I mean think about it. When Twitter tries to implement the same AI they use to ban ISIS, and the system receives feedback to correct it every time a Republican who's not obviously a Nazi gets banned, the system is still unable to find a criterion for leaving many other Republicans unbanned when they join up. It can't tell the difference, they haven't figured out a mathematical algorithm that bans overt white supremacists and leaves nearly all Republican officials and supporters untouched. Same opinions, different language and nuance. Or maybe it's KGB math, I dunno.
The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter joepistole
- Start date
- Status
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
No, it's leftists, like you, who ignorantly don't even know there's a difference to teach the AI. The teachers' ignorance passed on to the student. Relatively few Democrats advocate things like gun rights and religious freedom. Even if they do own guns, they often want more gun control, and even if they are religious, they often want more abortion, forcing business to cater gay weddings, etc..
Just like you don't seem to know the difference between a racist and a black man carrying a Confederate flag.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
like take out food ?
do they just purchase a few boxes of it to keep on a shelf out the back ?
or is it a stock they can buy on the stock market ?
Democrats are leading the economic recovery with massive purchases in abortion stock ....
abortion stock prices surge on massive members
i like the size of your up-tick
Just coming back to this to make sure it's clear to everyone what kind of troll we're dealing with here.
I understand the problem now. You're incapable of remembering more than 3 lines of text at a time, like a chat bot running on a 1970's calculator. Expect to be treated accordingly from now on.
I understand the problem now. You're incapable of remembering more than 3 lines of text at a time, like a chat bot running on a 1970's calculator. Expect to be treated accordingly from now on.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Again, you're choosing to read between the lines. Acting out of fear and not being aware of underlying conditions is not mutually exclusive with intending to do harm. People can actually do all three at once, and fear is often a motivator to do harm. Nor does "likely" mean that projection is an absolute in every case. So unless you can get him to spell these out to better fit your presumptions, that's all they are, your presumptions. But all your protests would seem to indicate projection.
Yeah because if I tell you that I ran to catch the bus, you shouldn't by default assume that I was going fast; most likely I just hobbled there on crutches.
If Sculptor's not saying that the killing was unintentional, then there's no point in telling us that "it was intentional but they didn't mean for it to happen so quickly." There is only one logical interpretation of Sculptor's words which could represent any sort of attempt to add to the conversation. If you're saying that he's not actually trying to imply the obvious meaning of his words, then you're accusing him of trolling.
Last edited:
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Run literally means go fast, so that's a nonsense comparison to you claiming fear and ignorance means intending no harm. Your bias getting in the way of you comprehending simple English.
Again, you're claiming to quote something a forum search only turns up in your post. Post a link to the quote or I can only assume it's just as biased a read as everything else you've claimed. You're not providing me with his actual words, which seems like an intentional obfuscation.
I already linked to the damn posts just a few messages prior. Since your troll bot runs on a 1970's machine, here are the links once again for your convenience:
http://sciforums.com/threads/why-george-floyd-matters.163224/page-3#post-3637820
http://sciforums.com/threads/why-george-floyd-matters.163224/page-3#post-3637820
And in case you missed it above, the most relevant portion of the post are the following words:
Then there's another post I linked:
http://sciforums.com/threads/why-george-floyd-matters.163224/page-4#post-3638031
http://sciforums.com/threads/why-george-floyd-matters.163224/page-4#post-3638031
The post is from Sculptor, and the most relevant portion is the following:
Now, this is your brain...
And this is your brain on drugs...
Any questions?
Last edited:
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Are you that dishonest or honesty that obtuse?
You quoted "it was intentional but they didn't mean for it to happen so quickly", which is in none of your linked quotes of Sculptor. It's literally the only quote you gave in the post I responded to.
And I already addressed that quote. Don't you remember?
And I already addressed that quote. Don't you remember?
Ah, there's that projection.
I did not quote that, I said it is one of only two possible logical interpretations of the actual quote. The other interpretation is that he meant to imply that the police made a mistake and weren't intending to kill Mr. Floyd. Apparently you agree that the latter is the only reasonable interpretation.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
You said:
If Sculptor's not saying that the killing was unintentional, then there's no point in telling us that "it was intentional but they didn't mean for it to happen so quickly." There is only one logical interpretation of Sculptor's words which could represent any sort of attempt to add to the conversation. If you're saying that he's not actually trying to imply the obvious meaning of his words, then you're accusing him of trolling.
http://sciforums.com/threads/the-trump-presidency.158659/page-211#post-3641957
Who's "telling us" what you put in quotes?http://sciforums.com/threads/the-trump-presidency.158659/page-211#post-3641957
You have yet to quote anything by him that fits with what you claim to be "the obvious meaning of his words".
I haven't agreed with anything. I've just been telling you what his words actually say, without presuming you're a mind reader. Every one of your takes is a gross misrepresentation of anything he's said.
Like your gem that fear and ignorance somehow means intending no harm.
That was obvious 1400 posts ago.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck........
I see he's changed his avatar from "Vociferous" meaning loud mouth and forceful to what looks like a big loud mouth!
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
LOL! The name is still Vociferous. Changing the avatar doesn't change that.
Yes of course! my mistake. To re-enforce your forceful loud mouthed arrogant style is totally necessary at this stage of your crusades.
That's irrelevant again - the whole problem is that they can't, without the police and other vigilante organizations beating and killing them.
Black people do not in fact have the same 2nd Amendment rights as white people, in the US. That is because white people control the police and the courts, so the police and courts are racist.
If you need evidence for that, look at the number of posts on this forum that try to make a big deal out of whether a given black victim of police abuse was armed, and whether they were shot and killed.
Breonna Taylor and the man in the apartment with her were both - for example - fully within their rights to shoot the policemen breaking down their door. So why is her unarmed status a focus?
I have no interest in endlessly arguing with someone who has the memory span of a pocket calculator, as I believe I've done more than enough along with others to convince any sane and rational person that Vociferous possesses neither of these qualities himself. Thus I am happy to move on now to things of greater importance than convincing him of his own racism, but I promised there was one particularly damning post whose final paragraph would require its own separate response in order to be adequately addressed, so here it is.
What if you dress up like a gun-toting, wife-beating violent alcoholic redneck? Those guys break laws all the time like drinking and driving, brawling, smoking meth, stockpiling explosives, assaulting black people and gays, shooting trespassers... Bankers commit tons of crimes too, like cocaine possession, illegal prescription drugs, bribing politicians, dodging taxes, defrauding partners and investors, financing known criminals... Guess what? Preferentially searching or arresting people based on their appearance is a violation of their basic liberties and their right to be treated as equals while assuming whatever physical appearance they wish. Besides, black people dressed like bankers still have a much higher chance of being randomly searched or arrested compared to their white counterparts, so the attire excuse is altogether irrelevant.
No, profiling based on race is naked racial discrimination, and if you support this behaviour then that makes you a self-declared racist. Doesn't matter if you have a scientific study purporting to justify your views, anything other than supporting equal treatment and social opportunities for people of all races amounts to racism, that's part of the English language definition. Furthermore you fail to recognize that increased policing leads to increased arrests, which is in turn used to justify more policing, producing a feedback loop that leads to some communities having a much higher police presence and arrest rate than other communities with similar underlying crime rates.
No it means that in Canada you can't use a broken tail light as an excuse to stop someone for driving while being black, and then arrest them for whatever you might find when you search them. The law prevents police from engaging in predatory behaviour and using it to fill their quotas.
What if you dress up like a gun-toting, wife-beating violent alcoholic redneck? Those guys break laws all the time like drinking and driving, brawling, smoking meth, stockpiling explosives, assaulting black people and gays, shooting trespassers... Bankers commit tons of crimes too, like cocaine possession, illegal prescription drugs, bribing politicians, dodging taxes, defrauding partners and investors, financing known criminals... Guess what? Preferentially searching or arresting people based on their appearance is a violation of their basic liberties and their right to be treated as equals while assuming whatever physical appearance they wish. Besides, black people dressed like bankers still have a much higher chance of being randomly searched or arrested compared to their white counterparts, so the attire excuse is altogether irrelevant.
No, profiling based on race is naked racial discrimination, and if you support this behaviour then that makes you a self-declared racist. Doesn't matter if you have a scientific study purporting to justify your views, anything other than supporting equal treatment and social opportunities for people of all races amounts to racism, that's part of the English language definition. Furthermore you fail to recognize that increased policing leads to increased arrests, which is in turn used to justify more policing, producing a feedback loop that leads to some communities having a much higher police presence and arrest rate than other communities with similar underlying crime rates.
No it means that in Canada you can't use a broken tail light as an excuse to stop someone for driving while being black, and then arrest them for whatever you might find when you search them. The law prevents police from engaging in predatory behaviour and using it to fill their quotas.
Last edited:
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Well, I'm glad I gave you the opportunity to virtue-signal to your fellow demonstrable left-wing racists.
Yes, poor people in general are much more prone to crime and profiled accordingly. Simply accepting the crime statistics, as a tool to fight crime, is the responsible and proactive thing to do. Ignoring the statistics is denying reality. Probable cause means it is not a violation of liberties.
According to the FBI statistics (here), blacks commit a larger percentage of every crime compared to their percentage of the population, except driving under the influence. Yes, that includes white-collar crimes, like embezzling and fraud. So again, even a well-dressed black person is more likely to have committed a crime.
Ignoring such statistics is affirmative action for criminals, which is itself prejudicial. Demanding that your good child and your bad child face the same degree of scrutiny and suspicion will tend to make the good child bad, as there is no benefit from their better behavior. And refusing to scrutinize the bad child will embolden its bad behavior, which in the case of blacks, is negatively felt throughout their communities. It's that danger in black communities that harm the opportunities of blacks, by driving out good jobs, and pressuring adolescents to join gangs for safety.
You repeatedly fail to recognize the higher crime rate, according to black victims and witnesses, is what determines the increased policing and subsequent arrests. But you'd rather leave those criminals in the black community, no doubt, to keep them in their place. God forfend they become as successful or, gasp, more successful than you. And it would be your burden to show similar crime rate in other communities with less policing. Here, you're just making a bare assertion.
Trump and Floyd are US issues, where Canadian law is irrelevant.
If I were a Canadian criminal, I'd always drive around with a broken tail light. Then, according to you, I could effectively get away with anything else illegal I might be doing, whether that's drug or gun smuggling, human trafficking, etc..
Couldn't agree more. It seems that racism is generally so deeply ingrained that it is impossible for any racist to actually accept, that he or she is a racist....much like creationism and ID myth.
And of course particularly in the current case.
That isn't true.
(Black witnesses and victims were seldom if ever consulted, the bad police behavior made worse by excessive policing contributed to the higher crime rate rather than suppressing it, and most of the higher crime rate that remains after the confounding factor of excessive police presence is filtered out, a much smaller number derived from only a select few crimes, is an artifact of bad police behavior on top of other effects of racism )
And it doesn't support your contention: the whole situation just as you describe it would be largely a creation and consequence of racism (for starters, racism is why there are black neighborhoods in the first place).
Meanwhile, the coded appeals to white male racial bigotry that have characterized Republican Party politics since Nixon have been continued by the latest Republican president - and the only problem the Republicans seem to have with them is the vulgar and embarrassingly undeniable expression of them by Trump. He's saying that stuff out loud and on TV, in plain English and broad daylight - and the entire Republican voting base is enthusiastically embracing him for that. He owns the Party, and every politician who remains Republican has had to kiss his ass.
That's gotta burn. It's one thing to be played by this kind of organ grinder - it's another to be pressed into service as his monkey. One would sympathize, if they had shown the slightest sign of spirit or honor or even dignity. Instead, one is forced to recognize that Trump represents them, as well as their voting base. They are still Republicans, more than three years after Trump made the nature of the Republican Party undeniably obvious.
- Status