have. There's no justice for the past. The racists and their racist acts will not be avenged, they will fade into the past. I think that's why we have such incendiary rhetoric about the evils of modern America from the experienced activists. They *know* that America has gotten better, but they're worried that if they admit it, everyone will nod approvingly and move on, without holding the perpetrators to account. They want justice for what was done to them and their families, and it's getting between them and the mission. Understandable. My fear is that the intentional misrepresentation of the systemic reality by motivated activists in America will disenfranchise the youngest generation of white kids who have no experience or attachment to the racist past. They look at their lives and experiences and see nothing like what the older generation screams about. They look around and say "what else can I do?" And it's never enough. We have to remain vigilant in keeping racism at bay, but we also need to be patient and allow the species to evolve in thinking. It's not fair, it's just life. Until then, shame the racists into oblivion, and let their kids inherit a better country.

It's not absurd at all. The only evidence that exists is that our system overwhelmingly produces results, and the other systems don't. Claiming that we will somehow socialize medicine *and* remain the development powerhouse that we are is nothing more than a proclamation of faith. Besides, the "better outcomes" argument is a tired, shallow analysis of the medical landscape in the US. https://www.forbes.com/sites/physiciansfoundation/2018/04/09/u-s-health-outcomes-compared-to-other-countries-are-misleading/#349bc17d1232 It's not a complicated concept, and the experiment has been run dozens of times. Our system produces a level of wealth that creates billionaires on one hand, while flooding the rest of the planet, and especially the poor and destitute, with quality of life they otherwise wouldn't have on the other. The European countries that are pointed to as examples to follow became so precisely because they moved in our direction, *especially* the Nordic countries. The rest, such as the UK, have a system that most Americans would recoil from, especially the middle class, as soon as they found out how difficult it is to get "elective" surgeries done. And unsurprisingly, the well-off in the UK pay extra for insurance that gets them better care. So less innovation and development, but the rich still pull ahead. We have the same goals. Provide better care for everyone. But your way leverages the future to pay for the present, and that is the definition of a bad trade off.

It's not an "if." We have plenty of countries with what you seek. The US has better medicine, better research, and better outcomes. It's not like you're suggesting something new with a "what if it works better" as incentive. The left is pushing for what much of the world has already tried, and we know the trade-off. So, as I said, is it worth a 50 year delay to curing cancer? For the whole planet?...

The ultimate and foundational failing in modern progressive thought. Fixing today's problems without considering tomorrow. I have never gotten a decent answer to this paradox, because most have never considered it. If providing universal health coverage guarantees that the cure for cancer is delayed 50 years, is it worth it? 25 years? 10? It is indisputable that there will be a delay, yet most won't even grant that. The world's poor are *dramatically* better off due to the output of the United States over the past 100 years, and the output disparity between the US (fierce capitalism), Europe (blended capitalism), and the communist countries is a pretty clear demonstration of what we sacrifice with these changes.

And the only reason it all works is the capitalist piggy bank keeps it running. The military is a necessary compromise, but it is also all the evidence you need to prove socialism isn't effective on a broader level.

Neat. More strawman arguments. I don't think a single person in this thread has made such simplified arguments, but your inability to interpret nuance explains your comically shallow responses. I'd like to push back against calling FLEA a troll. He's engaging in a good faith debate, and what he's saying is subscribed to by many people in academia, politics, and they media. If he believes it, I think he's dead wrong, but not disingenuous.

Another redefinition. Just keep confusing language until debate is no longer possible. You are using definitions for terms that were created after the fact. Academic gobbledegook that covers for the fact that the argument on its face is absurd. The few kings of the world, who had it better than 99.999% of the remaining men on the planet, were matched by queens who had it 99.999% better than the very same peasant males. To imply that peasant women had a better than peasant men is to ignore history. It sucked, a lot, for everyone. But women largely avoided the horrors of war and industrial labor, whereas men were disposable throughout those periods. Redefining evolutionary gender roles as the patriarchy does not make modern society a patriarchy. And you don't have to redefine reality to justify trying to make things better than they were yesterday. Redefining reality to create villains to further justify the agenda is immoral and counter productive. That is not directed at you specifically, btw.