What have you offered? Stats but no argument?

I mean really. Are you just baiting, Bobtroll33, or do you really have a Klan robe in the back of your closet somewhere?

1. I *AM* an LGBTQ person, I don't speak for them, but I am one voice.
I tend to avoid harassing people.

2. No.

3. a) Both. They aren't mutually exclusive. I want women to be equal and I want legal protections in place to maintain this. This is not secret information.
b) They do.

4. Question 3b) suggests women should be responsible for their safety. Question 4 seems to criticize the notion of being responsible for your own safety. Glad to see unified thought in this. The answer is I expected random bouts of mockery, judgement, and violence. You know, the other 95% of my life.

5. Because shitting on a group that seeks to change culture to react similarly to loss of black life as it does for white lives, while pointing out where society fails to meet this standard is pretty charactersticly racist.
Also I don't say that "Kill all white people" is not racist.

6. Yes. Did you know that the permanence of objects, the transmission of ideas and culture and systems of law are based on events in the past? That by studying history we can understand how humans work in a unique way, that knowing that say, there was a WWI may help us understand the conditions under which WWII occurred and that this knowledge may help us decide what to do in the aftermath of WWII to avoid a recurrence?
That if a group has historically had problems, many of those problems have probably been inherited along with consequences of the problems (such as poverty, strongly inherited social trait). Yes. Linear time,human affairs, culture. They are all things that exist.

7. Yes, I have many examples of people doing this. Mostly this is due to short lifespan. But there are many manchildren in our culture, who seem to think that other people asserting boundaries is immature.

8. There are programs designed to help boost male education dropout rate. If you 'fight' for 'improvements in the fairness of social order ' to help achieve this, you are a Social Justice Warrior, and so you could just have asked yourself.
Also, American bias? Pretty sure this is not a global stat...

9. Because one focusses on correcting the inequalities between the sexes and was born at a time when women didn't have proper property rights, voting rights etc etc, and so it was primarily focussed on uplifting women and so the name 'feminism'. Egalitarianism on the other hand, is the general pursuit. Many feminists are egalitarian, but not all. Hence different words. English, motherfucker....

10. Nothing, as I am not.

11. No, my grandparents were being enslaved in eastern Europe by the far left and right (but more the right, let's be honest).

Seriously though, I don't remember the liberal protests of "Not all ISIS".

12. Ingroup outgroup hatred and distrust is a universal human trait. Race seems to provoke instinctive group psychology in humans, presumably from evolving in racially separate groups.

13. The phrase is intended to deflate 'Black Lives Matter' whose point is that society seems to disagree, in practice, with this. There's only one realistic motivation to undermining the attempts to equalize how the lives of different races are treated socially.
It's also designed to be perfectly innocuous outside of this context so that white people can totally believe they aren't being dicks by saying it.

14. My social justice fighting is almost always done in secret. I hate the limelight, and I hate endlessly seeking credit for doing the right thing. So I try to keep it to a minimum while also raising consciousness about issues where I can.
Hey wait, did you fall for the bias that the big public figures are representative in all ways of the group? HAHAHAHA! Noob.
Wait, did a man voicing a cartoon kangaroo wearing an Islamic headdress, superimposed on video footage of a woman in a gym grinding her hips tell me to stop trying show off how awesome I am and and to get real?

15. No, they are both not capable of giving consent. Sounds like you have had a bitter experience. Sorry to hear that.

16. I spent two decades trying to change myself. I tortured myself into a deep suicidal insanity. When I stopped that, and when society had changed in response to my and others plights being publicised sympathetically I felt happy and comfortable with myself.
You would prefer millions in silent minorities living through personal hells if the alternative means you have to learn better manners? What a dick.

17. Sure. It's also OK if you say 'nigga' in the context of asking this question. But I'm white and English. You should ask some black Americans if your usage causes unintended messages to be sent. I'd certainly avoid placing joyful emphasis, especially through increased volume, on the word.

18. Ah, you've confused a mixture of ideas and notions within a group as a contradiction of group idealogy. Whoops. I don't understand gender identity. I get gender, but I never felt membership in any group. That's how I feel, and have since the 1990s. The internet has allowed disparate and rare individuals to form groups, and some of these groups are people with different opinions about how they feel about gender and they are very excited to meet people other people with idiosyncratic views as they had previously been alone with their eccentric perspective.

19. If white men are too privileged then the society is not my notion of equal.

20. After rejecting the premise as nonsensical. In as much as I want rules to govern social interactions that take into consideration the diversity of humanity as best as possible, I recognize those same rules will govern my behaviour.

21. Women can choose how to present themselves. Video Game creators choose how to present women in their art. I can suggest that the art routinely portrays women as helpless sex devices, while supporting women who wish to do so for themselves.

22. You DO that? I've never even had the notion. I just sort of listen and digest and try to see if gaps can reasonably be filled with pre-existent knowledge or logical inferrences and then I compare and contrast that with my own differring opinion and I consider why someone might have come to their ideas. Assuming they aren't stupid I try to understand as best I can and present to them my perspective from their perspective. I don't sing, or plug in headphones or have an imaginary rock concert.

23. I have done no such thing. Look, here I am listening to you. You have all been asking questions that have easy answers to if you looked outside your bubble of fighting a handful of twitter and youtube users thinking these people represent the entirety of things and seeking only to destroy them with your arguments rather than understanding the ideas themselves.

24. Reverse Racism is where white guys are systematically (and often deliberately) disadvantaged - such as the complaints against Affirmative Action. I'm sure your buddies can fill you in on the details. The liberal SJWs you hate tend to roll their eyes when they hear it too. Strange you should ask.

25. No. I've never seen the list. I just use whatever pronouns people feel comfortable with. Typically I only need to know three to get by in life, same as most other English speakers.

26. I'm the audience motherfucker, and so are you. That's how it works.

27. I don't do those things, but yes, I have considered the notion of concept saturation in discourse. Have you considered the idea that people vary in their identification of problems, based on a number of factors. Some people are trigger happy and this may be a legitimate problem. Since you are aware of this, you also have a duty to try to overcome the saturation biases.
Similarly, if you keep using the word 'fucking', motherfucker, you'll find it loses its impact quite quickly. See this post motherfucker. Probably why you needed to add the crash zoom for impact. You could have achieved more impact with less sarcasm and and a more surprising fuck.

I'm far enough away from these issues to admit that I don't have anything like concrete knowledge on the subject, but I feel like I should mention some of the more obvious counterpoints to some of the things he's said in this video. Otherwise I'd get that dirty echo chamber feeling, and no amount of showering seems to wash that away. Could be I'm just a masochist, though, who enjoys arguing.

I think there's racism in every culture. I think it's often much more subtle than described in the video, often even subconscious. I also think that modern western culture is among the least racist cultures to have ever existed, despite our many complaints.

I guess I'll talk about Libya first. The west (the white people he was talking about) is continuously demonized for supporting tyrants and the like. Yet when they participate in overthrowing a clear example of a extravagant super villain tyrant, they are demonized for that. I'm not saying they didn't have other motives, I'm just saying that it's an example of a tautology. No matter which choice they make they are labeled racist.

Now, when beleaguered folk make a desperate attempt to dangerously cross a sea, well knowing the risks they are incurring, it is again the fault of the Italians for not rescuing then with sufficient alacrity. Yes, many of them are coming from countries the west had a hand in destabilizing. But it would be pretty racist for you to demand that the Italian navy take full moral responsibility for the actions of other western nations, simply because they are white too. Also, if the only number you pay attention to is the number that drown, your bias is showing.

Next the issue of the Commonwealth. It seems absurd to expect the UK to treat former colonies populated by citizens that had moved there the same as former conquests that have since shrugged off the yoke of empire. The justifications for this discrimination would seem to be a combination of racism, cultural chauvinism and sober pragmatism. The latter two factors clearly scale with the gap between the culture of the colony in question and the home country, and probably ought to in some sense.

The incarceration thing is tougher to poke holes in, and clearly a much more touchy subject. Once could argue all sorts of justifications for why more members of ethnic minorities are apprehended, but it's nebulous and smells of bias and chauvinism, at best ending in a chicken vs egg conundrum. But once you're in police custody, I think can agree on demanding a higher level of equality of outcome. So I checked out a charity called Inquest who had compiled pretty comprehensive stats on police custody deaths since 1990. Here's a link: http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/bame-deaths-in-police-custody
To summarise, since 1990, ethnic minorities have made up a total of 153 out of 1557 deaths in police custody, or roughly 10%. Given that they currently make up 13% of the population, that seems to be well within an acceptable range of results, so I was confused at first. Then I thought maybe he had misspoken and had meant to say state custody, or inmate deaths. So again I looked for some numbers, and again Inquest had the most comprehensive data, broken down by year and ethnicity etc. Again here's a link: http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/deaths-in-prison
It shows 453 out of 3963 prison deaths are suffered by ethnic minorities. This seems almost perfectly in line with the 13% population of said minorities. So again, I'm a bit confused by the point he's making.

All of that said, I think I agree with the sentiment of his presentation, which perhaps confuses me even more.

You my friend are lost to reality.

Go read the stats.

Nearly every week there about 12 black on black killings in Chicago alone and when is the last time a cop killed a black?

Yes you article Stop-and-Frisk Campaign: About the Issue you linked was wrong. However it did lower crime . proving that these communities are dangerous.


You want to blame cops. It the other way around my friend. Treat a cop like shit you get shit. Be cool and the cops are cool.

Are you sure? I couldn't find stats on injuries by gender, only attacks. Women can do some serious damage too, not that I'm disagreeing with you about average/normal outcomes.
If you're right (and I think it's likely that you are), that is a good reason to focus MORE on men, but not ONLY on men. In those 'mutual combat' situations, it's quite likely that women bear the brunt of most injuries, which is even more reason they should be taught to not hit first, if not simply because it's the right thing to do, then because they may get seriously hurt by someone defending themselves.

Had to reply on your profile, the video turned out to be a dupe so I couldn't just quote you.

I have never heard of a case where simple indigence, or inability to "manage one's own financial affairs" was enough to remove their firearms....indeed, not managing one's financial affairs doesn't seem to be what the law intends or specifically says. Managing one's "affairs" is not the same as being good with money. Maybe it's been misused that way, but not that I've heard of, and that's not the kind of thing the NRA usually keeps quiet about. Lacking the mental capacity to contract or manage one's own affairs is completely different from being unable to pay your bills, and seems to require a mental evaluation to prove you aren't even lucid enough to hire someone to manage them for you. That is FAR from just being poor, it's being mental to the point where you can't even tell that you're poor or ask for help managing your finances....and I agree, if you are that far from lucid, you should not have deadly weapons of any kind.


OK, as I said, training makes ACCIDENTAL MISUSE of firearms LESS likely, not impossible, but more important, it lends credence to any charges because ignorance can't be an excuse for misuse if you've been trained.

I also don't know stats on accidental discharge, accidental misuse, intentional misuse, and intentional (but improper) discharge. I must think that improperly securing the weapon is one of the major root causes of accidents, because then completely untrained people (usually kids, but not always) get hold of them and misuse them.

That's odd of you to say, since Muslims were and are not the main perpetrators of terrorism in the US, Christians are. See the above stats, 8 of 21 were Muslim, 13 (+-) Christian. If you're going to fear a group because it spawns a few terrorists, it's Christians and/or right wingers that are the bigger, more dangerous, far more active groups, at least in the US.

I do agree, though, exposure to Islam seems to have burned a hole in your mind. It's apparently a hole that makes you accept right wing lies, because as I said and facts bear out, the primary religion spawning terrorists in America is Christianity. Sorry, it's just simple math. 13>8

OK....I don't have much faith in the HuffPo to be unbiased...so I checked the other link, and the second poll they list has Trump winning by 2%. Scrolling down, a number of polls have Trump winning, and a significantly larger number have them statistically tied when you count the margin of error....but the numbers are not what I thought, which was a purely statistical tie between Trump and Clinton, slightly in favor of Trump (or at least so it seems, the margin of error is missing from the averaged data for no reason, making the stat shown completely meaningless mathematically).

The best stat I noticed was the 'newest polls' on the side, where in New Hampshire, Trump VS Clinton has Clinton win by 5% (notably with the margin of error not listed)...but Trump VS Sanders has Sanders win by 21%....but still the (clearly false) claim that 'Clinton is the best candidate to beat Trump' is repeated ad-nauseam by her supporters and the media.

The saddest part was I also noticed only 2 of all those polls had >1500 people polled, most were about 1000 people, but they claim their margin of error is only 3%?!? Statistics class was a while back, but that doesn't seem right when they are meant to represent full states or even the entire country based on 1000 people's answers.

Anyone know the stats on how many people make a living at esports?

You are once again mistaken....
Real verified stats are had to come by, but: "In the coral reef community there are many species of fish which fill this ecological role: roughly 25 percent of the fishes are herbivores or make plants a part of their diet/omnivores (Deloach, 1999)."
That's just fish, far more abundant than land animals by number or biomass, as a group are at least 75% carnivore (not omnivore).

"obligate carnivore" is not honest, scientific, or reasonable. That means 10% CAN'T eat plants, not that only 10% does. Most animals are neither pure vegetarian or carnivore. I know vegans have a history of ignoring omnivores as a category, because it erases their positions/arguments, but that doesn't mean it's not a major category, in fact it's THE major category.

Herbivores have digestive systems designed to break down cellulose. Humans have one stomach, not designed to break down cellulose, so if it's a choice between carnivore or herbivore, biologically we are carnivores, which makes removing the omnivore category just plain silly for vegans.

If you break it down to just intentional homicide per 100,000 population, it averages out to 3.8 deaths for the US and 1 for the UK based on recent stats.

Some other countries for comparison:

Russia - 9.0
Jamaica - 39.3
India - 3.5
Canada - 1.4 (Probably died from starvation apologizing to one another)
China - 0.8 (Of course, this is just what they admit happening)
Norway - 2.2

Knives are just as deadly as guns, guns simply allow you to kill people quicker. Of course, I consider a knife to be an actual knife, 3.5 inches or greater and not a simple pen knife.

As far as the statistic, I simply typed in Google something along the equivalent of "Number of violent crimes by country per capita". That was literally one of the first results. The per capita is important because obviously the greater population will skew the stats otherwise. The fact is that crime is going to happen as long as underlying social issues remain unfixed. What weapon you are hurt or killed with really doesn't matter.

Stephen Curry stat of the day.

Curry is 5 for 13 (.385) at 38 feet and out this year. BOOM!!

Actually, look at the other parts of the world that have begun using the revolution to make more production for themselves and trade. All those people that have been displaced from their jobs (Which were horrible pay/conditions) are still without ANY job. Crime is the result. I forget which deviance book for my classes had that information, but the stats of the newly unemployed who are committing violent acts was very...disturbing.

My point. Honesty would go a long way, much farther than exaggeration to make a point. Things are bad enough without any need for exaggeration clouding the waters. The video strongly implied that this is how all milk is produced, while, as you indicated, as much as 50% is not produced using these methods. Those 50% should be mentioned, IMO, and applauded for taking the extra time and effort to give their animals a better, at least comfortable if not free, life.

Your stats sound like a reason to buy milk...from local smaller producers. Otherwise only the giant factory farms that are invariably the worst at care for the animals will be left. A better solution in my eyes is to support those doing it 'right'.

Your stats are confusing. In one paragraph, you say that 50% of milk is made by 'smaller' (<500 cow-'good') farms, then you have other statistics about tiny (<100 cow) farms. If under 500 cow farms are USUALLY the "good" kind, why mention the under 100 cow stat, unless it's just to show how few there are in what's likely the 'best' category? (or is it to include my family's farm techniques in the equation, since we've discussed it before?...so you know, we had 200+- head on 300 acres when we had them, free range...now we (well, they, I moved to California) have about 100+- angora goats) Again, the second set of stats would also seem to me to be a good argument for supporting local, small farmers that take much better care of their animals (and produce a better product), rather than a good reason to boycott farm products altogether....but that's just me.

EDIT: Can we agree that the tactic of, without warning, showing horrid animal abuse to people who love animals is not a good way to get them on your side?