Can someone parse this and tell us if it's convincing?:
PLOS ONE: A Multi-Level Bayesian Analysis of Racial Bias in Police Shootings at the County-Level in the United States, 2011?2014

 

It demonstrates that more black people are shot by police than white people (as a ratio relative to their demographic representation), but does not examine the question of whether black people are more likely than white people to commit crimes or otherwise place themselves into a situation in which they encounter police officers in the first place.

 

^ I have seen analyses that blacks are far more likely to do crime and get themselves tangled with the police.

I saw an article about the above study and it claims that blacks *are* more likely to be hurt in engagements with the police; I don't recall seeing the probabilities for *innocent* people, vs. race. That would be noteworthy.

 

Y'all were on the right track... Joe, I didn't even see the expired registration, but makes sense a transplant from Cali wouldn't bother registering in VA to avoid the stupid ******* bullshit Personal Property Tax if they worked in a used book/vinyl store. I took these pics yesterday getting froyo with the kids.

 

Googling the author (Cody Taylor Ross ? Anthropology), I don't see anything that would indicate a glaring bias. Given his Nietzsche-bent, probably the opposite.

 

Vaccines do not cause autism:

 

That's a tough one to find scholarly, supportable research on.

Consider that most of the people doing this kind of research are academic types. Most are associated with either a university or a think-tank, and many rely upon grant money to operate.

People who operate in that sort of environment find it professionally dangerous to publish a conclusion which, after being run through the social-distortion-amplifier, could even remotely be construed as "people with dark skin are all criminals."


So while there is some research which reaches precisely this conclusion (and, so far as I've found, none which refutes it), it tends to be published by organizations which, under careful scrutiny, can reasonably be said to have some sort of socio-political agenda. For instance, here's a paper entitled "The Color of Crime"

http://www.amren.com/archives/report...vised-edition/

It's published by an organization called the New Century Foundation. It's very professional, articulate, cites sources, and is, for all intents and purposes, a white supremacist group.

 

Hate Crimes. In fact this is part of thought police action. I'll also mention that I don't think killing POTUS should be a worse crime that killing other citizens.

I'll start this with a quote from Hawker:

"This week, Louisiana became the first state to enact a “Blue Lives Matter” law, which makes attacking police a hate crime. Now, New York is considering a similar law. This is the inevitable political evolution of our well-intentioned but misguided hate crime laws.

Defining an attack on agents of the state empowered to use violent force as a “hate crime” is, of course, a mockery of the hate crime concept. But this has always been the unavoidable endpoint of such laws.

Eventually, every single sub-group of people will have their own hate crime law. At that point, we will be back to the exact place we were in before hate crime laws.

Instead of passing laws that encourage our legal system to venture into Thought Crimes charges—while having little deterrent effect on crimes—we should fairly and intelligently enforce the laws we already have. That is a far thornier and more useful task than watching grandstanding politicians of all political persuasions crank up penalties on specific crimes for purely demonstrative reasons. You would think that after incarcerating two million people we would be skeptical of such remedies, but apparently not yet.

Assaulting or murdering a civilian or a police officer is, in fact, already illegal. Look it up."

 

^ That comes from the "the gov't must do something!" mentality.

 

I can't help but be reminded of the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaties between the US and USSR, which resulted in significant reductions of the number of ICBMs and nuclear warheads possessed by each country.

These talks and treaties accomplished absolutely nothing of consequence. Each nation went from being able to annihilate every living creature in the other ten times over, to only being able to annihilate them five times over.


But it made for good press, and allowed the national leaders to be seen doing something good.

 

We Messed Up | Autostraddle

I think this quote sums it all up:

 

"There are several reasons I should have listened to the alarm bells of unease I felt about the Sausage Party review. First and most damning: we allowed a non-Latina writer to cover a story about a caricature of a Latina"

Dear God. They failed to commit racial discrimination, and that's apparently a bad thing.

 

That was a long read, but, yes, sums things up rather well. Then, after all of the self-loathing, this is thrown in:

"It doesn’t seem that anyone actually saw the movie… did I miss that part of the article? I saw the movie last weekend and thought it was hilarious. I’m a lesbian, Puerto Rican mutt and saw no issues. I also never got the the impression she was Bi. Seemed like a gay, taco lady to me!"

 

I love how this podcaster takes apart SJWs:

 

Anti-bacterial soaps are no more effective than… soaps:

Triclosan Banned by the FDA

On September 2, 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it will ban triclosan and 18 other antibacterial chemicals in soaps and liquid hand or body wash products because they are ineffective and potentially harmful. The banned chemicals are also found in hand sanitizers, detergents, deodorants, antiperspirants, lotions, creams, toothpastes, dishwashing liquids, shampoos, mouth washes, shaving cream, after-shave lotions, hair conditioners, foot odor products, cleaning supplies, pesticides, kitchen utensils, toys, bedding, socks, trash bags and even baby pacifiers, but the FDA ban does not affect these products.

 

Anyone who reads anything knew they were ineffective 10+ years ago.

 

can we unban DDT now?

 

Uh... NO.

Unfortunately, where DDT is still in use (parts of Africa) for mosquito control, the little buggers are finally becoming immune.