No, the point is sometimes I think it looks nicer to just post the reply directly below without having a bunch of messy quote blocks. It's not like you don't get plenty of time to respond at your leisure.
If you prefer aesthetics over making sure someone sees your reply, so be it.
Like I already said, it's nonsense that the police were acting out of fear
after he was subdued. But if nonsense alone were racism, you'd have him beat hands down.
And? Projection is a well-known psychological defense mechanism.
How is agreeing with psychology racism?
You have everything you need here to judge adequately for yourself. This is Sculptor wrongly claiming that the police were acting out of fear and had no intention of doing any harm, and that anyone who considers it an act of racism is most likely projecting their own racism.
And just as I predicted, nothing you quoted even vaguely resembles what you claim it says. Nowhere in those quotes does he claim that police had no intention of doing any harm, nor did he say presuming that specific incident was racist is itself racist. You're obviously reading between the lines.
Now he is telling us about how slavery wasn't a significant motivation for the Confederates to secede from the Union with posts like this:
http://sciforums.com/threads/intelligence-on-display.163282/page-12#post-3641150
(Excerpt)
And he's free to have his own opinion (prefaced as it was with "imho"). That's his reading of the history, just like your skewed reading of his posts. Both likely involve some motivated reasoning. What those motivations may be are not obvious in anything you've quoted.
You can either tell me that these comments are motivated by racism, or you can tell me that they're the product of ignorance bordering on retardation, but if you're telling me you don't find anything terribly objectionable about these comments then I will stand by my original assertion that you support a system which intentionally discriminates against black people.
I'm not a mind reader. Unlike you, I don't pretend to know the heart of anonymous strangers online. Only what they actually say. I would agree that both you and sculptor do display a degree of ignorance. To what degree, I wouldn't want to surmise.
And exactly as predicted, you'll make up any excuse not to apologize, which only proves your intellectual dishonesty.
If I were to say that you were being honest about what you really think, I would have to simultaneously accuse you of being unable to read or assess basic facts.
That's just because you've erroneously elevated your subjective beliefs and ideology to a level of surety you equate with fact.
Watching Cops on TV isn't an adequate means of gathering your statistics. Even for first-time offenders the conviction rates and sentences are massively different, on a scale more than large enough to show strong statistical significance. Here's an example: in 2010 in the US, black people were 3.7 times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana possession despite similar overall possession rates.
https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/
Try to read what I write this time. "Differences in sentencing likely being due to disparate recidivism rates." Recidivism rates are not determined per the individual criminal. They are the rate of reoffense across a particular demographic.
Yes, if you live in a neighborhood with a higher police presence due to a higher crime rate, there will be more arrests.
This one sentiment I am willing to accept as being an honest expression of your own stupidity. AI doesn't have political parameters when it's being designed, there's no such thing as left wing computer math. It's like claiming that Einstein's political views determined the development and content of the General Theory of Relativity. Please stay in your lane and don't make any more idiotic layman statements like this.
LOL! You obviously have no clue how AI works. AI is such because it can learn. In order to learn it must be taught, by someone with whatever biases they bring to the table. Even if that bias is only expressed in how they editorialize the data they feed to the AI. AI is, as yet, not autonomous.
And before we start hearing excuses about how police will spend more time patrolling low income neighbourhoods because more crimes occur there, take note that presuming innocence until proof of guilt means that all people have to be treated the same way regardless of what neighbourhood they live in or visit. Police are no more entitled to search a random black man's car in Compton than they are to search a random white stockbroker on Wall Street. I don't know how it works in the US, but in Canada there are laws that you can't convict people of drug possession and similar crimes unless there was a justified reason to search for them in the first place. You can't pull someone over for a broken tail light and then demand to search their trunk; if you end up doing that, you can confiscate whatever contraband you find but you can't charge them for possessing it, and the reason for these laws existing is to protect people from being unfairly targeted and harassed based on demographics.
It's irrational garbage to assume that you must treat a gang banger as you would a banker. For one, the former is far more likely to be a threat to the life of an officer. For another, the former is also far more likely to be a threat to law-abiding citizens in their own neighborhood. When I was a young long-hair, police would search my person and vehicle at any traffic stop. Was that due to my race? No, it was because I fit the description of a demographic more prone to crime. And I had nothing to fear if was doing nothing illegal. So profiling is just common sense, accepting the demographic statistics. It doesn't imply guilt, and the only statistics we have for it are when it pays off, by leading to an arrest.
Probably cause means that if you pull someone over and you smell illegal drugs/alcohol or they are acting suspicious, you have a duty to ensure that they are not a threat to the community. But I presume you'd rather leave the threat, so long as Canadians can maintain their reputation of being nice.
