Lord Ratner

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.

You don't think there's an agenda? BLM has a website. Their agenda is spelled out. I think you're presenting a very inaccurate portrayal of the conversation. One side is repeatedly and now violently lying about the realities of crime and policing in America. When the other side tries to discuss these statistics, it turns out you're a racist for saying so. I'm not ascribing these tactics to you, but considering federal politicians are actively making this argument and Pulitzer winning media figures are repeating it, I don't think I'm mischaracterizing the movement. This stuff is not haphazard. When you control the language you control it all. They know that even if you don't.

The obvious response is that if we change racism to encompass the arguments put forth today, then racism isn't that big of a deal anymore. Certainly not when compared to what it used to mean. You're being either ignorant or unfathomably generous if you don't believe they are repurposing the word "racism" in the hopes it will impart the deep emotional response to a vastly different and less urgent phenomenon. Same argument has been made with "gender." Same silliness.

This is generally my most reliable indicator that a movement lacks a foundation in reality. If you have to redefine (verbal appropriation?) the language to make your point, you probably don't have one. It does not seem coincidental that the people trying to change what words mean are the same ones equating speech with violence. The first amendment is the most powerful tool in the world for discovering truth. I do not trust those that seek to restrict it.

2. Pop sociology is a good term. A huge amount of the scholarly output from sociology departments in the last 20 years is unsupported. Pull up some of the papers on Critical Race Theory, and the only thing they cite (if anything at all) are other papers on CRT. It's just a big loop of non-support. 1. https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/ 3. Absolutely a discomfort. A noble and morally necessary discomfort. That doesn't change the timeline. It's like a G-ex. Pull too hard and the plane stalls. Keep the stick in your lap forever and the plane falls out of the sky. Some of the framers wanted to abolish slavery, but they recognized that the time wasn't right. So they did what they could, and established the new country on the philosophical basis that would eventually be used by Lincoln. You don't have to like it, I don't, but things take time. One of the biggest pushes for gay rights in the US was Will and Grace, not protesting. That doesn't mean you don't protest, but the "how" matters just as much as the "why." Dr. King and Malcom X disagreed vehemently on the "how," where X thought King's strategy was too gentle, too slow. But it worked, eventually. Further, King didn't rely on statistical misrepresentation to make his point. The BLM movement does. That matters, because when you hit someone in the face over and over with evidence of injustice, don't give them a reason to ignore your message. Misrepresenting crime and policing statistics does just that. 4. It's nothing cosmic, nor deeply philosophical. How do people think? Confirmation bias, group think, rationalization, confabulation, etc. How do they act? What do they do? As an example, people like to have stuff. They just do. Cars, TVs, jewellery, golf clubs, you know, stuff. Any culture, any era. Give them the chance to get more stuff, and they'll work surprisingly hard. So hard that they produce an overflow of wealth that enriches the society. So hard that the economy of a country that recognizes property rights and personal freedom to choose will dominate every other economy on the planet that instead tries to determine what stuff and how much stuff you should have. The brilliance of capitalism is that it accepts human nature and channels it. Racism is an ugly form of a natural phenomenon, grouping. If humans don't group, they die. You can't fix racism without addressing grouping. The American dream is a set of ideals that do not exclude anyone based on unchangeable characteristics. You don't get rid of racism, you replace it. "Black people are Americans too." That's a winning message that made a difference. But by its very nature it excludes people who aren't American. That gets into cosmopolitanism, which is another thing all together, but fits into my point that you ignore human nature at your own peril.