TRUMP 2016

[Steely Glint]

Ah. If you're not with us, you're against us. So tell me, Khend, why were you an advocate for Ba'athist genocides? Because you were most certainly against the attempt to oust the Iraqi Ba'athist regime. You monster.

He wasn't sat there saying "well, you know, some Ba'athists might have gone too far - just a few bad apples, you know - but there's no *real* problem with Ba'athism, also this doesn't technically meet the criteria for genocide so let's nitpick semantics while people are dying", for one thing.

More to the point, he didn't *vote* for them - I feel that if you voted for a Ba'athist party knowing they were going to carry out genocide then, well, done, you are complicit in genocide, even if you wanted to "protest the system" or whatever the fuck.

Just as you're complicit in Trump's racism if you voted for him. Just as you're complicit in any racism if your first instinct upon hearing about incidents of racism is the defensive "yes, it's bad but...[that doesn't meet the technical definition of racism/it's just a few bad apples/actually I don't give a shit because it doesn't affect me personally wait did I say that out loud]"

Also, that's pretty childish, Fuzzy.

[Enoch the Red]

You can blame the media for that one. There are plenty of shady money stories about Trump, but the media decided not to cover them extensively, in favour of what a whacky guy Trump was and Clinton's e-mails.

You keep saying this, but I saw and have continued to see a lot of coverage of Trumps financial wheeling and dealings. I guess I don't know how you are coming to your conclusion.

[Steely Glint]

You keep saying this, but I saw and have continued to see a lot of coverage of Trumps financial wheeling and dealings. I guess I don't know how you are coming to your conclusion.

Well, I can only say what filtered into the media on the other side of the pond - I knew plenty about Clinton's e-mails and Trump's clownish antics, but his money scandals I had to go digging for myself. It is reasonable to conclude that the latter got a lot more coverage than the former.

As well as the accusation that he walked in on a lot of underage models getting dressed or, you know, the accusation that he raped a thirteen year old girl.

[Flixy]

You keep saying this, but I saw and have continued to see a lot of coverage of Trumps financial wheeling and dealings. I guess I don't know how you are coming to your conclusion.

I think the problem is that s lot of people on both sides ignore media whenever it reports something they don't like (or dismiss it). That is if they follow the media in any way to begin with.

I think i read recently that 20-40% of 'facts' posted on leading political social media was false. And then I'm skipping the point that they are biased to begin with, i.e. a republican one probably won't be posting the stories about Trump's financial dealings to begin with.

[Aimless]

I don't know why we would expect the coverage of Trump's shadiness to be even remotely close to that of Clinton's emails. The email business was the focus of a protracted, carefully timed, very public and v. high-profile investigation, it was constantly used in Trump's attacks against Clinton, it was easy to package ("Clinton was careless with classified information") and it was linked to another high-profile matter ("Clinton's carelessness with classified information was exploited by terrorists to kill Americans"). Trump's shenanigans, in contrast, were the subject of investigative reporting from a few traditional news sources, were boring and difficult to explain, were not as recent and were not used in focused attacks nearly as frequently as his other shenanigans were. I'm not sure but I also got the impression news providers may have been hesitant to cover some of those stories out of fear of being exposed to legal action. The anti-Trump social media coverage focused on racism, misogyny, douchebaggery and Putinism but with all the other shit he was throwing out every individual lump of doodoo got pretty little coverage in comparison to Clinton's emails.

Obviously v limited but interesting nonetheless:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...an-front-pages

[RandBlade]

The problem with hate crime statistics is a very simple one: "how do you define a hate crime?" What test is there that means that crime A is a 'hate crime' but crime B is not? The answer is there is no test, if the victim (or authorities) believe that the crime was a hate crime then it is a hate crime, even if it was not. Authorities are not to challenge a victims self-definition of it being a hate crime.

Violent or property crimes per 100,000 citizens in the USA: 2,859.6
Anti-Muslim 'hate crimes' (violent or property) per 100,000 Muslims in the USA: 9.1

On a like-for-like basis hate crimes per average Muslim represent 0.3% of all crimes.

Even if the crime rate doesn't vary at all, even if the crime rate comes down, if people think they were a victim of a crime due to "hate". In a heightened political environment there will be a surge in reported hate crimes even if there is no surge in actual crimes. If a robbery victim thinks he was robbed due to being Muslim and its in the news (even if he was robbed due to a crackhead needing a fix) then that is a 'hate crime'. If the rate of crimes against Muslims reported to being hate crimes varies from 0.3% of comparable crimes to 0.5% of them then that is a 60% increase in "hate crimes".

Furthermore now authorities, campaigners etc are actively trying to increase the reporting rate of hate crimes. This means again if there's the same number of crimes but more get reported then that is an increase in crime statistics, but no increase in crime. Similarly but off topic during the UK's Junior Doctors strike the BMA (doctor's union) was reporting that the number of doctors attempting to emigrate to Australia from the UK was dramatically increasing therefore there was a crisis. Simultaneously the BMA was encouraging Junior Doctors to file the paperwork required to get an Australian work visa (even if they had no attention of emigrating) in order to inflate the figure. Figures like that once politicised become nonsense.

It's a political version of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Once the statistic is politicised and we try to measure it, we also change it.

[Khendraja'aro]

Well, I can only say what filtered into the media on the other side of the pond - I knew plenty about Clinton's e-mails and Trump's clownish antics, but his money scandals I had to go digging for myself. It is reasonable to conclude that the latter got a lot more coverage than the former.

As well as the accusation that he walked in on a lot of underage models getting dressed or, you know, the accusation that he raped a thirteen year old girl.

Let's not forget that he's the first guy to enter his term with 70 open court cases.

[Steely Glint]

The problem with hate crime statistics is a very simple one: "how do you define a hate crime?" What test is there that means that crime A is a 'hate crime' but crime B is not? The answer is there is no test, if the victim (or authorities) believe that the crime was a hate crime then it is a hate crime, even if it was not. Authorities are not to challenge a victims self-definition of it being a hate crime.

You are factually incorrect.

Due to the difficulty of ascertaining the offender’s subjective motivation, bias is to be reported only if investigation reveals sufficient objective facts to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by bias. The specific types of bias to be reported, along with their UCR bias codes, are listed below.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime-data-...ing-manual.pdf

Time it took me to find this information using google: less than 2 minutes.

[Khendraja'aro]

Next up: Rand tries to tell us that people at the FBI are neither reasonable nor prudent.

[Steely Glint]

He'll probably quote that part where it lists things like the offender and victim being of different races, religion, etc and then I'll have to point out the part where it says "no single factor may be conclusive".

What's sad is it all comes down to "there's no real racism, minorities are making it up!"

Randblade: you're not some bozo off reddit, be better, dude.

[Aimless]

RB, did you not even spend 2 minutes finding out whether or not your belief (that there is no definition or guidelines for determining whether or not something was a hate crime) was correct?

Duuude...

[RandBlade]

My mistake, that is the British definition. I didn't realise the American one was different. Stupid assumption in hindsight to assume it was the same.

My concerns then remain for the UK but don't stand with the USA.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/northeast/vict...es/hate_crime/

Hate Crime What is it?
A Hate Incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someones prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/t...crime-scandal/

[Steely Glint]

While that is indeed a poor definition, I don't think a muslim mistaking a coke-head for a neo-nazi is a terribly likely scenario, do you?

[RandBlade]

It's more than possible. Especially on marginal cases.

[Steely Glint]

How does that work? Do they mistake drug paraphernalia for nazi symbols because it's dark?

[LittleFuzzy]

Has anyone run the numbers on whether or not the Iraq war saved lives and made the world a better place by any semi-objective metric?

Does it matter? I'm pretty sure his "with us or against us" philosophy negates any such nuances.

[LittleFuzzy]

Next up: Rand tries to tell us that people at the FBI are neither reasonable nor prudent.

Well, you certainly wouldn't regard them as either since the FBI was very much against Clinton and consequently a bunch of racists.

[Loki]

I like how Rand requires definitive proof when it comes to proving spikes in racism, but when it comes to anything relating to Brexit, one person stating some half-truth is more than enough to convince him.

[RandBlade]

How does that work? Do they mistake drug paraphernalia for nazi symbols because it's dark?

Or they think they've been victimised because of their religion when really they were just unfortunate victims of opportunity.

[RandBlade]

I like how Rand requires definitive proof when it comes to proving spikes in racism, but when it comes to anything relating to Brexit, one person stating some half-truth is more than enough to convince him.

Actually I've been rejecting all your half truths on Brexit too.

[Hazir]

I don't know why we would expect the coverage of Trump's shadiness to be even remotely close to that of Clinton's emails. The email business was the focus of a protracted, carefully timed, very public and v. high-profile investigation, it was constantly used in Trump's attacks against Clinton, it was easy to package ("Clinton was careless with classified information") and it was linked to another high-profile matter ("Clinton's carelessness with classified information was exploited by terrorists to kill Americans"). Trump's shenanigans, in contrast, were the subject of investigative reporting from a few traditional news sources, were boring and difficult to explain, were not as recent and were not used in focused attacks nearly as frequently as his other shenanigans were. I'm not sure but I also got the impression news providers may have been hesitant to cover some of those stories out of fear of being exposed to legal action. The anti-Trump social media coverage focused on racism, misogyny, douchebaggery and Putinism but with all the other shit he was throwing out every individual lump of doodoo got pretty little coverage in comparison to Clinton's emails.

Obviously v limited but interesting nonetheless:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...an-front-pages

The funny thing is that the average Trump voter could care less about that e-mail server. But the liberal press ran with it and tore down the liberal candidate. You have to give it to Trump; he played his opponents like a cheap fiddle.

[GGT]

Yet if a student shouts Black Power its a non-event. Rules for thee but not for me, right?

No. All schools have rules about speech -- where and when political signs or gatherings are appropriate, for example -- but also what's unacceptable to be shouting in the hallways, especially if it's done to incite trouble. That goes for private schools too, which often have stricter rules about political t-shirts than public schools.

That being said regardless of the signs or what they were saying morons disrupting class should be dealt with harshly so I'm glad the idiots were punished.

But how the sign and the speech go together does matter. Carrying a sign with their football team logo/mascot and yelling, GO TEAM might also be 'disruptive', but I doubt you'd say those students should be expelled. Or maybe you would?

[Lewkowski]

But how the sign and the speech go together does matter. Carrying a sign with their football team logo/mascot and yelling, GO TEAM might also be 'disruptive', but I doubt you'd say those students should be expelled. Or maybe you would?

If they shouldn't be shouting it doesn't matter what the content is of the shouts... either you enforce rules or you don't.

[GGT]

So....you'd expel students from the Booster Club shouting Go Team in the halls, if they didn't get approval from administration first? Wow, you're even more authoritarian than I thought.

[Lewkowski]

So....you'd expel students from the Booster Club shouting Go Team in the halls, if they didn't get approval from administration first? Wow, you're even more authoritarian than I thought.

Middle of class. Students carrying signs shouting and disrupting. The students should be in class, so they are cutting class, flaunting the rules and basically saying 'yeah we're doing this watcha gonna do about it?.' Yeah damn right I think them being expelled makes sense.

[Steely Glint]

Or they think they've been victimised because of their religion when really they were just unfortunate victims of opportunity.

To be frank, this is bollocks. A hate crime has totally different characteristics to a robbery. People committing hate crime want to hurt or intimidate their victim, robbers just want to swipe stuff and get away as quickly as possible. There is absolutely no way someone is going to mistake a druggie smashing their windows and making off with their dvd player with a skinhead shouting racial slurs at them in the street or scrawling racist graffiti on their properly.

Like, do you seriously think an asian family is going to be saying to the police "yeah, someone kicked in the back door and took all the electronics and my wife's jewelry - we think it was neo-nazis, because we're asians you see" and if so can you explain whatever the hell it is asians have done to you that you hold them in such total contempt?

I'm sure there are edge cases where a reasonable person might mistake a regular crime for a hate crime which is what makes the FBI definition better than the CPS one, but there's no way that's going to account for even a significant minority of reported hate crimes.

[Aimless]

Here's the thing though, most of these incidents involve the theft of earrings and how is an earring-robber going to get at a hijab-wearing woman's earrings without trying to pull it off? It only stands to reason. Also #buildthatwall and #burnthattrannyscar and #makeamericawhiteagain

[RandBlade]

To be frank, this is bollocks. A hate crime has totally different characteristics to a robbery. People committing hate crime want to hurt or intimidate their victim, robbers just want to swipe stuff and get away as quickly as possible. There is absolutely no way someone is going to mistake a druggie smashing their windows and making off with their dvd player with a skinhead shouting racial slurs at them in the street or scrawling racist graffiti on their properly.

Like, do you seriously think an asian family is going to be saying to the police "yeah, someone kicked in the back door and took all the electronics and my wife's jewelry - we think it was neo-nazis, because we're asians you see" and if so can you explain whatever the hell it is asians have done to you that you hold them in such total contempt?

I'm sure there are edge cases where a reasonable person might mistake a regular crime for a hate crime which is what makes the FBI definition better than the CPS one, but there's no way that's going to account for even a significant minority of reported hate crimes.

Using the CPS definition then yes, definitely, I think it's possible. I don't care what category you are in: Asian, black, gay, unicorn or whatever. If you feel you're being targeted by bigots due to the news and then you're the victim of a crime it would take superhuman efforts not to wonder if they're linked. And under the CPS definition if you think they're linked that's it they are.

That's without the fact that some knobheads just shout at anyone with whatever is insulting and most [in]appropriate. If someone is trying to rob someone and says eg "give me your wallet you [slur here]" then is that a hate crime? Or is it just a crime? I've been called queer or fag or other similar insults a number of times despite not being gay (and now wearing a wedding ring though that doesn't mean anything I suppose) - including by some who've done criminal damage on my property. That's just a meaningless insult to me but if I was gay I could call it a hate crime. Now I don't for a second think it was because of that rather than because of them being chavs but if I said it was then it would be by the CPS definition. If a group is feeling targeted by what's in the news and then some chavs attack them and say something inappropriate then is that a hate crime? If they think so in the UK then yes it is.

[Loki]

4/5 of Trump's current nominees have been praised by David Duke.

[Lewkowski]

4/5 of Trump's current nominees have been praised by David Duke.

No one really cares what his opinion is.