Validering i C #

A simple strategy can improve your relationships. One of the four options we have in any problem situation is acceptance. Validation is one way that we communicate acceptance of ourselves and others. Verification in Software Testing. Verification in Software Testing is a process of checking documents, design, code, and program in order to check if the software has been built according to the requirements or not. The main goal of verification process is to ensure quality of software application, design, architecture etc. Validering innebär att en persons kunskaper och kompetenser kartläggs och bedöms på ett strukturerat sätt, för studier eller arbete, oavsett hur, var eller när de förvärvats – sammanfattningsvis en individs reella kompetens. Valideringen resulterar i ett betyg, ett intyg eller ett certifikat. Validering Nivå A Information som är granskad externt, har ett tydligt objektivt syfte och relevant innehåll, där slutsatserna bygger på analys, samt är relevant för andra bygg- eller renoveringsprojekt. Validering handlar om att synliggöra en persons kompetens, oberoende av på vilket sätt man har lärt sig. Varför validering? Syftet med validering kan vara att till exempel anpassa en pågående utbildning till redan förvärvade kunskaper så att man som studerande inte behöver läsa om ämnen man redan kan. This validator checks the markup validity of Web documents in HTML, XHTML, SMIL, MathML, etc. If you wish to validate specific content such as RSS/Atom feeds or CSS stylesheets, MobileOK content, or to find broken links, there are other validators and tools available. As an alternative you can also try our non-DTD-based validator. Before submitting data to the server, it is important to ensure all required form controls are filled out, in the correct format. This is called client-side form validation, and helps ensure data submitted matches the requirements set forth in the various form controls.This article leads you through basic concepts and examples of client-side form validation.

The black lives matter Movement is the Largest Scale Mass Hysteria Incident in Modern History - In Depth Discussion

2020.09.22 15:03 IDislikeYourMeta The black lives matter Movement is the Largest Scale Mass Hysteria Incident in Modern History - In Depth Discussion

The blm movement is going to be remembered as one of society's largest scale incidents of mass hysteria built on overt lies and hatred. By nature of their support, hundreds of thousands of otherwise good people are socially endorsing the violence that arises from these hateful "causes" based on utter fabrications.
The definition of terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
Whether you support their cause or not, both blm and antifa as organizations fit the literal definition of terrorism. If you don't call them that yourself, that's fine, until recently neither did the American government, but merely saying that they aren't terrorists because you might think they have a reason for their actions is a subjective opinion on something that is otherwise an objective fact. blm/antifa and their supporters are responsible for a great number of increasingly violent attacks in recent years targeted towards opposing views (namely white people and Trump supporters), where they've earned the ire that's currently directed towards them. It's time we collectively began to address these left-wing extremists for what they truly are.
black lives matter as both an organization and as a "social statement" were founded primarily on the basis of "systemic racism" and "police brutality". Both of which have very little merit outside of left-wing echochambers, with almost all of its messaging crumbling under the slightest bit of scrutiny (if it's supporters ever bothered to scrutinize what they are being indoctrinated by).
"Systemic racism" is a catch-all term for any and everything to do with race, applied ad hoc to whatever scenarios people would like changed, whether that's in the public and private school systems, our systems of law and the histories of great nations. No legal definition or even standard application of the word has been decided, and everyone has their own variation on what the word means. And yet, governmental bodies themselves and people are changing the way we act, talk and think in order to combat this vague THEORY (and I stress that word).
"Police brutality" has been a term applied to virtually any instance of law enforcement being applied with force (and sometimes even without it), specifically and especially in regards to any crime committed by someone of the black community. Repeated study after study of police shootings has disputed any notion of "racism" being a factor in police shootings, and yet the stereotype of "evil, racist police" continues to spread. Some studies have even shown the opposite to be true, that white officers are less likely to shoot black suspects, and adjusted for ratios in crime and population white suspects are more likely to be shot by cops (various studies to follow below). And yet, every time a black person is killed by police, regardless of whether or not they were resisting arrest or actively trying to hurt or kill other people, the "police brutality" and "racism" cards have been pulled to demonize lawful shootings to undermine the faith citizens have in their police and government.
Here are some facts and statistics (or what would probably be considered the real enemy to the blm movement...the truth).
In American cops make about 10,000,000 arrests a year. Those ten million arrests don't include detentions, traffic stops or any of the other peaceful public interactions that make up the remaining approximately 60,000,000 police and citizen contact every year. On average per year, only about 1,000 of those 70 MILLION people interacted with end up dead due to police. Yet, people act like their chances of dying at the hands of a cop are anything but minuscule. The entire blm narrative is built on the foundation of "police brutality" and "racism" that simply isn't reflected in reality.
We're not even going to begin to discuss how many of those 1,000 people killed by cops each year are armed and dangerous (which is the majority of cases), or how many of them aren’t black (also the majority). It's also important to note that in police reporting "unarmed" does not mean "not violent". We can even assume, for the sake of argument, that none of those 1,000 police killings each year are justified (even though the vast majority of them are). The ratio of unarmed black men shot and killed (23) in 2018 was 1 out of 67,334 black men arrested. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting, there were 686,665 sworn police officers in the United States in 2018. That’s one unarmed black male shot and killed for every 49,047 sworn police officers. Out of the nearly 47.8 million black Americans, the police have shot roughly one unarmed black male per roughly 2.1 million people.
The inevitable conversation that follows is that black people only represent 14% of the US population, how is it that they make up such a high number of overall police deaths**.** blm and it's supporters would like to propagate the idea that it's racism. Which fortunately has little factual basis in this topic. This is where we need to have those brutal, honest conversations that everyone claims to want to have regarding race (silence is violence after all), but nobody is actually allowed to discuss without being banned, canceled or called a racist nazi.
In the US, the American black population represents 53% of convicted murders, 29% of rapes, 54% of robberies, 33% of assaults, 43% of weapons charges, 29% of domestic abuse and 27% of drug abuse violations among others (continuing to over index in almost all areas of remaining crime). The vast majority of these crimes were conducted by males, meaning that half of the violent crime in America is committed by less than the roughly 6-7% of black men in the US. It's not only understandable but expected that there would be a higher degree of violence involved in these arrests, as usually the type of person that's being arrested for murder isn't likely to go without a fight, nor would they like to spend their lives in prison. Ignoring these facts is tantamount to delusion.
Almost all studies that conclude that black people are killed disproportionately fail to factor in crime rates into their models, whether on purpose to reach a desired conclusion or via a poor scientific process. Those are very relevant statistics that cannot be ignored when discussing police interactions with black people, nor can they be discarded in studies, as they help to explain why there is a disparity between the black population and arrests/deaths. Many who like to dismiss these figures do so by doing what they always do, and cry "racism", whether it's the mere use of these statistics or in the very core of every single arrest that makes up the data.
But simply hand-waving away the reason that there are so many violent interactions between the black community and the police due to "racism" is disingenuous and deliberate. The reasons behind those crime rates and why the black community is plagued by crime are extraordinarily complicated, and very well may contain elements of race and racism reaching back decades (such as the Welfare system and Jim Crow laws), but that’s an entirely separate conversation for another day unrelated to the premise of "police brutality towards blacks". The fact of the matter is, the black community has and will continue to have problems with overwhelming violence without real intervention, and its these problems that lead to further violent interactions with police.
Keeping the aforementioned statistics in mind, each year, American cops kill more white people, both in raw numbers and when adjusted for crime rates, than black people (note: the study has since been retracted due to public inference, however, the data included remains valid, even more studies with similar findings below). Only roughly .009% of all arrests ended with a civilian death regardless of race, and for every 10 deadly weapon assaults on a police officer there was as a result of 1 fatal police shooting, or in other words, even in encounters with deadly weapons police will only fatally shoot about 10% of the time. In fact, research done by the National Police Research Platform, only roughly 27% of those 680,000+ officers report ever even firing their gun on duty (which doesn't specifically entail actually shooting someone either, just the fact that they've shot their weapon). And yet the narrative of blood thirsty police persists.
Contrary to the black lives matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police.In 2015, black civil-rights commissioner Peter Kirsanow famously defended the police by acknowledging that a police officer is roughly 18.5x more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer, a number that's been repeated ad nauseam and is roughly supported by statistics year after year (it lowers to roughly 2.5x more likely for a cop to be killed by armed black males than the reverse). Factually, black males have made up nearly 50 percent of all cop-killers over the last decade even though they are only 6-7% of the overall population.
White people make up roughly over 50% of known race homicide victims, with caucasians representing roughly 76% of the total US population. Black people were 45% of known race homicide victims, but only 13% of the population. Which means the homicide rate for blacks was 3.5x their percentage of the US population, making them over five times as likely to be homicide victims.
According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics 2018 study, 15.3% of violent crimes against whites were committed by blacks for a total of 547,948 crimes, with violent black offenders being 1.8x their percent of the population. In contrast, whites committed 10.6% of violent crimes against blacks for a total of 59,777 crimes, making up 0.8x their percentage of the population. But of violent crime against black people, 70% of the time the offender was reported by the victim themselves as black, which is supportive of the epidemic of black-on-black violence increasing across the country. The offender to victim ratio shows that violent incidents involving black offenders (22%) was twice the percentage of black victims (11%).
Hate crime statistics actually show that in recent years, anti-black incidents overall fell to a recent record low share of all hate crime, while anti-white and other races have seen increases in hate crime towards them. Meanwhile hate crimes committed by black offenders continues to increase year over year, reaching a high of 24% of all reported hate crimes despite making up only 14% of the population. In major cities such as New York, black perpetrators make up the majority of hate crimes towards Jewish and LGBT people, again, despite the narrative that says black people are society's current victims of discrimination.
People need to stop acting like, just because they’re black, they’ll die if they interact with the cops or that white people are targeting black people with racism and hatred. Of course in a country of hundreds of millions of people there is going to be anti-black racism. But it certainly isn't to the degree in which activists like to perpetuate, such as it being a public health crisis. Statistics simply do not reflect any reality in which this absurdity is true, unless a concentrated effort is put into disqualifying and discounting data that opposes the narrative. If anything, the crime data, statistics on police shootings and the general modern societal zeitgeist would suggest an active and ongoing discrimination against whites. But hey, that's another topic for another day isn't it.
The questions that decent human beings need to seriously ask themselves in regards to police is, are you committing crimes? Are you going to resist if the cops try to arrest you? I would hope not for both of those questions. In 2020, there's no excuse for that level of ignorance. Therefore, your chances of dying at the hands of the police are virtually zero. But, the best part is, even if you are committing crimes and resisting arrest, your chances of dying at the hands of the police are still virtually zero, regardless of your skin color or particular demographic.That's the statistical fact. No matter how many slogans are chanted or how many times ACAB is gratified onto buildings, it doesn't suddenly mean the police are out to kill anyone.
The gaslighting from the media and the blm supporters claim that the violent actions of a "few" rioters do not represent most of the "peaceful group" (a courtesy not extended to the legitimately mostly peaceful police). The left-leaning Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project reports that in the summer of 2020 alone (not including the continued riots in September) there were 7,750+ demonstrations related to blm. Of those, over 1000 included some sort of assault on police and/or bystanders, arson or looting but yet were not declared riots.
Over 570 of those "peaceful protests" in 220 locations turned violent to the degree that they were declared riots. That's 570+ "mostly peaceful protests" barely covered by mainstream news, that seemingly most supporters of blm refuse to acknowledge even occurred, which included an estimated $2 billion dollars in damages (most of which isn't covered by insurance, done to local family businesses, many black owned), along with a few dozen related fatalities (including targeted, accidental and incidental, more to follow below) and countless incidents of arson, looting and assault against bystanders and police. ACLED also stated that of those demonstrations, only 5% of them have been met with force by police, which is obviously roughly the same percentage of "protests" that become violent riots.
Only of course the media and blm supporters would like you to believe that police (by way of "fascist" Trump) are arresting and attacking "peaceful protesters utilizing their 'freedom of speech'", which couldn't be further from the truth. The freedom of speech was designed to protect people from those who think violence is the solution to democratic problems. Inciting violence was written in as an exception to the amendment, in part so that people couldn't use strength against others to assert beliefs. There's legal and historical precedence for proper "freedom of speech" and "freedom to protest", and nobody should care about the personal interpretations of rioters and terrorists on those fundamental freedoms.
And yet here we are, in a society where the mainstream media, an extraordinarily vocal minority of citizens, multinational billion dollar businesses donating hundreds of millions to the cause that partially goes to fund rioters' bail from jail after arrests (multiple criminals who then went on to commit other murders), celebrities and sports teams are all siding with blm over blatantly false lies and misinformation. All the while supporting the notion that black people are being "oppressed and victimized". None of their opinions on equality, inclusive ideologies and the freedom of speech, actually extends to the mostly peaceful police officers, towards white people, or any other demographic that condemns these actions (such as the increasing number of liberals leaving the party #WalkAway, or the various minority groups now increasingly supporting Trump). People need to forgo emotional arguments for rational analysis, stop confusing correlation with causation, and understand the impact of confounding variables and their own bias in these discussions.
Because what is happening is society and the Regressive Left is fostering an environment based on hate in the name of acceptance, including the willful return of Segregation, Affirmative Action and identity politics based on race, the demand for reparations (despite the Welfare system predominately geared towards blacks, having spent $22 TRILLION in the past 50 years towards poverty, costing 3 times as much as all of America's wars since the Revolution), special considerations in academia (like lowered admission standards or testing requirements, even though more money is spent on additional education funding for black students than any other race, and racial quotas hurting Asian Americans), the desire to rid society of capitalism (while hypocritically selling copious amounts of branded merchandise), two parent households (which has now quietly been removed due to criticism) and the abolishment of police and prisons. Democrats and blm leaders have continually called for public violence, including attacks on police and white folks, with the demonization of white people as a sub-human race and as racist demons.
Compound this with the contrasting fact that nearly 80% of the black community not only disagrees with the notion of defunding the police, but a significant portion would like to see either the same amount or more police presence in their neighborhoods. As anyone who grew up in a crime ridden black community knows (such as myself), a lack of policing only hurts the people that soft-bellied liberals claim to want to help. If any of the organizations and rioters actually cared about black lives mattering, then they would be focusing on the real tragedies occurring within their own communities. Such as the uncontrolled black-on-black violence, drug use and absentee fathers, and not whatever viral case makes the news in order to further the political agenda. The black community that actually deals with the rampant violence and gangs realize that defunding police is tantamount to forfeiting their lives and the lives of loved ones.
If the two tenants of the blm and antifa supporters are based on "systemic racism" and "police brutality" and both are built on misinformation and lies, then what are all of the riots, looting, arson and murder actually for? Why as a society have we both allowed and endorsed these horrific actions to the point of normalcy? Why is it so difficult for liberals to disavow the actual closest things our generation has seen to Nazism?
Why does the violence inspired by the "blm cause" not count as extremism other than social bias of the people who believe in it (despite glaringly obvious examples that say otherwise)? Defenders would like to argue that just because these killers and anarchists believed in the blm narrative, doesn't mean they have killed all those cops or Trump supporters specifically for blm. And just because people aren't card carrying members of antifa, then obviously they aren't rioting specifically for antifa...it's all just a magical coincidence that they buy their branded t-shirts and wave their affiliated flags.
But yet, if an individual police officer happens to kill a black man in the line of duty, that's somehow representative of all officers and "systemic racism" according to these same groups. We wouldn't excuse this type of behavior if it had been done in the name of ISIS. We wouldn't judge an act of terrorism on whether or not it's followers actually traveled to Syria before stabbing someone in the throat. Like logical, intelligent human beings we would determine their guilt via their extremist beliefs and horrific actions, which at this point is undeniable despite the feverish attempts to deny virtually all of it (a relatively small list compared to all incidents of blm and antifa inspired attacks to follow).
When we have such divergent attitudes in the way the very cultures and people of various races approach life, are we still feigning surprise that there's a difference in terms of wealth, crime, education, economic or job status between races? Eventually we need to be honest and look at how people actually behave and how society functions, instead of playing pretend and arguing about microagressions and white fragility.
Allowing this toxic blm rhetoric continue in this state for political reasons is entirely the opposite of being respectful of other views and is a direct attack on democracy. The sheer unfathomable damage done for this "cause" will go down in history as one of the worst decisions our society has ever inflicted upon itself perpetuated by the willful ideological delusion of one political side and its ever increasingly unstable base. If there are any blm supporters still reading this, I implore you to reconsider your stance. You can be against racism and support the real black community without endorsing the hate and lies of the blm organization. There is no requirement to martyr violent criminals just because they died while being black.
Please. If you're honestly trying to do what's best for society and the real black families adversely affected, ensure you're not on the wrong side of history while doing it.
****
Edit: Please feel free to copy and paste this information where you see fit, I know not everyone interested in these conversations wants to do the leg-work and a lot of the discussions revert back to the same topics (crime rates, demographics, studies, etc). And rather than "own" a stupid Reddit post, I would rather see more people discussing the realities of this situation with the most concrete information.
****
2019 Study from Michigan State University and the University of Maryland via the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded: "We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers. Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race. This suggests that increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings" and "Examination of National Violent Death Reporting System data shows racial differences across types of fatal shootings. Black civilians fatally shot by police (relative to White civilians) are more likely to be unarmed and less likely to pose an immediate threat to officers. In contrast, White civilians (relative to Black civilians) are nearly three times more likely to be fatally shot by police when the incident is related to mental-health concerns and are seven times more likely to commit 'suicide by cop'".
Bonus points: the Vice President of Research & Innovation at Michigan was forced to resign partially due to his contrary findings that stated there was no racism in police shootings, which was among his other "racist science" that some faculty and students found offensive.
2018 Study from Michigan State and Arizona State University concluded: "When adjusting for crime, we find no systematic evidence of anti-Black disparities in fatal shootings, fatal shootings of unarmed citizens, or fatal shootings involving misidentification of harmless objects. Multiverse analyses showed only one significant anti-Black disparity of 144 possible tests. Exposure to police given crime rate differences likely accounts for the higher per capita rate of fatal police shootings for Blacks, at least when analyzing all shootings. For unarmed shootings or misidentification shootings, data are too uncertain to be conclusive."
2016 Study from Washington State University via American Society of Criminology concluded: "We found that, despite clear evidence of implicit bias against Black suspects, officers were slower to shoot armed Black suspects than armed White suspects, and they were less likely to shoot unarmed Black suspects than unarmed White suspects. These findings challenge the assumption that implicit racial bias affects police behavior in deadly encounters with Black suspects."
2016 Study from Harvard via the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded: "On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings."
2018 Follow-up Study from Harvard via the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded: "In stark contrast, Fryer (forthcoming) finds that, conditional on a police interaction, there are no racial differences in OIS on either the extensive or intensive margins. Using data from Houston, Texas – where I have both OIS and a randomly chosen set of interactions with police where lethal force may have been justified but was not used – I find, after controlling for suspect demographics, officer demographics, encounter characteristics, suspect weapon and year fixed effects, that blacks are 27.4 percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to non-black, non-Hispanics. Investigating the intensive margin – who shoots first in an encounter with police or how many bullets were discharged in the endeavor – there are no detectable racial differences."
2018 Study from Rutgars University and Kookmin University and Purdue College concluded: "This article aims to answer this question: are white police officers more likely to use lethal force on minority suspects or people of a specific race? To answer this question, the authors construct a data set of all confirmed uses of lethal force by police officers in the United States in 2014 and 2015. They find that although minority suspects are disproportionately killed by police, white officers appear to be no more likely to use lethal force against minorities than nonwhite officers"
2016 Study from the Pacific Institute of Research and Evaluation, Curtin University, University of Columbia found: "On average, an estimated 34 people were killed or medically treated for injury by law enforcement per 10 000 stops/arrests. That ratio is surprisingly consistent by race/ethnicity. Blacks have high arrest and stop rates, and per capita are much more likely than whites to die at the hands of police. However, when blacks are stopped or arrested, they are no more likely than whites to be injured or die during that incident.Consistent with our findings, simulation studies find police are no more likely to fire on unarmed blacks than unarmed whites, and high rates of black speeding citations per capita result from high violation rates. A systematic review identified 10 studies that found suspect race/ethnicity did not predict use of force or its escalation. However, one study found blacks were more likely than whites to face force during compliance checks. The PPCS survey also found that blacks were more likely to experience physical force and to perceive the threat of force during a stop, although few respondents actually were injured by the force applied. The large majority of incidents that those stopped perceived as undue force was stops where officers shouted at or threatened people, presumably to deter resistance."
submitted by IDislikeYourMeta to SocialJusticeInAction [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 15:03 IDislikeYourMeta The black lives matter Movement is the Largest Scale Mass Hysteria Incident in Modern History - In Depth Discussion

The blm movement is going to be remembered as one of society's largest scale incidents of mass hysteria built on overt lies and hatred. By nature of their support, hundreds of thousands of otherwise good people are socially endorsing the violence that arises from these hateful "causes" based on utter fabrications.
The definition of terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
Whether you support their cause or not, both blm and antifa as organizations fit the literal definition of terrorism. If you don't call them that yourself, that's fine, until recently neither did the American government, but merely saying that they aren't terrorists because you might think they have a reason for their actions is a subjective opinion on something that is otherwise an objective fact. blm/antifa and their supporters are responsible for a great number of increasingly violent attacks in recent years targeted towards opposing views (namely white people and Trump supporters), where they've earned the ire that's currently directed towards them. It's time we collectively began to address these left-wing extremists for what they truly are.
black lives matter as both an organization and as a "social statement" were founded primarily on the basis of "systemic racism" and "police brutality". Both of which have very little merit outside of left-wing echochambers, with almost all of its messaging crumbling under the slightest bit of scrutiny (if it's supporters ever bothered to scrutinize what they are being indoctrinated by).
"Systemic racism" is a catch-all term for any and everything to do with race, applied ad hoc to whatever scenarios people would like changed, whether that's in the public and private school systems, our systems of law and the histories of great nations. No legal definition or even standard application of the word has been decided, and everyone has their own variation on what the word means. And yet, governmental bodies themselves and people are changing the way we act, talk and think in order to combat this vague THEORY (and I stress that word).
"Police brutality" has been a term applied to virtually any instance of law enforcement being applied with force (and sometimes even without it), specifically and especially in regards to any crime committed by someone of the black community. Repeated study after study of police shootings has disputed any notion of "racism" being a factor in police shootings, and yet the stereotype of "evil, racist police" continues to spread. Some studies have even shown the opposite to be true, that white officers are less likely to shoot black suspects, and adjusted for ratios in crime and population white suspects are more likely to be shot by cops (various studies to follow below). And yet, every time a black person is killed by police, regardless of whether or not they were resisting arrest or actively trying to hurt or kill other people, the "police brutality" and "racism" cards have been pulled to demonize lawful shootings to undermine the faith citizens have in their police and government.
Here are some facts and statistics (or what would probably be considered the real enemy to the blm movement...the truth).
In American cops make about 10,000,000 arrests a year. Those ten million arrests don't include detentions, traffic stops or any of the other peaceful public interactions that make up the remaining approximately 60,000,000 police and citizen contact every year. On average per year, only about 1,000 of those 70 MILLION people interacted with end up dead due to police. Yet, people act like their chances of dying at the hands of a cop are anything but minuscule. The entire blm narrative is built on the foundation of "police brutality" and "racism" that simply isn't reflected in reality.
We're not even going to begin to discuss how many of those 1,000 people killed by cops each year are armed and dangerous (which is the majority of cases), or how many of them aren’t black (also the majority). It's also important to note that in police reporting "unarmed" does not mean "not violent". We can even assume, for the sake of argument, that none of those 1,000 police killings each year are justified (even though the vast majority of them are). The ratio of unarmed black men shot and killed (23) in 2018 was 1 out of 67,334 black men arrested. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting, there were 686,665 sworn police officers in the United States in 2018. That’s one unarmed black male shot and killed for every 49,047 sworn police officers. Out of the nearly 47.8 million black Americans, the police have shot roughly one unarmed black male per roughly 2.1 million people.
The inevitable conversation that follows is that black people only represent 14% of the US population, how is it that they make up such a high number of overall police deaths**.** blm and it's supporters would like to propagate the idea that it's racism. Which fortunately has little factual basis in this topic. This is where we need to have those brutal, honest conversations that everyone claims to want to have regarding race (silence is violence after all), but nobody is actually allowed to discuss without being banned, canceled or called a racist nazi.
In the US, the American black population represents 53% of convicted murders, 29% of rapes, 54% of robberies, 33% of assaults, 43% of weapons charges, 29% of domestic abuse and 27% of drug abuse violations among others (continuing to over index in almost all areas of remaining crime). The vast majority of these crimes were conducted by males, meaning that half of the violent crime in America is committed by less than the roughly 6-7% of black men in the US. It's not only understandable but expected that there would be a higher degree of violence involved in these arrests, as usually the type of person that's being arrested for murder isn't likely to go without a fight, nor would they like to spend their lives in prison. Ignoring these facts is tantamount to delusion.
Almost all studies that conclude that black people are killed disproportionately fail to factor in crime rates into their models, whether on purpose to reach a desired conclusion or via a poor scientific process. Those are very relevant statistics that cannot be ignored when discussing police interactions with black people, nor can they be discarded in studies, as they help to explain why there is a disparity between the black population and arrests/deaths. Many who like to dismiss these figures do so by doing what they always do, and cry "racism", whether it's the mere use of these statistics or in the very core of every single arrest that makes up the data.
But simply hand-waving away the reason that there are so many violent interactions between the black community and the police due to "racism" is disingenuous and deliberate. The reasons behind those crime rates and why the black community is plagued by crime are extraordinarily complicated, and very well may contain elements of race and racism reaching back decades (such as the Welfare system and Jim Crow laws), but that’s an entirely separate conversation for another day unrelated to the premise of "police brutality towards blacks". The fact of the matter is, the black community has and will continue to have problems with overwhelming violence without real intervention, and its these problems that lead to further violent interactions with police.
Keeping the aforementioned statistics in mind, each year, American cops kill more white people, both in raw numbers and when adjusted for crime rates, than black people (note: the study has since been retracted due to public inference, however, the data included remains valid, even more studies with similar findings below). Only roughly .009% of all arrests ended with a civilian death regardless of race, and for every 10 deadly weapon assaults on a police officer there was as a result of 1 fatal police shooting, or in other words, even in encounters with deadly weapons police will only fatally shoot about 10% of the time. In fact, research done by the National Police Research Platform, only roughly 27% of those 680,000+ officers report ever even firing their gun on duty (which doesn't specifically entail actually shooting someone either, just the fact that they've shot their weapon). And yet the narrative of blood thirsty police persists.
Contrary to the black lives matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police.In 2015, black civil-rights commissioner Peter Kirsanow famously defended the police by acknowledging that a police officer is roughly 18.5x more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer, a number that's been repeated ad nauseam and is roughly supported by statistics year after year (it lowers to roughly 2.5x more likely for a cop to be killed by armed black males than the reverse). Factually, black males have made up nearly 50 percent of all cop-killers over the last decade even though they are only 6-7% of the overall population.
White people make up roughly over 50% of known race homicide victims, with caucasians representing roughly 76% of the total US population. Black people were 45% of known race homicide victims, but only 13% of the population. Which means the homicide rate for blacks was 3.5x their percentage of the US population, making them over five times as likely to be homicide victims.
According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics 2018 study, 15.3% of violent crimes against whites were committed by blacks for a total of 547,948 crimes, with violent black offenders being 1.8x their percent of the population. In contrast, whites committed 10.6% of violent crimes against blacks for a total of 59,777 crimes, making up 0.8x their percentage of the population. But of violent crime against black people, 70% of the time the offender was reported by the victim themselves as black, which is supportive of the epidemic of black-on-black violence increasing across the country. The offender to victim ratio shows that violent incidents involving black offenders (22%) was twice the percentage of black victims (11%).
Hate crime statistics actually show that in recent years, anti-black incidents overall fell to a recent record low share of all hate crime, while anti-white and other races have seen increases in hate crime towards them. Meanwhile hate crimes committed by black offenders continues to increase year over year, reaching a high of 24% of all reported hate crimes despite making up only 14% of the population. In major cities such as New York, black perpetrators make up the majority of hate crimes towards Jewish and LGBT people, again, despite the narrative that says black people are society's current victims of discrimination.
People need to stop acting like, just because they’re black, they’ll die if they interact with the cops or that white people are targeting black people with racism and hatred. Of course in a country of hundreds of millions of people there is going to be anti-black racism. But it certainly isn't to the degree in which activists like to perpetuate, such as it being a public health crisis. Statistics simply do not reflect any reality in which this absurdity is true, unless a concentrated effort is put into disqualifying and discounting data that opposes the narrative. If anything, the crime data, statistics on police shootings and the general modern societal zeitgeist would suggest an active and ongoing discrimination against whites. But hey, that's another topic for another day isn't it.
The questions that decent human beings need to seriously ask themselves in regards to police is, are you committing crimes? Are you going to resist if the cops try to arrest you? I would hope not for both of those questions. In 2020, there's no excuse for that level of ignorance. Therefore, your chances of dying at the hands of the police are virtually zero. But, the best part is, even if you are committing crimes and resisting arrest, your chances of dying at the hands of the police are still virtually zero, regardless of your skin color or particular demographic.That's the statistical fact. No matter how many slogans are chanted or how many times ACAB is gratified onto buildings, it doesn't suddenly mean the police are out to kill anyone.
The gaslighting from the media and the blm supporters claim that the violent actions of a "few" rioters do not represent most of the "peaceful group" (a courtesy not extended to the legitimately mostly peaceful police). The left-leaning Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project reports that in the summer of 2020 alone (not including the continued riots in September) there were 7,750+ demonstrations related to blm. Of those, over 1000 included some sort of assault on police and/or bystanders, arson or looting but yet were not declared riots.
Over 570 of those "peaceful protests" in 220 locations turned violent to the degree that they were declared riots. That's 570+ "mostly peaceful protests" barely covered by mainstream news, that seemingly most supporters of blm refuse to acknowledge even occurred, which included an estimated $2 billion dollars in damages (most of which isn't covered by insurance, done to local family businesses, many black owned), along with a few dozen related fatalities (including targeted, accidental and incidental, more to follow below) and countless incidents of arson, looting and assault against bystanders and police. ACLED also stated that of those demonstrations, only 5% of them have been met with force by police, which is obviously roughly the same percentage of "protests" that become violent riots.
Only of course the media and blm supporters would like you to believe that police (by way of "fascist" Trump) are arresting and attacking "peaceful protesters utilizing their 'freedom of speech'", which couldn't be further from the truth. The freedom of speech was designed to protect people from those who think violence is the solution to democratic problems. Inciting violence was written in as an exception to the amendment, in part so that people couldn't use strength against others to assert beliefs. There's legal and historical precedence for proper "freedom of speech" and "freedom to protest", and nobody should care about the personal interpretations of rioters and terrorists on those fundamental freedoms.
And yet here we are, in a society where the mainstream media, an extraordinarily vocal minority of citizens, multinational billion dollar businesses donating hundreds of millions to the cause that partially goes to fund rioters' bail from jail after arrests (multiple criminals who then went on to commit other murders), celebrities and sports teams are all siding with blm over blatantly false lies and misinformation. All the while supporting the notion that black people are being "oppressed and victimized". None of their opinions on equality, inclusive ideologies and the freedom of speech, actually extends to the mostly peaceful police officers, towards white people, or any other demographic that condemns these actions (such as the increasing number of liberals leaving the party #WalkAway, or the various minority groups now increasingly supporting Trump). People need to forgo emotional arguments for rational analysis, stop confusing correlation with causation, and understand the impact of confounding variables and their own bias in these discussions.
Because what is happening is society and the Regressive Left is fostering an environment based on hate in the name of acceptance, including the willful return of Segregation, Affirmative Action and identity politics based on race, the demand for reparations (despite the Welfare system predominately geared towards blacks, having spent $22 TRILLION in the past 50 years towards poverty, costing 3 times as much as all of America's wars since the Revolution), special considerations in academia (like lowered admission standards or testing requirements, even though more money is spent on additional education funding for black students than any other race, and racial quotas hurting Asian Americans), the desire to rid society of capitalism (while hypocritically selling copious amounts of branded merchandise), two parent households (which has now quietly been removed due to criticism) and the abolishment of police and prisons. Democrats and blm leaders have continually called for public violence, including attacks on police and white folks, with the demonization of white people as a sub-human race and as racist demons.
Compound this with the contrasting fact that nearly 80% of the black community not only disagrees with the notion of defunding the police, but a significant portion would like to see either the same amount or more police presence in their neighborhoods. As anyone who grew up in a crime ridden black community knows (such as myself), a lack of policing only hurts the people that soft-bellied liberals claim to want to help. If any of the organizations and rioters actually cared about black lives mattering, then they would be focusing on the real tragedies occurring within their own communities. Such as the uncontrolled black-on-black violence, drug use and absentee fathers, and not whatever viral case makes the news in order to further the political agenda. The black community that actually deals with the rampant violence and gangs realize that defunding police is tantamount to forfeiting their lives and the lives of loved ones.
If the two tenants of the blm and antifa supporters are based on "systemic racism" and "police brutality" and both are built on misinformation and lies, then what are all of the riots, looting, arson and murder actually for? Why as a society have we both allowed and endorsed these horrific actions to the point of normalcy? Why is it so difficult for liberals to disavow the actual closest things our generation has seen to Nazism?
Why does the violence inspired by the "blm cause" not count as extremism other than social bias of the people who believe in it (despite glaringly obvious examples that say otherwise)? Defenders would like to argue that just because these killers and anarchists believed in the blm narrative, doesn't mean they have killed all those cops or Trump supporters specifically for blm. And just because people aren't card carrying members of antifa, then obviously they aren't rioting specifically for antifa...it's all just a magical coincidence that they buy their branded t-shirts and wave their affiliated flags.
But yet, if an individual police officer happens to kill a black man in the line of duty, that's somehow representative of all officers and "systemic racism" according to these same groups. We wouldn't excuse this type of behavior if it had been done in the name of ISIS. We wouldn't judge an act of terrorism on whether or not it's followers actually traveled to Syria before stabbing someone in the throat. Like logical, intelligent human beings we would determine their guilt via their extremist beliefs and horrific actions, which at this point is undeniable despite the feverish attempts to deny virtually all of it (a relatively small list compared to all incidents of blm and antifa inspired attacks to follow).
When we have such divergent attitudes in the way the very cultures and people of various races approach life, are we still feigning surprise that there's a difference in terms of wealth, crime, education, economic or job status between races? Eventually we need to be honest and look at how people actually behave and how society functions, instead of playing pretend and arguing about microagressions and white fragility.
Allowing this toxic blm rhetoric continue in this state for political reasons is entirely the opposite of being respectful of other views and is a direct attack on democracy. The sheer unfathomable damage done for this "cause" will go down in history as one of the worst decisions our society has ever inflicted upon itself perpetuated by the willful ideological delusion of one political side and its ever increasingly unstable base. If there are any blm supporters still reading this, I implore you to reconsider your stance. You can be against racism and support the real black community without endorsing the hate and lies of the blm organization. There is no requirement to martyr violent criminals just because they died while being black.
Please. If you're honestly trying to do what's best for society and the real black families adversely affected, ensure you're not on the wrong side of history while doing it.
****
Edit: Please feel free to copy and paste this information where you see fit, I know not everyone interested in these conversations wants to do the leg-work and a lot of the discussions revert back to the same topics (crime rates, demographics, studies, etc). And rather than "own" a stupid Reddit post, I would rather see more people discussing the realities of this situation with the most concrete information.
****
2019 Study from Michigan State University and the University of Maryland via the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded: "We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers. Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race. This suggests that increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings" and "Examination of National Violent Death Reporting System data shows racial differences across types of fatal shootings. Black civilians fatally shot by police (relative to White civilians) are more likely to be unarmed and less likely to pose an immediate threat to officers. In contrast, White civilians (relative to Black civilians) are nearly three times more likely to be fatally shot by police when the incident is related to mental-health concerns and are seven times more likely to commit 'suicide by cop'".
Bonus points: the Vice President of Research & Innovation at Michigan was forced to resign partially due to his contrary findings that stated there was no racism in police shootings, which was among his other "racist science" that some faculty and students found offensive.
2018 Study from Michigan State and Arizona State University concluded: "When adjusting for crime, we find no systematic evidence of anti-Black disparities in fatal shootings, fatal shootings of unarmed citizens, or fatal shootings involving misidentification of harmless objects. Multiverse analyses showed only one significant anti-Black disparity of 144 possible tests. Exposure to police given crime rate differences likely accounts for the higher per capita rate of fatal police shootings for Blacks, at least when analyzing all shootings. For unarmed shootings or misidentification shootings, data are too uncertain to be conclusive."
2016 Study from Washington State University via American Society of Criminology concluded: "We found that, despite clear evidence of implicit bias against Black suspects, officers were slower to shoot armed Black suspects than armed White suspects, and they were less likely to shoot unarmed Black suspects than unarmed White suspects. These findings challenge the assumption that implicit racial bias affects police behavior in deadly encounters with Black suspects."
2016 Study from Harvard via the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded: "On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings."
2018 Follow-up Study from Harvard via the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded: "In stark contrast, Fryer (forthcoming) finds that, conditional on a police interaction, there are no racial differences in OIS on either the extensive or intensive margins. Using data from Houston, Texas – where I have both OIS and a randomly chosen set of interactions with police where lethal force may have been justified but was not used – I find, after controlling for suspect demographics, officer demographics, encounter characteristics, suspect weapon and year fixed effects, that blacks are 27.4 percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to non-black, non-Hispanics. Investigating the intensive margin – who shoots first in an encounter with police or how many bullets were discharged in the endeavor – there are no detectable racial differences."
2018 Study from Rutgars University and Kookmin University and Purdue College concluded: "This article aims to answer this question: are white police officers more likely to use lethal force on minority suspects or people of a specific race? To answer this question, the authors construct a data set of all confirmed uses of lethal force by police officers in the United States in 2014 and 2015. They find that although minority suspects are disproportionately killed by police, white officers appear to be no more likely to use lethal force against minorities than nonwhite officers"
2016 Study from the Pacific Institute of Research and Evaluation, Curtin University, University of Columbia found: "On average, an estimated 34 people were killed or medically treated for injury by law enforcement per 10 000 stops/arrests. That ratio is surprisingly consistent by race/ethnicity. Blacks have high arrest and stop rates, and per capita are much more likely than whites to die at the hands of police. However, when blacks are stopped or arrested, they are no more likely than whites to be injured or die during that incident.Consistent with our findings, simulation studies find police are no more likely to fire on unarmed blacks than unarmed whites, and high rates of black speeding citations per capita result from high violation rates. A systematic review identified 10 studies that found suspect race/ethnicity did not predict use of force or its escalation. However, one study found blacks were more likely than whites to face force during compliance checks. The PPCS survey also found that blacks were more likely to experience physical force and to perceive the threat of force during a stop, although few respondents actually were injured by the force applied. The large majority of incidents that those stopped perceived as undue force was stops where officers shouted at or threatened people, presumably to deter resistance."
submitted by IDislikeYourMeta to tucker_carlson [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 15:03 mediterraneanweather When you can't see progress?

How do you guys deal with not being able to see progress? I know I'm at a caloric deficit, I know I'm losing weight at a slow and steady pace, but I just can't see it.
I started with a bmi of 24.9 a few months ago and decided to nip my weight gain in the bud before it got out of control. I know that if I had kept neglecting my body it would only get worse. I've lost and gained weight over the years before so I know logically how it works and what my body looks like at different sizes but this time I am just not seeing it.
I've lost 15 pounds so far, an inch off my waist and two off my hips but my clothes all seem to fit the same and try as I might I just cannot see a difference.
It's not like those stupid cartoons of scarily thin girls with ED's that look in the mirror and see obesity... I just see me. Me, as normal, looking the same as always. Not fat, not thin, just... Like myself?
I just wanted to know when you guys actually began to see a difference. I think the fact that I've only had a relatively small amount to lose compared to the people I see posted online, who've all lost so much weight (congrats!!!) makes it harder for me to tell. I feel different - I have much more energy, I can lift and carry more than before, my stamina has improved, and I'm so happy about those things but I'm also really just looking for some visual validation.
Thanks
submitted by mediterraneanweather to loseit [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:59 newguysofly $DWSN: $1 for 80 cents? (Stop falling for hype and look to VALUE!)

Note: I was inspired to research and write up this idea due to the Grahamian Value Newsletter, which you should all sign up for on Substack. The authors there offer a more thorough analysis, while this write-up is more 30,000 ft. However, all credit for the original idea goes to them.
TL;DR: $DWSN is a net-net, which means that it’s current assets are greater than current liabilities. With $DWSN, you can theoretically buy cash at a discount. What makes it more interesting than most net-nets is the fact that the company itself actually generates profits / cash, giving the potential for lucrative returns.
A Dying Industry
It’s no secret that, of late, the Oil and Gas sector has been performing terribly. $XLE, an O&G ETF, has halved since January—and been on the decline for years:
https://preview.redd.it/m2vex3v45po51.png?width=1262&format=png&auto=webp&s=8a2866bedf6d4e9bca4246044d02b50d57f04713
However, this downward trend in O&G, combined with significant declines in sentiment around the space, has led to significant mispricings and sellings-off.
$DWSN or Dawson Geophysical is “an O&G” company that’s been thrown out with the bathwater—because it’s really a data company. The company “acquires and processes three-dimensional seismic data used by third-party clients to analyze subsurface geological conditions for potential oil and natural gas accumulation.” Essentially, O&G operators—be they small, mid-size, or large—rely on seismic data to figure out where to drill, to estimate the value of potential drill sites, etc. Of course, the demand for data has diminished with the sector. However, $DWSN has remained profitable, and is even cash-flow positive.
Liquid Gold?
Revenue over Q2’20 was $5.5 million, and annualizing this number gives a yearly multiple of $22 million. The market cap of $DWSN is $40 million—and the company has $29 million in cash, and total liabilities of $16.8 million. This gives an EV/EBITDA multiple of (22 / (40 - 29 + 16.8)) = ~.69. Please note, this is a conservative multiple which isn’t even really EBITDA: I (lazily) calculated it just using cash without accounting for receivables, short term investments, etc. If you include those, the ratio is more like .5. Now, the company generated Unlevered Free Cash Flow of ~$4.7m. So I don’t believe the company will go out of business like many O&G peers— it’s actually making cold hard cash:
https://preview.redd.it/71ltnyc85po51.png?width=1292&format=png&auto=webp&s=e9e02bbbc368d1e227dff2b3dd894a8d2f03932d
Note: a large part of the reason it’s a net-net is due to the structure of the depreciation calculation employed by the company. If people want me to discuss that in the comments, please let me know.
Now, consider that $XLE, which I’m using as a rough proxy for O&G data demand, is at its lowest point in 20 years. This means that, assuming some return to normalcy (these things are cyclical, although with the advent of clean energy, we may see a muted recovery), we are looking at what’s basically a positive net-income and FCF producing net-net which could very well see even greater improvement in margins and profitability.
If you liquidated the company today, you could probably get ~5% more than the share price. And allowing any sort of expectation on continued profitability, share buybacks, etc. puts this into potential bagger territory.
Institutions know this. In March 2020, Gateway Capital purchased around $2.5 million of shares and became an insider:

https://preview.redd.it/i1kc5aqb5po51.png?width=1276&format=png&auto=webp&s=9081c7adb6c75d822ec0039089a3b84a8be78be5
Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean all that much. But, given that GC are focused on deep value investing, I’d say that serves as validation of this thesis.
Technicals:

https://preview.redd.it/0v42zjle5po51.png?width=898&format=png&auto=webp&s=8ba056fbe8fa7cc2ebfa3b2b2be19d709ee11c95
I don’t really believe in TA, but the stock has been steadily climbing, overall. It seems to go through period spikes to ~$2, and then pull back. It’s recently pulled back from around $1.8. If someone wants to do further chart analysis, that’d be appreciated.
Risk Factors
  1. No one is saying that Dawson is a good business. Honestly, it seems like it’s in a dying space long-term. Similar companies (which didn’t have good balance sheets) have gone bankrupt. But for whatever reasons, $DWSN is chugging along.
  2. While the efficient market theory is largely BS, it’s entirely possible that the current price reflects something that hasn't been accounted for—and that I’m totally mistaken. After all, when buying a home that seems like an amazing deal, your instinct should be “what’s wrong with it?”
  3. Just because something’s a net-net doesn’t mean the share price will go up. After all, you’re not actually buying the cash, you’re buying the stock. And stocks fluctuate for a ton of reasons.
  4. There has been some recent insider selling (~$16,000 yesterday), which isn’t necessarily a red-flag, but is never a green flag.
    1. The reason I’m fine with this is that it’s small enough that I think it’s probably for college tuition payments or something like that, and not cashing-out. But who knows.
  5. The very reason this play exists—that the stock is relatively unknown / inefficiently priced—can cause liquidity issues. This isn’t AAPL; it’s fairly thinly traded. If you accumulate massively, it could be hard to get out quickly. This is for investors, not traders (how's that trading going, anyway?)
I’m Impatient; Summarize!
In conclusion, I think that $DWSN is a great deal at this valuation. I’m not going to assign a price target because it’d be arbitrary, but I expect to realize significant returns on my investment as the market wizens up to the surprisingly cheap valuation of this company. That being said, the above risk factors should be considered and accounted for.
Disclaimer: Do your own DD. You should be able to clearly express risk factors before investing. I’m not a financial advisor, and this is not financial advice. I have a position to which I may be adding. There is always a possibility of losing some or all of your investment. Etc., etc.
submitted by newguysofly to pennystocks [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:59 throwaway867530n Can my therapist terminate with me by letter?

I (31/f) have been seeing my psychologist for three years. I fell in love with him last year and told him immediately and he said we were okay to keep working together. Recently, he accused me of trying to seduce him after I sent him this meme https://twitter.com/risktolivecoach/status/1237296674705485824 and we had a horrible confrontation meeting that played on all of my trauma-based/CSA fears about myself (I'm dirty/damaged/crazy). Obviously, there's more to this and I've talked in other posts about this so feel free to look at my user history.
We were supposed to meet again on Monday to talk about next steps, but he had his assistant reschedule the meeting for 2PM on Friday afternoon. Around 1:40, he confirmed that he was going to be there at 2 and I emailed him my journal from the previous three weeks--the page-long update I always give him at the start of therapy.
He never showed up. I emailed him after fifteen minutes and texted him after thirty to let him know that I was leaving, but I am assuming he read my journal, didn't like the apology I gave him, and decided he wasn't going to engage with me. I had a sincere apology at the beginning but I also talked about intentions, which don't belong in an apology but were important to me. He was accusing me of behaving in a sexually provocative way--I'm pretty sexually conservative and have only ever been intimate with one man--so this really upset me and reminded me of things my abusers said. I didn't think it was fair that he was holding me accountable for his reaction to something silly.
I have a feeling he's about to send me an email that says "Thanks for working with me. Please fuck off, you crazy bitch," so I'm wondering if this is a possibility. If he opts out of a proper termination meeting, is that because he thinks I'm damaged and manipulative? I'm saying manipulative because I was abused for child pornography until I was 11 and then I sort of coped by flirting with a guy online in his forties when I was 13 (lots of pictures of his penis). He listened to me talk about being abused and it made me feel validated but I knew it was technically abusive because of my age. At any rate, that guy is in jail for doing the same thing to a cop posing as a child, but I still feel like I knowingly put myself in danger in order to meet an emotional need at the time and I'm wondering if I might have been trying to do the same thing with my therapist, but I literally do not know.
submitted by throwaway867530n to askatherapist [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:57 HKPR52 The Gurkha Soldier's loyalty

Hi
This has always been on my mind but I cannot find an answer online. Who are Gurkha soldiers loyal to?
Consider that there have been some tensions between India and Nepal, especially with the new border maps extending into India. Are Gurkhas serving in the Indian army still loyal to Nepal in the event of a conflict? Can they be recalled home to fight for Nepal?
Although these amazing soldiers are a sense of pride to the country; The more I think about it, the more I cannot help they are being used by foreign powers as some sort of mercenary army.
Furthermore, I have scrolled through the online comments that at least being a Gurkha Soldier is a good way to escape poverty and that much of that income will be sent back to Nepal. Its a valid point, but on the other hand it is justifying the export of brave young men to serve in foreign armies and conflicts abroad.
submitted by HKPR52 to Nepal [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:56 Le_Dooan Is anything open on campus?

It’s been very difficult to stay motivated to do any sort of work because we all have been trapped inside since mid spring 2020 semester. I lately have been going to coffee shops to do work to have an environment change and that helps quite a bit.
Now I am wondering, if we are paying for the union and to have the buildings maintained on campus, are any of them open to use? Or do we need a valid reason to use these buildings?
submitted by Le_Dooan to CSUS [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:55 MatthewPerkinsDM [OC] I made a retro Redbrand recruitment video for this guide to running the Redbrand Hideout, Glasstaff and the Nothic in the Lost Mines of Phandelver

Heyo
So I made this video covering everything to do with the Redbrand Hideout. It also starts with Redbrand recruitment propaganda campaign, which was fun!
A big thing for me when streamlining this dungeon is combining rooms. So in my head, I mentally combine the Crypt and the Jail for example, because I want those two combats to run into each other to keep the momentum going. I do the same with the guards in the common room and Glass Staff. You lose a lot of tension in those minutes between fights, so if I can keep it rolling, that's what I'm going to do.
I don't suggest cutting too much from this dungeon, because it's already pretty tight (which is good!) but I think the pit trap isn't always necessary and I cut the bugbear encounter. Which also means I've made the very unpopular decision to cut our little goblin buddy Droop.
I know a lot of parties have had fun times with their goblin sidekick — and if all you want is a fun sidekick character, you should ignore me and include Droop anyway.
But here are my reasons:
1) Droop double-handles exposition. His purpose is to indicate the Redbrands are working with the Cragmaws, but we've already got this information in a few other places.
2) Droop contradicts the session's tone. The silly or sympathetic character clashes with the rescue-friend-from-death-in-jail and make-pact-with-evil-eye-monster stuff we've already got going in this dungeon. I LIKE that other stuff, and I don't want to complicate it.
3) Droop takes brain space. Every character we include, that's a little less Dungeon Master RAM we have for other content. If Droop's not essential or giving some great energy to the session, I don't want to waste the head space on him. Also: it means we can cut an encounter and get through this dungeon quicker.
I'm expecting a lot of comments like, "Droop was the best part of this campaign for our group," and that's both legit and valid. Players love collecting NPCs. For me, Droop isn't worth the effort it takes to make him relevant. I think the only reasons I WOULD include him are if the players had somehow misunderstood any clues about the Black Spider's goals or if the story's tone drastically needed lightening. Now, that's "lightening" I said, not lightning. But knowing how good goblins are at self-preservation and how trigger-happy the party wizard is with friendly fire, maybe some lightning is on the cards too.
If you like these ideas, I'd super appreciate you sharing the YouTube video with a mate. I'm absolute rubbish at self-promotion and almost entirely rely on word-of-mouth. This is especially important to me this time, because this is by far the best video I've ever made and it would break my heart if it flopped. Thank you!
submitted by MatthewPerkinsDM to DnD [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:55 IDislikeYourMeta The black lives matter Movement is the Largest Scale Mass Hysteria Incident in Modern History - In Depth Discussion

The blm movement is going to be remembered as one of society's largest scale incidents of mass hysteria built on overt lies and hatred. By nature of their support, hundreds of thousands of otherwise good people are socially endorsing the violence that arises from these hateful "causes" based on utter fabrications.
The definition of terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
Whether you support their cause or not, both blm and antifa as organizations fit the literal definition of terrorism. If you don't call them that yourself, that's fine, until recently neither did the American government, but merely saying that they aren't terrorists because you might think they have a reason for their actions is a subjective opinion on something that is otherwise an objective fact. blm/antifa and their supporters are responsible for a great number of increasingly violent attacks in recent years targeted towards opposing views (namely white people and Trump supporters), where they've earned the ire that's currently directed towards them. It's time we collectively began to address these left-wing extremists for what they truly are.
black lives matter as both an organization and as a "social statement" were founded primarily on the basis of "systemic racism" and "police brutality". Both of which have very little merit outside of left-wing echochambers, with almost all of its messaging crumbling under the slightest bit of scrutiny (if it's supporters ever bothered to scrutinize what they are being indoctrinated by).
"Systemic racism" is a catch-all term for any and everything to do with race, applied ad hoc to whatever scenarios people would like changed, whether that's in the public and private school systems, our systems of law and the histories of great nations. No legal definition or even standard application of the word has been decided, and everyone has their own variation on what the word means. And yet, governmental bodies themselves and people are changing the way we act, talk and think in order to combat this vague THEORY (and I stress that word).
"Police brutality" has been a term applied to virtually any instance of law enforcement being applied with force (and sometimes even without it), specifically and especially in regards to any crime committed by someone of the black community. Repeated study after study of police shootings has disputed any notion of "racism" being a factor in police shootings, and yet the stereotype of "evil, racist police" continues to spread. Some studies have even shown the opposite to be true, that white officers are less likely to shoot black suspects, and adjusted for ratios in crime and population white suspects are more likely to be shot by cops (various studies to follow below). And yet, every time a black person is killed by police, regardless of whether or not they were resisting arrest or actively trying to hurt or kill other people, the "police brutality" and "racism" cards have been pulled to demonize lawful shootings to undermine the faith citizens have in their police and government.
Here are some facts and statistics (or what would probably be considered the real enemy to the blm movement...the truth).
In American cops make about 10,000,000 arrests a year. Those ten million arrests don't include detentions, traffic stops or any of the other peaceful public interactions that make up the remaining approximately 60,000,000 police and citizen contact every year. On average per year, only about 1,000 of those 70 MILLION people interacted with end up dead due to police. Yet, people act like their chances of dying at the hands of a cop are anything but minuscule. The entire blm narrative is built on the foundation of "police brutality" and "racism" that simply isn't reflected in reality.
We're not even going to begin to discuss how many of those 1,000 people killed by cops each year are armed and dangerous (which is the majority of cases), or how many of them aren’t black (also the majority). It's also important to note that in police reporting "unarmed" does not mean "not violent". We can even assume, for the sake of argument, that none of those 1,000 police killings each year are justified (even though the vast majority of them are). The ratio of unarmed black men shot and killed (23) in 2018 was 1 out of 67,334 black men arrested. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting, there were 686,665 sworn police officers in the United States in 2018. That’s one unarmed black male shot and killed for every 49,047 sworn police officers. Out of the nearly 47.8 million black Americans, the police have shot roughly one unarmed black male per roughly 2.1 million people.
The inevitable conversation that follows is that black people only represent 14% of the US population, how is it that they make up such a high number of overall police deaths**.** blm and it's supporters would like to propagate the idea that it's racism. Which fortunately has little factual basis in this topic. This is where we need to have those brutal, honest conversations that everyone claims to want to have regarding race (silence is violence after all), but nobody is actually allowed to discuss without being banned, canceled or called a racist nazi.
In the US, the American black population represents 53% of convicted murders, 29% of rapes, 54% of robberies, 33% of assaults, 43% of weapons charges, 29% of domestic abuse and 27% of drug abuse violations among others (continuing to over index in almost all areas of remaining crime). The vast majority of these crimes were conducted by males, meaning that half of the violent crime in America is committed by less than the roughly 6-7% of black men in the US. It's not only understandable but expected that there would be a higher degree of violence involved in these arrests, as usually the type of person that's being arrested for murder isn't likely to go without a fight, nor would they like to spend their lives in prison. Ignoring these facts is tantamount to delusion.
Almost all studies that conclude that black people are killed disproportionately fail to factor in crime rates into their models, whether on purpose to reach a desired conclusion or via a poor scientific process. Those are very relevant statistics that cannot be ignored when discussing police interactions with black people, nor can they be discarded in studies, as they help to explain why there is a disparity between the black population and arrests/deaths. Many who like to dismiss these figures do so by doing what they always do, and cry "racism", whether it's the mere use of these statistics or in the very core of every single arrest that makes up the data.
But simply hand-waving away the reason that there are so many violent interactions between the black community and the police due to "racism" is disingenuous and deliberate. The reasons behind those crime rates and why the black community is plagued by crime are extraordinarily complicated, and very well may contain elements of race and racism reaching back decades (such as the Welfare system and Jim Crow laws), but that’s an entirely separate conversation for another day unrelated to the premise of "police brutality towards blacks". The fact of the matter is, the black community has and will continue to have problems with overwhelming violence without real intervention, and its these problems that lead to further violent interactions with police.
Keeping the aforementioned statistics in mind, each year, American cops kill more white people, both in raw numbers and when adjusted for crime rates, than black people (note: the study has since been retracted due to public inference, however, the data included remains valid, even more studies with similar findings below). Only roughly .009% of all arrests ended with a civilian death regardless of race, and for every 10 deadly weapon assaults on a police officer there was as a result of 1 fatal police shooting, or in other words, even in encounters with deadly weapons police will only fatally shoot about 10% of the time. In fact, research done by the National Police Research Platform, only roughly 27% of those 680,000+ officers report ever even firing their gun on duty (which doesn't specifically entail actually shooting someone either, just the fact that they've shot their weapon). And yet the narrative of blood thirsty police persists.
Contrary to the black lives matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police.In 2015, black civil-rights commissioner Peter Kirsanow famously defended the police by acknowledging that a police officer is roughly 18.5x more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer, a number that's been repeated ad nauseam and is roughly supported by statistics year after year (it lowers to roughly 2.5x more likely for a cop to be killed by armed black males than the reverse). Factually, black males have made up nearly 50 percent of all cop-killers over the last decade even though they are only 6-7% of the overall population.
White people make up roughly over 50% of known race homicide victims, with caucasians representing roughly 76% of the total US population. Black people were 45% of known race homicide victims, but only 13% of the population. Which means the homicide rate for blacks was 3.5x their percentage of the US population, making them over five times as likely to be homicide victims.
According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics 2018 study, 15.3% of violent crimes against whites were committed by blacks for a total of 547,948 crimes, with violent black offenders being 1.8x their percent of the population. In contrast, whites committed 10.6% of violent crimes against blacks for a total of 59,777 crimes, making up 0.8x their percentage of the population. But of violent crime against black people, 70% of the time the offender was reported by the victim themselves as black, which is supportive of the epidemic of black-on-black violence increasing across the country. The offender to victim ratio shows that violent incidents involving black offenders (22%) was twice the percentage of black victims (11%).
Hate crime statistics actually show that in recent years, anti-black incidents overall fell to a recent record low share of all hate crime, while anti-white and other races have seen increases in hate crime towards them. Meanwhile hate crimes committed by black offenders continues to increase year over year, reaching a high of 24% of all reported hate crimes despite making up only 14% of the population. In major cities such as New York, black perpetrators make up the majority of hate crimes towards Jewish and LGBT people, again, despite the narrative that says black people are society's current victims of discrimination.
People need to stop acting like, just because they’re black, they’ll die if they interact with the cops or that white people are targeting black people with racism and hatred. Of course in a country of hundreds of millions of people there is going to be anti-black racism. But it certainly isn't to the degree in which activists like to perpetuate, such as it being a public health crisis. Statistics simply do not reflect any reality in which this absurdity is true, unless a concentrated effort is put into disqualifying and discounting data that opposes the narrative. If anything, the crime data, statistics on police shootings and the general modern societal zeitgeist would suggest an active and ongoing discrimination against whites. But hey, that's another topic for another day isn't it.
The questions that decent human beings need to seriously ask themselves in regards to police is, are you committing crimes? Are you going to resist if the cops try to arrest you? I would hope not for both of those questions. In 2020, there's no excuse for that level of ignorance. Therefore, your chances of dying at the hands of the police are virtually zero. But, the best part is, even if you are committing crimes and resisting arrest, your chances of dying at the hands of the police are still virtually zero, regardless of your skin color or particular demographic.That's the statistical fact. No matter how many slogans are chanted or how many times ACAB is gratified onto buildings, it doesn't suddenly mean the police are out to kill anyone.
The gaslighting from the media and the blm supporters claim that the violent actions of a "few" rioters do not represent most of the "peaceful group" (a courtesy not extended to the legitimately mostly peaceful police). The left-leaning Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project reports that in the summer of 2020 alone (not including the continued riots in September) there were 7,750+ demonstrations related to blm. Of those, over 1000 included some sort of assault on police and/or bystanders, arson or looting but yet were not declared riots.
Over 570 of those "peaceful protests" in 220 locations turned violent to the degree that they were declared riots. That's 570+ "mostly peaceful protests" barely covered by mainstream news, that seemingly most supporters of blm refuse to acknowledge even occurred, which included an estimated $2 billion dollars in damages (most of which isn't covered by insurance, done to local family businesses, many black owned), along with a few dozen related fatalities (including targeted, accidental and incidental, more to follow below) and countless incidents of arson, looting and assault against bystanders and police. ACLED also stated that of those demonstrations, only 5% of them have been met with force by police, which is obviously roughly the same percentage of "protests" that become violent riots.
Only of course the media and blm supporters would like you to believe that police (by way of "fascist" Trump) are arresting and attacking "peaceful protesters utilizing their 'freedom of speech'", which couldn't be further from the truth. The freedom of speech was designed to protect people from those who think violence is the solution to democratic problems. Inciting violence was written in as an exception to the amendment, in part so that people couldn't use strength against others to assert beliefs. There's legal and historical precedence for proper "freedom of speech" and "freedom to protest", and nobody should care about the personal interpretations of rioters and terrorists on those fundamental freedoms.
And yet here we are, in a society where the mainstream media, an extraordinarily vocal minority of citizens, multinational billion dollar businesses donating hundreds of millions to the cause that partially goes to fund rioters' bail from jail after arrests (multiple criminals who then went on to commit other murders), celebrities and sports teams are all siding with blm over blatantly false lies and misinformation. All the while supporting the notion that black people are being "oppressed and victimized". None of their opinions on equality, inclusive ideologies and the freedom of speech, actually extends to the mostly peaceful police officers, towards white people, or any other demographic that condemns these actions (such as the increasing number of liberals leaving the party #WalkAway, or the various minority groups now increasingly supporting Trump). People need to forgo emotional arguments for rational analysis, stop confusing correlation with causation, and understand the impact of confounding variables and their own bias in these discussions.
Because what is happening is society and the Regressive Left is fostering an environment based on hate in the name of acceptance, including the willful return of Segregation, Affirmative Action and identity politics based on race, the demand for reparations (despite the Welfare system predominately geared towards blacks, having spent $22 TRILLION in the past 50 years towards poverty, costing 3 times as much as all of America's wars since the Revolution), special considerations in academia (like lowered admission standards or testing requirements, even though more money is spent on additional education funding for black students than any other race, and racial quotas hurting Asian Americans), the desire to rid society of capitalism (while hypocritically selling copious amounts of branded merchandise), two parent households (which has now quietly been removed due to criticism) and the abolishment of police and prisons. Democrats and blm leaders have continually called for public violence, including attacks on police and white folks, with the demonization of white people as a sub-human race and as racist demons.
Compound this with the contrasting fact that nearly 80% of the black community not only disagrees with the notion of defunding the police, but a significant portion would like to see either the same amount or more police presence in their neighborhoods. As anyone who grew up in a crime ridden black community knows (such as myself), a lack of policing only hurts the people that soft-bellied liberals claim to want to help. If any of the organizations and rioters actually cared about black lives mattering, then they would be focusing on the real tragedies occurring within their own communities. Such as the uncontrolled black-on-black violence, drug use and absentee fathers, and not whatever viral case makes the news in order to further the political agenda. The black community that actually deals with the rampant violence and gangs realize that defunding police is tantamount to forfeiting their lives and the lives of loved ones.
If the two tenants of the blm and antifa supporters are based on "systemic racism" and "police brutality" and both are built on misinformation and lies, then what are all of the riots, looting, arson and murder actually for? Why as a society have we both allowed and endorsed these horrific actions to the point of normalcy? Why is it so difficult for liberals to disavow the actual closest things our generation has seen to Nazism?
Why does the violence inspired by the "blm cause" not count as extremism other than social bias of the people who believe in it (despite glaringly obvious examples that say otherwise)? Defenders would like to argue that just because these killers and anarchists believed in the blm narrative, doesn't mean they have killed all those cops or Trump supporters specifically for blm. And just because people aren't card carrying members of antifa, then obviously they aren't rioting specifically for antifa...it's all just a magical coincidence that they buy their branded t-shirts and wave their affiliated flags.
But yet, if an individual police officer happens to kill a black man in the line of duty, that's somehow representative of all officers and "systemic racism" according to these same groups. We wouldn't excuse this type of behavior if it had been done in the name of ISIS. We wouldn't judge an act of terrorism on whether or not it's followers actually traveled to Syria before stabbing someone in the throat. Like logical, intelligent human beings we would determine their guilt via their extremist beliefs and horrific actions, which at this point is undeniable despite the feverish attempts to deny virtually all of it (a relatively small list compared to all incidents of blm and antifa inspired attacks to follow).
When we have such divergent attitudes in the way the very cultures and people of various races approach life, are we still feigning surprise that there's a difference in terms of wealth, crime, education, economic or job status between races? Eventually we need to be honest and look at how people actually behave and how society functions, instead of playing pretend and arguing about microagressions and white fragility.
Allowing this toxic blm rhetoric continue in this state for political reasons is entirely the opposite of being respectful of other views and is a direct attack on democracy. The sheer unfathomable damage done for this "cause" will go down in history as one of the worst decisions our society has ever inflicted upon itself perpetuated by the willful ideological delusion of one political side and its ever increasingly unstable base. If there are any blm supporters still reading this, I implore you to reconsider your stance. You can be against racism and support the real black community without endorsing the hate and lies of the blm organization. There is no requirement to martyr violent criminals just because they died while being black.
Please. If you're honestly trying to do what's best for society and the real black families adversely affected, ensure you're not on the wrong side of history while doing it.
****
Edit: Please feel free to copy and paste this information where you see fit, I know not everyone interested in these conversations wants to do the leg-work and a lot of the discussions revert back to the same topics (crime rates, demographics, studies, etc). And rather than "own" a stupid Reddit post, I would rather see more people discussing the realities of this situation with the most concrete information.
****
2019 Study from Michigan State University and the University of Maryland via the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded: "We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers. Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race. This suggests that increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings" and "Examination of National Violent Death Reporting System data shows racial differences across types of fatal shootings. Black civilians fatally shot by police (relative to White civilians) are more likely to be unarmed and less likely to pose an immediate threat to officers. In contrast, White civilians (relative to Black civilians) are nearly three times more likely to be fatally shot by police when the incident is related to mental-health concerns and are seven times more likely to commit 'suicide by cop'".
Bonus points: the Vice President of Research & Innovation at Michigan was forced to resign partially due to his contrary findings that stated there was no racism in police shootings, which was among his other "racist science" that some faculty and students found offensive.
2018 Study from Michigan State and Arizona State University concluded: "When adjusting for crime, we find no systematic evidence of anti-Black disparities in fatal shootings, fatal shootings of unarmed citizens, or fatal shootings involving misidentification of harmless objects. Multiverse analyses showed only one significant anti-Black disparity of 144 possible tests. Exposure to police given crime rate differences likely accounts for the higher per capita rate of fatal police shootings for Blacks, at least when analyzing all shootings. For unarmed shootings or misidentification shootings, data are too uncertain to be conclusive."
2016 Study from Washington State University via American Society of Criminology concluded: "We found that, despite clear evidence of implicit bias against Black suspects, officers were slower to shoot armed Black suspects than armed White suspects, and they were less likely to shoot unarmed Black suspects than unarmed White suspects. These findings challenge the assumption that implicit racial bias affects police behavior in deadly encounters with Black suspects."
2016 Study from Harvard via the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded: "On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings."
2018 Follow-up Study from Harvard via the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded: "In stark contrast, Fryer (forthcoming) finds that, conditional on a police interaction, there are no racial differences in OIS on either the extensive or intensive margins. Using data from Houston, Texas – where I have both OIS and a randomly chosen set of interactions with police where lethal force may have been justified but was not used – I find, after controlling for suspect demographics, officer demographics, encounter characteristics, suspect weapon and year fixed effects, that blacks are 27.4 percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to non-black, non-Hispanics. Investigating the intensive margin – who shoots first in an encounter with police or how many bullets were discharged in the endeavor – there are no detectable racial differences."
2018 Study from Rutgars University and Kookmin University and Purdue College concluded: "This article aims to answer this question: are white police officers more likely to use lethal force on minority suspects or people of a specific race? To answer this question, the authors construct a data set of all confirmed uses of lethal force by police officers in the United States in 2014 and 2015. They find that although minority suspects are disproportionately killed by police, white officers appear to be no more likely to use lethal force against minorities than nonwhite officers"
2016 Study from the Pacific Institute of Research and Evaluation, Curtin University, University of Columbia found: "On average, an estimated 34 people were killed or medically treated for injury by law enforcement per 10 000 stops/arrests. That ratio is surprisingly consistent by race/ethnicity. Blacks have high arrest and stop rates, and per capita are much more likely than whites to die at the hands of police. However, when blacks are stopped or arrested, they are no more likely than whites to be injured or die during that incident.Consistent with our findings, simulation studies find police are no more likely to fire on unarmed blacks than unarmed whites, and high rates of black speeding citations per capita result from high violation rates. A systematic review identified 10 studies that found suspect race/ethnicity did not predict use of force or its escalation. However, one study found blacks were more likely than whites to face force during compliance checks. The PPCS survey also found that blacks were more likely to experience physical force and to perceive the threat of force during a stop, although few respondents actually were injured by the force applied. The large majority of incidents that those stopped perceived as undue force was stops where officers shouted at or threatened people, presumably to deter resistance."
submitted by IDislikeYourMeta to JordanPeterson [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:54 IDislikeYourMeta The black lives matter Movement is the Largest Scale Mass Hysteria Incident in Modern History - In Depth Discussion

The blm movement is going to be remembered as one of society's largest scale incidents of mass hysteria built on overt lies and hatred. By nature of their support, hundreds of thousands of otherwise good people are socially endorsing the violence that arises from these hateful "causes" based on utter fabrications.
The definition of terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
Whether you support their cause or not, both blm and antifa as organizations fit the literal definition of terrorism. If you don't call them that yourself, that's fine, until recently neither did the American government, but merely saying that they aren't terrorists because you might think they have a reason for their actions is a subjective opinion on something that is otherwise an objective fact. blm/antifa and their supporters are responsible for a great number of increasingly violent attacks in recent years targeted towards opposing views (namely white people and Trump supporters), where they've earned the ire that's currently directed towards them. It's time we collectively began to address these left-wing extremists for what they truly are.
black lives matter as both an organization and as a "social statement" were founded primarily on the basis of "systemic racism" and "police brutality". Both of which have very little merit outside of left-wing echochambers, with almost all of its messaging crumbling under the slightest bit of scrutiny (if it's supporters ever bothered to scrutinize what they are being indoctrinated by).
"Systemic racism" is a catch-all term for any and everything to do with race, applied ad hoc to whatever scenarios people would like changed, whether that's in the public and private school systems, our systems of law and the histories of great nations. No legal definition or even standard application of the word has been decided, and everyone has their own variation on what the word means. And yet, governmental bodies themselves and people are changing the way we act, talk and think in order to combat this vague THEORY (and I stress that word).
"Police brutality" has been a term applied to virtually any instance of law enforcement being applied with force (and sometimes even without it), specifically and especially in regards to any crime committed by someone of the black community. Repeated study after study of police shootings has disputed any notion of "racism" being a factor in police shootings, and yet the stereotype of "evil, racist police" continues to spread. Some studies have even shown the opposite to be true, that white officers are less likely to shoot black suspects, and adjusted for ratios in crime and population white suspects are more likely to be shot by cops (various studies to follow below). And yet, every time a black person is killed by police, regardless of whether or not they were resisting arrest or actively trying to hurt or kill other people, the "police brutality" and "racism" cards have been pulled to demonize lawful shootings to undermine the faith citizens have in their police and government.
Here are some facts and statistics (or what would probably be considered the real enemy to the blm movement...the truth).
In American cops make about 10,000,000 arrests a year. Those ten million arrests don't include detentions, traffic stops or any of the other peaceful public interactions that make up the remaining approximately 60,000,000 police and citizen contact every year. On average per year, only about 1,000 of those 70 MILLION people interacted with end up dead due to police. Yet, people act like their chances of dying at the hands of a cop are anything but minuscule. The entire blm narrative is built on the foundation of "police brutality" and "racism" that simply isn't reflected in reality.
We're not even going to begin to discuss how many of those 1,000 people killed by cops each year are armed and dangerous (which is the majority of cases), or how many of them aren’t black (also the majority). It's also important to note that in police reporting "unarmed" does not mean "not violent". We can even assume, for the sake of argument, that none of those 1,000 police killings each year are justified (even though the vast majority of them are). The ratio of unarmed black men shot and killed (23) in 2018 was 1 out of 67,334 black men arrested. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting, there were 686,665 sworn police officers in the United States in 2018. That’s one unarmed black male shot and killed for every 49,047 sworn police officers. Out of the nearly 47.8 million black Americans, the police have shot roughly one unarmed black male per roughly 2.1 million people.
The inevitable conversation that follows is that black people only represent 14% of the US population, how is it that they make up such a high number of overall police deaths**.** blm and it's supporters would like to propagate the idea that it's racism. Which fortunately has little factual basis in this topic. This is where we need to have those brutal, honest conversations that everyone claims to want to have regarding race (silence is violence after all), but nobody is actually allowed to discuss without being banned, canceled or called a racist nazi.
In the US, the American black population represents 53% of convicted murders, 29% of rapes, 54% of robberies, 33% of assaults, 43% of weapons charges, 29% of domestic abuse and 27% of drug abuse violations among others (continuing to over index in almost all areas of remaining crime). The vast majority of these crimes were conducted by males, meaning that half of the violent crime in America is committed by less than the roughly 6-7% of black men in the US. It's not only understandable but expected that there would be a higher degree of violence involved in these arrests, as usually the type of person that's being arrested for murder isn't likely to go without a fight, nor would they like to spend their lives in prison. Ignoring these facts is tantamount to delusion.
Almost all studies that conclude that black people are killed disproportionately fail to factor in crime rates into their models, whether on purpose to reach a desired conclusion or via a poor scientific process. Those are very relevant statistics that cannot be ignored when discussing police interactions with black people, nor can they be discarded in studies, as they help to explain why there is a disparity between the black population and arrests/deaths. Many who like to dismiss these figures do so by doing what they always do, and cry "racism", whether it's the mere use of these statistics or in the very core of every single arrest that makes up the data.
But simply hand-waving away the reason that there are so many violent interactions between the black community and the police due to "racism" is disingenuous and deliberate. The reasons behind those crime rates and why the black community is plagued by crime are extraordinarily complicated, and very well may contain elements of race and racism reaching back decades (such as the Welfare system and Jim Crow laws), but that’s an entirely separate conversation for another day unrelated to the premise of "police brutality towards blacks". The fact of the matter is, the black community has and will continue to have problems with overwhelming violence without real intervention, and its these problems that lead to further violent interactions with police.
Keeping the aforementioned statistics in mind, each year, American cops kill more white people, both in raw numbers and when adjusted for crime rates, than black people (note: the study has since been retracted due to public inference, however, the data included remains valid, even more studies with similar findings below). Only roughly .009% of all arrests ended with a civilian death regardless of race, and for every 10 deadly weapon assaults on a police officer there was as a result of 1 fatal police shooting, or in other words, even in encounters with deadly weapons police will only fatally shoot about 10% of the time. In fact, research done by the National Police Research Platform, only roughly 27% of those 680,000+ officers report ever even firing their gun on duty (which doesn't specifically entail actually shooting someone either, just the fact that they've shot their weapon). And yet the narrative of blood thirsty police persists.
Contrary to the black lives matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police.In 2015, black civil-rights commissioner Peter Kirsanow famously defended the police by acknowledging that a police officer is roughly 18.5x more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer, a number that's been repeated ad nauseam and is roughly supported by statistics year after year (it lowers to roughly 2.5x more likely for a cop to be killed by armed black males than the reverse). Factually, black males have made up nearly 50 percent of all cop-killers over the last decade even though they are only 6-7% of the overall population.
White people make up roughly over 50% of known race homicide victims, with caucasians representing roughly 76% of the total US population. Black people were 45% of known race homicide victims, but only 13% of the population. Which means the homicide rate for blacks was 3.5x their percentage of the US population, making them over five times as likely to be homicide victims.
According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics 2018 study, 15.3% of violent crimes against whites were committed by blacks for a total of 547,948 crimes, with violent black offenders being 1.8x their percent of the population. In contrast, whites committed 10.6% of violent crimes against blacks for a total of 59,777 crimes, making up 0.8x their percentage of the population. But of violent crime against black people, 70% of the time the offender was reported by the victim themselves as black, which is supportive of the epidemic of black-on-black violence increasing across the country. The offender to victim ratio shows that violent incidents involving black offenders (22%) was twice the percentage of black victims (11%).
Hate crime statistics actually show that in recent years, anti-black incidents overall fell to a recent record low share of all hate crime, while anti-white and other races have seen increases in hate crime towards them. Meanwhile hate crimes committed by black offenders continues to increase year over year, reaching a high of 24% of all reported hate crimes despite making up only 14% of the population. In major cities such as New York, black perpetrators make up the majority of hate crimes towards Jewish and LGBT people, again, despite the narrative that says black people are society's current victims of discrimination.
People need to stop acting like, just because they’re black, they’ll die if they interact with the cops or that white people are targeting black people with racism and hatred. Of course in a country of hundreds of millions of people there is going to be anti-black racism. But it certainly isn't to the degree in which activists like to perpetuate, such as it being a public health crisis. Statistics simply do not reflect any reality in which this absurdity is true, unless a concentrated effort is put into disqualifying and discounting data that opposes the narrative. If anything, the crime data, statistics on police shootings and the general modern societal zeitgeist would suggest an active and ongoing discrimination against whites. But hey, that's another topic for another day isn't it.
The questions that decent human beings need to seriously ask themselves in regards to police is, are you committing crimes? Are you going to resist if the cops try to arrest you? I would hope not for both of those questions. In 2020, there's no excuse for that level of ignorance. Therefore, your chances of dying at the hands of the police are virtually zero. But, the best part is, even if you are committing crimes and resisting arrest, your chances of dying at the hands of the police are still virtually zero, regardless of your skin color or particular demographic.That's the statistical fact. No matter how many slogans are chanted or how many times ACAB is gratified onto buildings, it doesn't suddenly mean the police are out to kill anyone.
The gaslighting from the media and the blm supporters claim that the violent actions of a "few" rioters do not represent most of the "peaceful group" (a courtesy not extended to the legitimately mostly peaceful police). The left-leaning Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project reports that in the summer of 2020 alone (not including the continued riots in September) there were 7,750+ demonstrations related to blm. Of those, over 1000 included some sort of assault on police and/or bystanders, arson or looting but yet were not declared riots.
Over 570 of those "peaceful protests" in 220 locations turned violent to the degree that they were declared riots. That's 570+ "mostly peaceful protests" barely covered by mainstream news, that seemingly most supporters of blm refuse to acknowledge even occurred, which included an estimated $2 billion dollars in damages (most of which isn't covered by insurance, done to local family businesses, many black owned), along with a few dozen related fatalities (including targeted, accidental and incidental, more to follow below) and countless incidents of arson, looting and assault against bystanders and police. ACLED also stated that of those demonstrations, only 5% of them have been met with force by police, which is obviously roughly the same percentage of "protests" that become violent riots.
Only of course the media and blm supporters would like you to believe that police (by way of "fascist" Trump) are arresting and attacking "peaceful protesters utilizing their 'freedom of speech'", which couldn't be further from the truth. The freedom of speech was designed to protect people from those who think violence is the solution to democratic problems. Inciting violence was written in as an exception to the amendment, in part so that people couldn't use strength against others to assert beliefs. There's legal and historical precedence for proper "freedom of speech" and "freedom to protest", and nobody should care about the personal interpretations of rioters and terrorists on those fundamental freedoms.
And yet here we are, in a society where the mainstream media, an extraordinarily vocal minority of citizens, multinational billion dollar businesses donating hundreds of millions to the cause that partially goes to fund rioters' bail from jail after arrests (multiple criminals who then went on to commit other murders), celebrities and sports teams are all siding with blm over blatantly false lies and misinformation. All the while supporting the notion that black people are being "oppressed and victimized". None of their opinions on equality, inclusive ideologies and the freedom of speech, actually extends to the mostly peaceful police officers, towards white people, or any other demographic that condemns these actions (such as the increasing number of liberals leaving the party #WalkAway, or the various minority groups now increasingly supporting Trump). People need to forgo emotional arguments for rational analysis, stop confusing correlation with causation, and understand the impact of confounding variables and their own bias in these discussions.
Because what is happening is society and the Regressive Left is fostering an environment based on hate in the name of acceptance, including the willful return of Segregation, Affirmative Action and identity politics based on race, the demand for reparations (despite the Welfare system predominately geared towards blacks, having spent $22 TRILLION in the past 50 years towards poverty, costing 3 times as much as all of America's wars since the Revolution), special considerations in academia (like lowered admission standards or testing requirements, even though more money is spent on additional education funding for black students than any other race, and racial quotas hurting Asian Americans), the desire to rid society of capitalism (while hypocritically selling copious amounts of branded merchandise), two parent households (which has now quietly been removed due to criticism) and the abolishment of police and prisons. Democrats and blm leaders have continually called for public violence, including attacks on police and white folks, with the demonization of white people as a sub-human race and as racist demons.
Compound this with the contrasting fact that nearly 80% of the black community not only disagrees with the notion of defunding the police, but a significant portion would like to see either the same amount or more police presence in their neighborhoods. As anyone who grew up in a crime ridden black community knows (such as myself), a lack of policing only hurts the people that soft-bellied liberals claim to want to help. If any of the organizations and rioters actually cared about black lives mattering, then they would be focusing on the real tragedies occurring within their own communities. Such as the uncontrolled black-on-black violence, drug use and absentee fathers, and not whatever viral case makes the news in order to further the political agenda. The black community that actually deals with the rampant violence and gangs realize that defunding police is tantamount to forfeiting their lives and the lives of loved ones.
If the two tenants of the blm and antifa supporters are based on "systemic racism" and "police brutality" and both are built on misinformation and lies, then what are all of the riots, looting, arson and murder actually for? Why as a society have we both allowed and endorsed these horrific actions to the point of normalcy? Why is it so difficult for liberals to disavow the actual closest things our generation has seen to Nazism?
Why does the violence inspired by the "blm cause" not count as extremism other than social bias of the people who believe in it (despite glaringly obvious examples that say otherwise)? Defenders would like to argue that just because these killers and anarchists believed in the blm narrative, doesn't mean they have killed all those cops or Trump supporters specifically for blm. And just because people aren't card carrying members of antifa, then obviously they aren't rioting specifically for antifa...it's all just a magical coincidence that they buy their branded t-shirts and wave their affiliated flags.
But yet, if an individual police officer happens to kill a black man in the line of duty, that's somehow representative of all officers and "systemic racism" according to these same groups. We wouldn't excuse this type of behavior if it had been done in the name of ISIS. We wouldn't judge an act of terrorism on whether or not it's followers actually traveled to Syria before stabbing someone in the throat. Like logical, intelligent human beings we would determine their guilt via their extremist beliefs and horrific actions, which at this point is undeniable despite the feverish attempts to deny virtually all of it (a relatively small list compared to all incidents of blm and antifa inspired attacks to follow).
When we have such divergent attitudes in the way the very cultures and people of various races approach life, are we still feigning surprise that there's a difference in terms of wealth, crime, education, economic or job status between races? Eventually we need to be honest and look at how people actually behave and how society functions, instead of playing pretend and arguing about microagressions and white fragility.
Allowing this toxic blm rhetoric continue in this state for political reasons is entirely the opposite of being respectful of other views and is a direct attack on democracy. The sheer unfathomable damage done for this "cause" will go down in history as one of the worst decisions our society has ever inflicted upon itself perpetuated by the willful ideological delusion of one political side and its ever increasingly unstable base. If there are any blm supporters still reading this, I implore you to reconsider your stance. You can be against racism and support the real black community without endorsing the hate and lies of the blm organization. There is no requirement to martyr violent criminals just because they died while being black.
Please. If you're honestly trying to do what's best for society and the real black families adversely affected, ensure you're not on the wrong side of history while doing it.
****
Edit: Please feel free to copy and paste this information where you see fit, I know not everyone interested in these conversations wants to do the leg-work and a lot of the discussions revert back to the same topics (crime rates, demographics, studies, etc). And rather than "own" a stupid Reddit post, I would rather see more people discussing the realities of this situation with the most concrete information.
****
2019 Study from Michigan State University and the University of Maryland via the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded: "We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers. Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race. This suggests that increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings" and "Examination of National Violent Death Reporting System data shows racial differences across types of fatal shootings. Black civilians fatally shot by police (relative to White civilians) are more likely to be unarmed and less likely to pose an immediate threat to officers. In contrast, White civilians (relative to Black civilians) are nearly three times more likely to be fatally shot by police when the incident is related to mental-health concerns and are seven times more likely to commit 'suicide by cop'".
Bonus points: the Vice President of Research & Innovation at Michigan was forced to resign partially due to his contrary findings that stated there was no racism in police shootings, which was among his other "racist science" that some faculty and students found offensive.
2018 Study from Michigan State and Arizona State University concluded: "When adjusting for crime, we find no systematic evidence of anti-Black disparities in fatal shootings, fatal shootings of unarmed citizens, or fatal shootings involving misidentification of harmless objects. Multiverse analyses showed only one significant anti-Black disparity of 144 possible tests. Exposure to police given crime rate differences likely accounts for the higher per capita rate of fatal police shootings for Blacks, at least when analyzing all shootings. For unarmed shootings or misidentification shootings, data are too uncertain to be conclusive."
2016 Study from Washington State University via American Society of Criminology concluded: "We found that, despite clear evidence of implicit bias against Black suspects, officers were slower to shoot armed Black suspects than armed White suspects, and they were less likely to shoot unarmed Black suspects than unarmed White suspects. These findings challenge the assumption that implicit racial bias affects police behavior in deadly encounters with Black suspects."
2016 Study from Harvard via the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded: "On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings."
2018 Follow-up Study from Harvard via the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded: "In stark contrast, Fryer (forthcoming) finds that, conditional on a police interaction, there are no racial differences in OIS on either the extensive or intensive margins. Using data from Houston, Texas – where I have both OIS and a randomly chosen set of interactions with police where lethal force may have been justified but was not used – I find, after controlling for suspect demographics, officer demographics, encounter characteristics, suspect weapon and year fixed effects, that blacks are 27.4 percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to non-black, non-Hispanics. Investigating the intensive margin – who shoots first in an encounter with police or how many bullets were discharged in the endeavor – there are no detectable racial differences."
2018 Study from Rutgars University and Kookmin University and Purdue College concluded: "This article aims to answer this question: are white police officers more likely to use lethal force on minority suspects or people of a specific race? To answer this question, the authors construct a data set of all confirmed uses of lethal force by police officers in the United States in 2014 and 2015. They find that although minority suspects are disproportionately killed by police, white officers appear to be no more likely to use lethal force against minorities than nonwhite officers"
2016 Study from the Pacific Institute of Research and Evaluation, Curtin University, University of Columbia found: "On average, an estimated 34 people were killed or medically treated for injury by law enforcement per 10 000 stops/arrests. That ratio is surprisingly consistent by race/ethnicity. Blacks have high arrest and stop rates, and per capita are much more likely than whites to die at the hands of police. However, when blacks are stopped or arrested, they are no more likely than whites to be injured or die during that incident.Consistent with our findings, simulation studies find police are no more likely to fire on unarmed blacks than unarmed whites, and high rates of black speeding citations per capita result from high violation rates. A systematic review identified 10 studies that found suspect race/ethnicity did not predict use of force or its escalation. However, one study found blacks were more likely than whites to face force during compliance checks. The PPCS survey also found that blacks were more likely to experience physical force and to perceive the threat of force during a stop, although few respondents actually were injured by the force applied. The large majority of incidents that those stopped perceived as undue force was stops where officers shouted at or threatened people, presumably to deter resistance."
submitted by IDislikeYourMeta to FreeSpeech [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:53 IDislikeYourMeta The black lives matter Movement is the Largest Scale Mass Hysteria Incident in Modern History - In Depth Discussion

The blm movement is going to be remembered as one of society's largest scale incidents of mass hysteria built on overt lies and hatred. By nature of their support, hundreds of thousands of otherwise good people are socially endorsing the violence that arises from these hateful "causes" based on utter fabrications.
The definition of terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
Whether you support their cause or not, both blm and antifa as organizations fit the literal definition of terrorism. If you don't call them that yourself, that's fine, until recently neither did the American government, but merely saying that they aren't terrorists because you might think they have a reason for their actions is a subjective opinion on something that is otherwise an objective fact. blm/antifa and their supporters are responsible for a great number of increasingly violent attacks in recent years targeted towards opposing views (namely white people and Trump supporters), where they've earned the ire that's currently directed towards them. It's time we collectively began to address these left-wing extremists for what they truly are.
black lives matter as both an organization and as a "social statement" were founded primarily on the basis of "systemic racism" and "police brutality". Both of which have very little merit outside of left-wing echochambers, with almost all of its messaging crumbling under the slightest bit of scrutiny (if it's supporters ever bothered to scrutinize what they are being indoctrinated by).
"Systemic racism" is a catch-all term for any and everything to do with race, applied ad hoc to whatever scenarios people would like changed, whether that's in the public and private school systems, our systems of law and the histories of great nations. No legal definition or even standard application of the word has been decided, and everyone has their own variation on what the word means. And yet, governmental bodies themselves and people are changing the way we act, talk and think in order to combat this vague THEORY (and I stress that word).
"Police brutality" has been a term applied to virtually any instance of law enforcement being applied with force (and sometimes even without it), specifically and especially in regards to any crime committed by someone of the black community. Repeated study after study of police shootings has disputed any notion of "racism" being a factor in police shootings, and yet the stereotype of "evil, racist police" continues to spread. Some studies have even shown the opposite to be true, that white officers are less likely to shoot black suspects, and adjusted for ratios in crime and population white suspects are more likely to be shot by cops (various studies to follow below). And yet, every time a black person is killed by police, regardless of whether or not they were resisting arrest or actively trying to hurt or kill other people, the "police brutality" and "racism" cards have been pulled to demonize lawful shootings to undermine the faith citizens have in their police and government.
Here are some facts and statistics (or what would probably be considered the real enemy to the blm movement...the truth).
In American cops make about 10,000,000 arrests a year. Those ten million arrests don't include detentions, traffic stops or any of the other peaceful public interactions that make up the remaining approximately 60,000,000 police and citizen contact every year. On average per year, only about 1,000 of those 70 MILLION people interacted with end up dead due to police. Yet, people act like their chances of dying at the hands of a cop are anything but minuscule. The entire blm narrative is built on the foundation of "police brutality" and "racism" that simply isn't reflected in reality.
We're not even going to begin to discuss how many of those 1,000 people killed by cops each year are armed and dangerous (which is the majority of cases), or how many of them aren’t black (also the majority). It's also important to note that in police reporting "unarmed" does not mean "not violent". We can even assume, for the sake of argument, that none of those 1,000 police killings each year are justified (even though the vast majority of them are). The ratio of unarmed black men shot and killed (23) in 2018 was 1 out of 67,334 black men arrested. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting, there were 686,665 sworn police officers in the United States in 2018. That’s one unarmed black male shot and killed for every 49,047 sworn police officers. Out of the nearly 47.8 million black Americans, the police have shot roughly one unarmed black male per roughly 2.1 million people.
The inevitable conversation that follows is that black people only represent 14% of the US population, how is it that they make up such a high number of overall police deaths**.** blm and it's supporters would like to propagate the idea that it's racism. Which fortunately has little factual basis in this topic. This is where we need to have those brutal, honest conversations that everyone claims to want to have regarding race (silence is violence after all), but nobody is actually allowed to discuss without being banned, canceled or called a racist nazi.
In the US, the American black population represents 53% of convicted murders, 29% of rapes, 54% of robberies, 33% of assaults, 43% of weapons charges, 29% of domestic abuse and 27% of drug abuse violations among others (continuing to over index in almost all areas of remaining crime). The vast majority of these crimes were conducted by males, meaning that half of the violent crime in America is committed by less than the roughly 6-7% of black men in the US. It's not only understandable but expected that there would be a higher degree of violence involved in these arrests, as usually the type of person that's being arrested for murder isn't likely to go without a fight, nor would they like to spend their lives in prison. Ignoring these facts is tantamount to delusion.
Almost all studies that conclude that black people are killed disproportionately fail to factor in crime rates into their models, whether on purpose to reach a desired conclusion or via a poor scientific process. Those are very relevant statistics that cannot be ignored when discussing police interactions with black people, nor can they be discarded in studies, as they help to explain why there is a disparity between the black population and arrests/deaths. Many who like to dismiss these figures do so by doing what they always do, and cry "racism", whether it's the mere use of these statistics or in the very core of every single arrest that makes up the data.
But simply hand-waving away the reason that there are so many violent interactions between the black community and the police due to "racism" is disingenuous and deliberate. The reasons behind those crime rates and why the black community is plagued by crime are extraordinarily complicated, and very well may contain elements of race and racism reaching back decades (such as the Welfare system and Jim Crow laws), but that’s an entirely separate conversation for another day unrelated to the premise of "police brutality towards blacks". The fact of the matter is, the black community has and will continue to have problems with overwhelming violence without real intervention, and its these problems that lead to further violent interactions with police.
Keeping the aforementioned statistics in mind, each year, American cops kill more white people, both in raw numbers and when adjusted for crime rates, than black people (note: the study has since been retracted due to public inference, however, the data included remains valid, even more studies with similar findings below). Only roughly .009% of all arrests ended with a civilian death regardless of race, and for every 10 deadly weapon assaults on a police officer there was as a result of 1 fatal police shooting, or in other words, even in encounters with deadly weapons police will only fatally shoot about 10% of the time. In fact, research done by the National Police Research Platform, only roughly 27% of those 680,000+ officers report ever even firing their gun on duty (which doesn't specifically entail actually shooting someone either, just the fact that they've shot their weapon). And yet the narrative of blood thirsty police persists.
Contrary to the black lives matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police.In 2015, black civil-rights commissioner Peter Kirsanow famously defended the police by acknowledging that a police officer is roughly 18.5x more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer, a number that's been repeated ad nauseam and is roughly supported by statistics year after year (it lowers to roughly 2.5x more likely for a cop to be killed by armed black males than the reverse). Factually, black males have made up nearly 50 percent of all cop-killers over the last decade even though they are only 6-7% of the overall population.
White people make up roughly over 50% of known race homicide victims, with caucasians representing roughly 76% of the total US population. Black people were 45% of known race homicide victims, but only 13% of the population. Which means the homicide rate for blacks was 3.5x their percentage of the US population, making them over five times as likely to be homicide victims.
According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics 2018 study, 15.3% of violent crimes against whites were committed by blacks for a total of 547,948 crimes, with violent black offenders being 1.8x their percent of the population. In contrast, whites committed 10.6% of violent crimes against blacks for a total of 59,777 crimes, making up 0.8x their percentage of the population. But of violent crime against black people, 70% of the time the offender was reported by the victim themselves as black, which is supportive of the epidemic of black-on-black violence increasing across the country. The offender to victim ratio shows that violent incidents involving black offenders (22%) was twice the percentage of black victims (11%).
Hate crime statistics actually show that in recent years, anti-black incidents overall fell to a recent record low share of all hate crime, while anti-white and other races have seen increases in hate crime towards them. Meanwhile hate crimes committed by black offenders continues to increase year over year, reaching a high of 24% of all reported hate crimes despite making up only 14% of the population. In major cities such as New York, black perpetrators make up the majority of hate crimes towards Jewish and LGBT people, again, despite the narrative that says black people are society's current victims of discrimination.
People need to stop acting like, just because they’re black, they’ll die if they interact with the cops or that white people are targeting black people with racism and hatred. Of course in a country of hundreds of millions of people there is going to be anti-black racism. But it certainly isn't to the degree in which activists like to perpetuate, such as it being a public health crisis. Statistics simply do not reflect any reality in which this absurdity is true, unless a concentrated effort is put into disqualifying and discounting data that opposes the narrative. If anything, the crime data, statistics on police shootings and the general modern societal zeitgeist would suggest an active and ongoing discrimination against whites. But hey, that's another topic for another day isn't it.
The questions that decent human beings need to seriously ask themselves in regards to police is, are you committing crimes? Are you going to resist if the cops try to arrest you? I would hope not for both of those questions. In 2020, there's no excuse for that level of ignorance. Therefore, your chances of dying at the hands of the police are virtually zero. But, the best part is, even if you are committing crimes and resisting arrest, your chances of dying at the hands of the police are still virtually zero, regardless of your skin color or particular demographic.That's the statistical fact. No matter how many slogans are chanted or how many times ACAB is gratified onto buildings, it doesn't suddenly mean the police are out to kill anyone.
The gaslighting from the media and the blm supporters claim that the violent actions of a "few" rioters do not represent most of the "peaceful group" (a courtesy not extended to the legitimately mostly peaceful police). The left-leaning Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project reports that in the summer of 2020 alone (not including the continued riots in September) there were 7,750+ demonstrations related to blm. Of those, over 1000 included some sort of assault on police and/or bystanders, arson or looting but yet were not declared riots.
Over 570 of those "peaceful protests" in 220 locations turned violent to the degree that they were declared riots. That's 570+ "mostly peaceful protests" barely covered by mainstream news, that seemingly most supporters of blm refuse to acknowledge even occurred, which included an estimated $2 billion dollars in damages (most of which isn't covered by insurance, done to local family businesses, many black owned), along with a few dozen related fatalities (including targeted, accidental and incidental, more to follow below) and countless incidents of arson, looting and assault against bystanders and police. ACLED also stated that of those demonstrations, only 5% of them have been met with force by police, which is obviously roughly the same percentage of "protests" that become violent riots.
Only of course the media and blm supporters would like you to believe that police (by way of "fascist" Trump) are arresting and attacking "peaceful protesters utilizing their 'freedom of speech'", which couldn't be further from the truth. The freedom of speech was designed to protect people from those who think violence is the solution to democratic problems. Inciting violence was written in as an exception to the amendment, in part so that people couldn't use strength against others to assert beliefs. There's legal and historical precedence for proper "freedom of speech" and "freedom to protest", and nobody should care about the personal interpretations of rioters and terrorists on those fundamental freedoms.
And yet here we are, in a society where the mainstream media, an extraordinarily vocal minority of citizens, multinational billion dollar businesses donating hundreds of millions to the cause that partially goes to fund rioters' bail from jail after arrests (multiple criminals who then went on to commit other murders), celebrities and sports teams are all siding with blm over blatantly false lies and misinformation. All the while supporting the notion that black people are being "oppressed and victimized". None of their opinions on equality, inclusive ideologies and the freedom of speech, actually extends to the mostly peaceful police officers, towards white people, or any other demographic that condemns these actions (such as the increasing number of liberals leaving the party #WalkAway, or the various minority groups now increasingly supporting Trump). People need to forgo emotional arguments for rational analysis, stop confusing correlation with causation, and understand the impact of confounding variables and their own bias in these discussions.
Because what is happening is society and the Regressive Left is fostering an environment based on hate in the name of acceptance, including the willful return of Segregation, Affirmative Action and identity politics based on race, the demand for reparations (despite the Welfare system predominately geared towards blacks, having spent $22 TRILLION in the past 50 years towards poverty, costing 3 times as much as all of America's wars since the Revolution), special considerations in academia (like lowered admission standards or testing requirements, even though more money is spent on additional education funding for black students than any other race, and racial quotas hurting Asian Americans), the desire to rid society of capitalism (while hypocritically selling copious amounts of branded merchandise), two parent households (which has now quietly been removed due to criticism) and the abolishment of police and prisons. Democrats and blm leaders have continually called for public violence, including attacks on police and white folks, with the demonization of white people as a sub-human race and as racist demons.
Compound this with the contrasting fact that nearly 80% of the black community not only disagrees with the notion of defunding the police, but a significant portion would like to see either the same amount or more police presence in their neighborhoods. As anyone who grew up in a crime ridden black community knows (such as myself), a lack of policing only hurts the people that soft-bellied liberals claim to want to help. If any of the organizations and rioters actually cared about black lives mattering, then they would be focusing on the real tragedies occurring within their own communities. Such as the uncontrolled black-on-black violence, drug use and absentee fathers, and not whatever viral case makes the news in order to further the political agenda. The black community that actually deals with the rampant violence and gangs realize that defunding police is tantamount to forfeiting their lives and the lives of loved ones.
If the two tenants of the blm and antifa supporters are based on "systemic racism" and "police brutality" and both are built on misinformation and lies, then what are all of the riots, looting, arson and murder actually for? Why as a society have we both allowed and endorsed these horrific actions to the point of normalcy? Why is it so difficult for liberals to disavow the actual closest things our generation has seen to Nazism?
Why does the violence inspired by the "blm cause" not count as extremism other than social bias of the people who believe in it (despite glaringly obvious examples that say otherwise)? Defenders would like to argue that just because these killers and anarchists believed in the blm narrative, doesn't mean they have killed all those cops or Trump supporters specifically for blm. And just because people aren't card carrying members of antifa, then obviously they aren't rioting specifically for antifa...it's all just a magical coincidence that they buy their branded t-shirts and wave their affiliated flags.
But yet, if an individual police officer happens to kill a black man in the line of duty, that's somehow representative of all officers and "systemic racism" according to these same groups. We wouldn't excuse this type of behavior if it had been done in the name of ISIS. We wouldn't judge an act of terrorism on whether or not it's followers actually traveled to Syria before stabbing someone in the throat. Like logical, intelligent human beings we would determine their guilt via their extremist beliefs and horrific actions, which at this point is undeniable despite the feverish attempts to deny virtually all of it (a relatively small list compared to all incidents of blm and antifa inspired attacks to follow).
When we have such divergent attitudes in the way the very cultures and people of various races approach life, are we still feigning surprise that there's a difference in terms of wealth, crime, education, economic or job status between races? Eventually we need to be honest and look at how people actually behave and how society functions, instead of playing pretend and arguing about microagressions and white fragility.
Allowing this toxic blm rhetoric continue in this state for political reasons is entirely the opposite of being respectful of other views and is a direct attack on democracy. The sheer unfathomable damage done for this "cause" will go down in history as one of the worst decisions our society has ever inflicted upon itself perpetuated by the willful ideological delusion of one political side and its ever increasingly unstable base. If there are any blm supporters still reading this, I implore you to reconsider your stance. You can be against racism and support the real black community without endorsing the hate and lies of the blm organization. There is no requirement to martyr violent criminals just because they died while being black.
Please. If you're honestly trying to do what's best for society and the real black families adversely affected, ensure you're not on the wrong side of history while doing it.
****
Edit: Please feel free to copy and paste this information where you see fit, I know not everyone interested in these conversations wants to do the leg-work and a lot of the discussions revert back to the same topics (crime rates, demographics, studies, etc). And rather than "own" a stupid Reddit post, I would rather see more people discussing the realities of this situation with the most concrete information.
****
2019 Study from Michigan State University and the University of Maryland via the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded: "We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers. Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race. This suggests that increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings" and "Examination of National Violent Death Reporting System data shows racial differences across types of fatal shootings. Black civilians fatally shot by police (relative to White civilians) are more likely to be unarmed and less likely to pose an immediate threat to officers. In contrast, White civilians (relative to Black civilians) are nearly three times more likely to be fatally shot by police when the incident is related to mental-health concerns and are seven times more likely to commit 'suicide by cop'".
Bonus points: the Vice President of Research & Innovation at Michigan was forced to resign partially due to his contrary findings that stated there was no racism in police shootings, which was among his other "racist science" that some faculty and students found offensive.
2018 Study from Michigan State and Arizona State University concluded: "When adjusting for crime, we find no systematic evidence of anti-Black disparities in fatal shootings, fatal shootings of unarmed citizens, or fatal shootings involving misidentification of harmless objects. Multiverse analyses showed only one significant anti-Black disparity of 144 possible tests. Exposure to police given crime rate differences likely accounts for the higher per capita rate of fatal police shootings for Blacks, at least when analyzing all shootings. For unarmed shootings or misidentification shootings, data are too uncertain to be conclusive."
2016 Study from Washington State University via American Society of Criminology concluded: "We found that, despite clear evidence of implicit bias against Black suspects, officers were slower to shoot armed Black suspects than armed White suspects, and they were less likely to shoot unarmed Black suspects than unarmed White suspects. These findings challenge the assumption that implicit racial bias affects police behavior in deadly encounters with Black suspects."
2016 Study from Harvard via the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded: "On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings."
2018 Follow-up Study from Harvard via the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded: "In stark contrast, Fryer (forthcoming) finds that, conditional on a police interaction, there are no racial differences in OIS on either the extensive or intensive margins. Using data from Houston, Texas – where I have both OIS and a randomly chosen set of interactions with police where lethal force may have been justified but was not used – I find, after controlling for suspect demographics, officer demographics, encounter characteristics, suspect weapon and year fixed effects, that blacks are 27.4 percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to non-black, non-Hispanics. Investigating the intensive margin – who shoots first in an encounter with police or how many bullets were discharged in the endeavor – there are no detectable racial differences."
2018 Study from Rutgars University and Kookmin University and Purdue College concluded: "This article aims to answer this question: are white police officers more likely to use lethal force on minority suspects or people of a specific race? To answer this question, the authors construct a data set of all confirmed uses of lethal force by police officers in the United States in 2014 and 2015. They find that although minority suspects are disproportionately killed by police, white officers appear to be no more likely to use lethal force against minorities than nonwhite officers"
2016 Study from the Pacific Institute of Research and Evaluation, Curtin University, University of Columbia found: "On average, an estimated 34 people were killed or medically treated for injury by law enforcement per 10 000 stops/arrests. That ratio is surprisingly consistent by race/ethnicity. Blacks have high arrest and stop rates, and per capita are much more likely than whites to die at the hands of police. However, when blacks are stopped or arrested, they are no more likely than whites to be injured or die during that incident.Consistent with our findings, simulation studies find police are no more likely to fire on unarmed blacks than unarmed whites, and high rates of black speeding citations per capita result from high violation rates. A systematic review identified 10 studies that found suspect race/ethnicity did not predict use of force or its escalation. However, one study found blacks were more likely than whites to face force during compliance checks. The PPCS survey also found that blacks were more likely to experience physical force and to perceive the threat of force during a stop, although few respondents actually were injured by the force applied. The large majority of incidents that those stopped perceived as undue force was stops where officers shouted at or threatened people, presumably to deter resistance."
submitted by IDislikeYourMeta to PoliticalDebate [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:52 MonkMode2019 Red Pill VS Blue Pill - What it all boils down to.

Reading through a lot of these posts I'm seeing some commonalities. We have gotten into a bad habit of responding with, "sounds blue pill," but the person on the other end isn't really getting any value from this. I can say that the majority, not all, the solutions are found in the side bar and there are three types of posts.
  1. You don't know where the sidebar is (me for the first year)
  2. You lack the ability to identify and use, or have doubts in, the material.
  3. Misread or not fully read the sidebar material yet.
Lets dig deeper into your subconscious mind and take out labeling. Let's say you are this red pill pimp and that "one" comes into your life. Emotions run rampant and now she's not that into you. WTF. Anger follows. Then the trp post.
What just happened wasn't just a blue pill blunder, but specifically you dropping your guard to your true inner self. You went seeking validation from a woman to love you for your weaknesses.
Blue Pill mentality is the side of your psyche that makes you think it's OK to be a weak human being. If you are a weak human being, you will always fall into this trap and never have a suitable LTR. Weak minded people are generalized as those that lack drive to improve themself. They find validation from others, and even a serial red piller can spin plates for days with a deeply rooted blue pill weakness, breaking plate after plate but feeling successful in abundance but failing in self improvement.
Going forward, before you act, before you speak, sit and think why? Why am I about to say this? Am I seeking validation?
There is a common theme in TRP community to just STFU. Why? Because most likely what you are about to say is validation seeking and women fucking hate it.
One thing that a red piller said to me was, TRP is a tool chest, you decide whether or not to use the tools. If you really read the side bar carefully there are some very powerful tools (walking out on a woman). At the root of these tools is a defense mechanism to your validation seeking behavior.
So, with that, learn to identify when you are seeking validation and learn to NOT embrace it. Do the opposite and build a stronger you. This applies to your posts about careers, women, family, hobbies, etc.
Mastering TRP toolset will get you laid, but unless you address your inner self, you will always be a weak person. I.E. Blue Pill.
submitted by MonkMode2019 to asktrp [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:51 golcash SITUS JOKER123 VIA PULSA 10 RIBU GOLCASH

SITUS JOKER123 VIA PULSA 10 RIBU GOLCASH

https://preview.redd.it/cj53xrrx0po51.jpg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=998bc046a7d14c322891769f27b59a048511658d
Situs Joker123 Via Pulsa 10 Ribu – Halo para pecinta judi Joker123 Deposit Pulsa Termurah bersama GOLCASH, kali ini kami akan memberikan panduan Deposit Joker123 Pulsa 10 Ribu dimana Anda akan lebih mudah mengonfirmasikan transaksi permainan Anda kapanpun dan dimanapun.
Namun apabila Anda belum memiliki akun untuk bermain Joker Gaming, kami sarankan agar Anda melakukan Daftar Joker123 Via Situs Pulsa melalui formulir di bawah ini :
Nama Rekening : Nomor Rekening : Bank : No. Telepon ( YANG VALID ): Email ( YANG VALID ) : Pemainan :
Di harapkan Anda mendaftar Tembak Ikan Deposit Pulsa dengan data yang benar dan valid karena kedepannya ini akan berguna untuk Anda ketika Anda lupa password joker123 ketika bermain di Agen Judi Deposit 10 Ribu, sehingga kami akan memverifikaskan data Anda dengan lebih mudah. Bagi Anda yang masih belum mengerti mengenai prosedur Daftar Slot Joker123 Via Pulsa, maka Anda bisa untuk meminta bantuan kepada customer service kami yang mana selalu online selama 24 jam untuk membantu anda mendaftar di GOLCASH ini.
Anda hanya perlu mengonfirmasikan kepada customer service melalui Live Chat Joker123 di GOLCASH untuk melakukan Daftar Situs Joker123 Pulsa. Setelah itu, Anda akan di berikan akun anda dengan username, password dan Link Terbaru Login Joker123 agar Anda bisa mulai untuk bisa bermain permainan Joker123 Deposit 10 Ribu Pulsa ini bersama Bandar Joker123 Terpercaya.
Bagi Anda pengguna smartphone android Anda juga bisa bermain dengan cara Download APK Joker123 Android agar Anda bisa lebih mudah dan tidak harus mengakses Bandar Joker123 Terpercaya, sehingga Anda bisa bermain kapanpun dan dimanapun Anda mau.
Untuk melakukan Deposit, sebelumnya kami menyarankan anda untuk menyimpan Nomor dari Agen Joker123 Deposit Pulsa di kontak handphone anda sehingga sewaktu waktu Anda bisa melakukan transaksi deposit dan withdraw dimanapun Anda berada.
BACA JUGA : Agen Joker123 Online Terpercaya
Untuk proses Deposit, kami memberikan banyak fitur yang bisa Anda manfaatkan seperti Transfer antar Bank, yang mana kami sediakan berbagai macam bank diantaranya adalah BCA, Mandiri, BNI, BRI, Danamon dan Bank CIMB Niaga. Anda juga bisa melakukan konfirmasi deposit menggunakan sistem pembayaran digital seperti OVO, Dana, Gopay dan Linkaja, dan yang menariknya lagi Anda bisa melakukan Joker123 Deposit Via Pulsa dimana Anda bisa melakukan TP atau Transfer Pulsa ke Agen Joker123 Via Pulsa ini, dan beberapa operator seluler yang bekerja sama di antaranya adalah Telkomsel, XL dan Axis, jadi anda bisa melakukan transfer pulsa untuk bermain Slot Joker123 Via Pulsa atau permainan lainnya.
Apabila Anda memiliki keluhan silahkan hubungi kami melalui Livechat Joker123 atau bisa juga melalui nomor kontak joker123 yang mana sudah kami sediakan di bawah ini untuk bisa anda hubungi langsung sehingga kami bisa membantu Anda 24 jam setiap harinya.
Kami Bisa Di Hubungi Melalui :
Live Chat GOLCASH : http://112.140.186.94/ Line : golcash88 WA : +6281283458722
submitted by golcash to IndonesianGamers [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:49 AnotherLonelyLoser2 Thank Goodness for GrubHub & deactivation

Honestly I just want to say that GrubHub has made a big difference in my finances. I of course did the typical thing and screwed up (entirely my fault) and then had so much debt that it was hard to pay it. It feels good to work and get the extra money to pay my bills. It feels good to be current. All of the people getting deactivated for what they say is no valid reason makes me nervous. I could find another side hustle, but this is my favorite. That is why I am one of the ones that accepts almost every order. I need the money so I want to get good access to schedules because I need hours (I know I know I am not the only one we all need money).
So I guess also my real question to y’all is do you think people really are getting deactivated for no reason even though they give a reason? Is it making anyone else nervous?
It does help me realize I need to use my money wisely in case I can’t do this anymore.
submitted by AnotherLonelyLoser2 to grubhubdrivers [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:49 ChaosKeeshond Why will a curfew help?

Genuine question, sorry if it's stupid. The way I see it, people will simply compress their socialising hours into the non-curfew hours, causing a net increase in concurrent foot traffic and intermingling? Surely spreading people across over time is a valid form of passive distancing?
I know this isn't just a Blundering Boris moment and probably comes from a competent advisor, who understands the models better that I do. So yeah, it's a sincere question. Thanks all
submitted by ChaosKeeshond to LabourUK [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:48 ManonFire63 Circumcision of the Heart

As I write about a Circumcision of the heart, many of you reading this......you didn't have one. You may have had a degree or two and were educated. You failed in God's Classroom thus far. Possibly whatever divinity school you graduated from was working to tolerate Kabbalaic Judaism or worse. 2020 has taught that no moral man tolerates everything.
What is Mysticism? Someone is experiencing cause and effect with the Spiritual. Someone experiencing cause and effect with the Spiritual may be able to point out some spiritual things for you in profound ways. Any Christian growing in Faith and seeking God, may be in some form of Mysticism as they grow in Faith. They may not consider themselves a mystic. It means that they experiencing God. Today the topic is Hearts of Stone and The Bible.
Given someone were to do an internet search of "Heart of Stone and Jews" someone may be able to find a lot of valid information very quickly from a variety of sources. Christian sources, Jewish source, Professors, and other news sources. Having a Heart of Stone may be a particular spiritual condition with cause and effect to it. Talmudic Jews have been said to have hearts of stone, and do mean things to gentiles. In the media, someone with a Heart of Stone, like the Rolling Stones song, "Heart of Stone," may be someone who behaves as a love'em and leave'em type. He may be a self-centered seeker of pleasure. He may not care about love or marriage. Harvey Weinstein was a married man. He used his position of authority in such a way as to pressure women who were not his wife towards being with him. Harvey Weinstein may of had a Heart of Stone.
I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. (Ezekiel 36:26)
For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' (Matthew 13:15)
Testimony:
As a 29 year old man, I was calloused. Not just my heart. I had been through some rough things in my late 20's, and I was a calloused man. I wasn't a tough guy. I was a callused man. I received a calling from God. I worked to grow in Faith. I developed a close relationship with him. June 2014, at the age of 30, I suddenly felt like a was a New Born Child. Having been calloused, I was hardened against certain stimuli. Watching certain movies or Youtube videos, I was hardened against various stimuli like violence or whatever. Suddenly, one day, due to my relationship with God, I felt like I was a child. Stimuli that I had previously been hardened against would effect me like I was an innocent and starting over. To get into the Kingdom of Heaven someone has to be like a Child.
Prior to my calling, I was aware of Don Cheadle as Captain Planet. I thought it was funny. After my calling, based on my experiences, I saw something else with it. One day God challenged me to create a "Captain Planet" for him. I didn't really understand what it all meant at the time, but having a new born innocent spirit as a 30 year old man, it hit me just right, and helped build me up.
Don Cheadle is Captain Planet.
break
Earth!
Fire!
Wind!
Water!
Heart!
Go Son of Man!!!
The above may have been created around June - July 2014. At the same time, God had been shepherding me to be a Bridegroom. In the Bible, Jesus is a Bridegroom looking for a Bride. Given you internet search "Jesus is the Bridegroom" you may find many articles very quickly about it, and a Bible concordance. I was not Jesus. I had lived like a Prodigal Son for a few years. God was pushing to be a Bridegroom. I would pick up my iphone4, and I started deleting out any females that I was not interested in marrying, and did not have a strictly professional relationship with in someway. Given they were in my phone, and I belied or knew there could be something that wasn't leading to marriage, or there were there for the wrong reason, I deleted their numbers. I worked to marry about six females from my past that summer, one at a time, like a was "Black Jesus" Everlast. I would put all my hope, love and future into each one. I was working for God full time. That was my job. God may have told me about their number, as in former partners, and showed me ugly things about them. I would get to the point where I found they were playing games with me, God would show me their true hearts, and/or it just wasn't going to work out. I would kick them out of my heart.
Have you ever heard the terms "She got her hooks into him." Given a young man meets a pretty woman, and after a few days he thinks about her a lot or likes her, she got some hooks into someone. Given she likes him, she works to get more hooks into him until they marry? With old girl friends or people someone knew, they may have in their subconscious, some of those hooks. They may not think about it. They may have been married to someone else for many years. There may be some hooks or emotional attachments there. In a man's heart, given he was in sin or hook up culture, there may be lingering hooks he doesn't know about or think about. Over the process of working to marry six females from my past, I found that I had things lingering in my heart. I worked to kick them out. How? I don't care. I don't care about them. They are not my responsibility. They may live or die. I don't care.
Circumcision of The Heart.
Bible Verses:And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. (Deuteronomy 30:6)No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person's praise is not from other people, but from God. (Romans 2:29)
At one point growing in Faith, and having a relationship with God, it felt like what I had felt below the belt, on some level, went up into my heart. Before I may of had a callused heart like there was something around it. Afterwards I was more aware of my heart in a way that brings greater meaning and understanding to The Word of God. This happened around Spring 2014 or so, but as I worked through being a Bridegroom, I found my heart had been wrapped around a few females from my past.
Given someone were to research people with "Hearts on Fire for Christ" or "Sacred Heart" in the Catholic Church, they may be able to find people, Saints, with valid testimony of having cause and effect, and circumcision of the heart.
Question: Did that mean you stopped feeling things below the belt?
No.
God is love. I became more aware of his love. God is Holy and Separate from sin.
A man walks by a woman on the street. What does he think about? There is nothing wrong with appreciating beauty. Is a woman in God's plan for someone? A man may be aware of these things, and he doesn't allow his mind to drift other places. He has God's Fatherly Love, and he would like Good things for people.
submitted by ManonFire63 to theology [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:46 emillyvanilli My best friend annoys the shit out of me.

I met one of my closest friends in college 11 years ago. I graduated in 2012. Since then, I have gradually become more and more annoyed by her. We live a couple hours apart from each other and when we get the chance to hang out every couple months or so, I genuinely have a good time. In person, I feel closer to her and I feel like she is more herself when we’re together. But social media and texting interactions with her drive me crazy. She is always trying way too hard, and sometimes she’s so basic it hurts. I feel like we have nothing in common and I often feel embarrassed by her. My cousin and I are extremely close and she has validated my feelings by saying she feels the same way about her but I can’t help but think I’m being an asshole. I’ve done so much self work in the last year and I felt like I’ve been less judgmental of people but for some reason I still can’t help but be annoyed by her. It upsets me because she’s a good friend and I want to be a good friend to her. We do have some great times together and laugh a lot but there’s still something there that I can’t get passed. Please help me be a better friend to her.
submitted by emillyvanilli to Advice [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:44 sageLM_ World Upload Issue

For some reason, when I try to upload my world, it says that the zip file that I am using is not a valid world file. However, I used a zip of my exported MC World file. Am I missing a step? (Bedrock)
submitted by sageLM_ to aternos [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:43 iForgotToFillThis Website front-end developer.

[For Hire] Hello, I am a front-end developer with little experience and I am looking for smaller projects like blogs. Prices start from 14$/Project. I don't design the website so you will need to give me an image of what it should look like. DM Me.
You will get a responsive W3C validated website with unlimited revisions.
My skills include:
submitted by iForgotToFillThis to freelance_forhire [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:40 Sportsfanno1 Caution if you buy/bought tickets for Rock Werchter 2021

Hi all
I know RW 2021 happening has only a slim chance, but just a warning if you want to buy/bought tickets.
I want to go one day and wanted to buy tickets. Can't hurt if you buy now and (which is very likely) if it gets cancelled due to Covid, you can always get your money back. At least, that's how it should be imo.
Now, to be sure of a refund, I contacted ticketmaster to ask what happens if it gets cancelled by RW themselves. I want to go for a specific group, so I might not be interested in RW 2022. Couldn't find terms and conditions anywhere, apart from a vague FAQ.
Their response was a link to their refund page. Which was a) not an answer and b) very sketchy since you need "a valid reason with proof" to get a refund (wedding,...). No mention in case RW cancels it themselves.
I asked for clarification and their next answer was that they don't know yet.
So take caution if you buy one (I would rather wait before I get fucked over by Ticketmaster). Not sure if it's even legal to open ticket sales without proper terms and conditions...
submitted by Sportsfanno1 to belgium [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:39 TvManiac5 The legend of Korra isn't hated because it's different. It's hated because it's trash

Lately we have so many Korra posts and Korra apologists in here that I'm not sure the subreddit should even be called TheLastAirbender at this point. And a point I'm sick of hearing is the same excuse teen titans go fans use. "You just hate it because it's different and you are a nostalgia blinded fanboy"
No. Fuck no. I hate it because it is a bad show. Different doesn't mean good. A counterpoint to that argument people make is ben 10 alien force. That show is different from the original in the exact same way Korra differs from ATLA. Yet I love it. In fact I think it's the best series of the franchise. And a lot of fans agree with me. So fans can like a sequel that is different if it's good. And that show had Dwayne McDuffy writing it. And here is the big difference. Dwayne was a great writer. He elevated every work he participated in. Mike and Bryan on the other hand are not good writers(which is why I'm actually glad they left the netflix show).
And the problem with Korra isn't that it's different from Aang. But that it deliberately tried hard to be its polar opposite. And what's the polar opposite of a well written, mature deep show?
Well, a terribly written, shallow, juvenile show. And that's what Korra is. It could have been different while still being consistent. But instead it threw away everything that made ATLA good. Just look at the bending. Before, it had explanation that are rooted in martial arts and eastern philosophy. In Korra it's basically just magic BS. Even the spirit world which was basically a reflection of the physical world with realistic animals to contrast to the physical world hybrids became wonderland in Korra
There are many videos explaining it's actual problems. (here's a good example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1ekVcFsa2A) And I could write pages for those problems. And it's also very telling that when fans try to defend its terrible villains they can only bring up zaheer. And when they try to defend it's terrible worldbuilding they bring up retroactive explanations of later comics. And when they try to defend the terrible characters they bring up their growth in s4. As if even they admit the other criticism for its shortcomings are valid but they are trying to grasp at straws
I'm sorry but 10% of the show being well written doesn't make up for the rest 90% being garbage.
And finally, Korra isn't a remake or a reboot or a spin off. It is a direct sequel of a high fantasy show. So it does need to be consistent with it. So it being so different is a problem. People shouldn't stop comparing it to ATLA because it's a sequel. And sequels have to be critiqued in the hindsight of its predecessors.
Instead of looking for BS excuses just admit that you like a bad show.
submitted by TvManiac5 to TheLastAirbender [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:34 maxwellsherman Thoughts on "Conversations That Matter" YouTube Channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3S-Zc7cwIFv0eNGs4ZaRyQ
See the link above for the YT channel I am referring to. I want to get this subs thoughts on this YT channel, which is not particularly popular (only about 20k views per video), but its consists of an evangelicals thoughts on people in the church becoming "woke" and validating "social justice". Let's just say he's against these movements. I can understand his opposition, but he's opposing those like Timothy Keller, The Gospel Coalition, Al Mohler, etc. and directly makes ties from them to Marxism and postmodernism.
If anyone has experience with this channel I would like to hear your thoughts. Thank you.
submitted by maxwellsherman to Reformed [link] [comments]


Vad är validering? - TUC