o/t the problem with equality and diversity

[Amanda_Hugg_n_Kiss]

Interesting video Amanda. What do you think we can conclude from it?

I don't personally know of anyone, left or right, who would promote the idea of a segregated housing or recreation buildings for its own ends.

I personally don't agree with the University of Stamford scheme or black/ethnic only gyms in principle.

But is equating such schemes and the intentions behind them (sometimes well meaning such as encouraging community participation in an event/activity from under represented groups, or less well meaning in just trying to get customers who will pay to go to ethnic only gyms who wouldn't attend multicultural gyms for whatever reasons) the same as for the KKK man who wants segregation between different groups for ideological reasons, in his case, that blacks are an inferior race and should not mix with whites? Is that what you think Ami is trying to say?

I think that Ami makes good points. It's quite easy to offer ethnic only spaces for whatever reason and intentionally or otherwise, you can help create or encourage segregation. But the conclusions of equating this to the KKK are a tad simplistic and OTT don't you think?

Just think it's a video to get people to think and it does the job. Here's a video from Tim Pool that expands on the issue and makes some good points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y52MEOW-PV4

Here's the video from Ami on voter ID, another interesting one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odB1wWPqSlE

[great_fire]

Firstly, why are you only focusing in knife crime? Why aren't you looking at general murder rates? Or is knife crime some special kind of murder that should be focused on more so than other forms of murder?

Just to get a wider picture. If we look at murder rates, black people arrested for murder in London 2018 were 48% of the full total. Black victims of murder are 56% of the total number of people murdered.



But if you only want to consider youth gang/knife, and you only want to consider one town in the country lets go back to the Akala research. Have you watched it? Not even the shorter 2 minute one I posted?

OK, I’ll select a couple Akala's quotes that I think put the issue into context:

“There are 1.2 million black people in London, in a bad year 50 of them will kill someone, that’s less than 0.004% of that population.
And then compare this to Glasgow which in 2005 saw 40 murders with a population of 600,000, making a Glaswegian in that year twice as likely to be killed as a black Londoner.

Interestingly, when this happens in Glasgow race isn't important”

“Look at the in depth research of violent youth crime/gangs around the world in the last 200 years and the research tells us that this happens all over the world when the following social indicators are in existence. Those are poverty, domestic abuse, Lack of education, particularly expulsion from school.”

What do you disagree with in these conclusions? Why?

What’s your own counter theory?

So according to your own figures 14.7% of the population of London commit 48% of the murders and make up 56% of murder victims, is that not out of proportion?

[great_fire]

The figures you posted for Scotland was at the height of knife violence in 2005, there has been a lot of success in reducing it since.

There were 11 murders in Glasgow in 2017/18 which is 0.54 per 100,000.

There were 132 murders in London in 2018 which is 1.62 per 100,000.

This Akala person is working with 14 year old data, the murder rate in London is increasing, in Glasgow it's falling.

[Amanda_Hugg_n_Kiss]

Here's an interesting article and more examples of what IBS is getting at. https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion...s-totalitarian

[ragingpup]

The figures you posted for Scotland was at the height of knife violence in 2005, there has been a lot of success in reducing it since.

There were 11 murders in Glasgow in 2017/18 which is 0.54 per 100,000.

There were 132 murders in London in 2018 which is 1.62 per 100,000.

This Akala person is working with 14 year old data, the murder rate in London is increasing, in Glasgow it's falling.

The Morgan interview shows Akala talking about how Glasgow used multi agency apprach to dramatically reduce knife crime since that date. That's why he quoted 2005 - he is talking about how you can reduce knife crime. You've stumbled across the impact of the solution - now work backwards and watch the interview for details of what Akala is telling us should be done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvS78MlAXAQ

In response to your other point, yes 48% is out of the normal proportion, but the whole point of what Akala is saying is that a large % of the Black community live in the conditions where those "social indicators" of knife crime exist - poverty, domestic abuse, poor school record and high exclusion from school. Watch the video, and if you don't agree with him, you can say why.

[ragingpup]

Here's an interesting article and more examples of what IBS is getting at. https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion...s-totalitarian

I pretty much know from his continuous thread starting on the issue what IBS is getting at. Contrary to Kerr’s rather naïve insistence that he’s simply baiting, he is quite transparent in pushing the quite intense anti-liberal agenda that is running through much of the far right movements. I know that you/he will object to the use of the term ‘far right’ but when you look at the frequent distortion/heightening of the arguments being made, the sources that the arguments rely on and the way that the arguments link to other sources connected with the anti-liberal agenda then a pretty complete picture emerges of the motivations and preoccupations behind them.

On the face of it, I would agree with some of the arguments put forward: that some liberal attitudes, ideas and policies can be dubious and lead (in what I would argue to be very few but you will no doubt disagree) to negative repercussions (such as segregated buildings leading as discussed above). But what jars with me on the line of persuasion that you are putting forward and justification behind it are:

1. The hugely questionable research upon which these arguments are made. E.g. Ami interviews random white/black people on the street and puts forward around 10 of each race giving their views that back up his story. Don’t you want to ask how many other people he interviewed? How many of the other people he interviewed argued the opposite to those that he selected to portray? Let’s say that it would be easy to ‘interview’ 200 people on the street, and then select those for viewing that backs up your theory. Without a rationale and publication of all the research evidence/quotes from all interviews this is a very dubious research method. But not only are conclusions reached, but we are presented with enormous hyperbole in them: equating the rather idiotic but probably well meaning ‘liberal’ students to the KKK and accusing them of racism! “College leftists go full racist” This is an enormous jump of logic and sets off all my alarm bells for a distorted argument.

2. Further looking at the sources you’re relying on to back up your arguments. Doesn’t it bother you that Lifesitenews is listed as an extreme right website with an ‘unreliable’ rating from mediabias/fact check site, known to fail fact checks on numerous occasions and known to slant their stories towards an evangelical Christian perspective. Extremely anti-LGBT, Abortion. I don’t deny that some of their arguments are worthy of consideration, but would be very careful about their reasoning and conclusions they are reaching. It looks to me that they are taking some quite sensible arguments but distorting them to reach unjustified conclusions.


3. You don’t have to dig too deep into each of these sources to see a more detailed political agenda: all of them are very pro-Trump, anti-immigration, ultra conservative. Ami for example allegedly used video doctoring to present a distorted view on so called immigrant crime in Sweden (Trump swallowed it!) and further took quite a distorted view on the crime data in Sweden to make it look like immigration had significantly upped the crime rates in the country. Not had chance to look in any depth at “Tim-Cam” or whatever he calls himself, but listened to him and he was quoting Ami’s dubious reporting as some kind of truth as well as bombarding us with what comes over as obsessive rants using far right vocab: “Leftists” all over the place and not a little digging reveals that he isn’t the ‘centrist’ he likes to portray himself as: https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/com...to_hide_as_he/ . Also I see he took Infowars money to also try and find ethic induced crime in Sedish cities. Interestingly I’ve noticed having followed your links that now my You-Tube account is merrily sending me suggested viewings of far right promos and activists! All of whom seem to share that same tendency to promoting findings based on dubious research methods and/or twisting the findings to make hugely hyperbolic claims to support their world view.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that there is nothing in the arguments you have put forward here. But it doesn’t take much investigation to see that what these commentators, and I’m sure you, IBS and Monty really oppose is a challenge to the old order of white, male privilege. So whilst society generally churns on, adjusting to the way populations move around the world in the age of easy travel, whilst it tries to make adjustments to be more inclusive to the people in whatever society we live in (whether goodwill motivated or profit motivated, or both), I see nothing here in the collective commentators you’ve linked to that show anything other than the usual hysterical conspiracies and distortions that rational people, people who dig into evidence and look at both sides of arguments, have come to expect. Sorry!

P.s – really advise you to use this website: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ It’s quite reputable and from all I’ve investigated comes as close to being as unbiased when judging other media outlets as biased as its possible to be. It comments on both the media outlets political slant, the extremity of that slant and the historical accuracy of it’s reporting against reputable Fact Checking

[KerrAvon]

I pretty much know from his continuous thread starting on the issue what IBS is getting at. Contrary to Kerr’s rather naïve insistence that he’s simply baiting, he is quite transparent in pushing the quite intense anti-liberal agenda that is running through much of the far right movements. I know that you/he will object to the use of the term ‘far right’ but when you look at the frequent distortion/heightening of the arguments being made, the sources that the arguments rely on and the way that the arguments link to other sources connected with the anti-liberal agenda then a pretty complete picture emerges of the motivations and preoccupations behind them.

On the face of it, I would agree with some of the arguments put forward: that some liberal attitudes, ideas and policies can be dubious and lead (in what I would argue to be very few but you will no doubt disagree) to negative repercussions (such as segregated buildings leading as discussed above). But what jars with me on the line of persuasion that you are putting forward and justification behind it are:

1. The hugely questionable research upon which these arguments are made. E.g. Ami interviews random white/black people on the street and puts forward around 10 of each race giving their views that back up his story. Don’t you want to ask how many other people he interviewed? How many of the other people he interviewed argued the opposite to those that he selected to portray? Let’s say that it would be easy to ‘interview’ 200 people on the street, and then select those for viewing that backs up your theory. Without a rationale and publication of all the research evidence/quotes from all interviews this is a very dubious research method. But not only are conclusions reached, but we are presented with enormous hyperbole in them: equating the rather idiotic but probably well meaning ‘liberal’ students to the KKK and accusing them of racism! “College leftists go full racist” This is an enormous jump of logic and sets off all my alarm bells for a distorted argument.

2. Further looking at the sources you’re relying on to back up your arguments. Doesn’t it bother you that Lifesitenews is listed as an extreme right website with an ‘unreliable’ rating from mediabias/fact check site, known to fail fact checks on numerous occasions and known to slant their stories towards an evangelical Christian perspective. Extremely anti-LGBT, Abortion. I don’t deny that some of their arguments are worthy of consideration, but would be very careful about their reasoning and conclusions they are reaching. It looks to me that they are taking some quite sensible arguments but distorting them to reach unjustified conclusions.


3. You don’t have to dig too deep into each of these sources to see a more detailed political agenda: all of them are very pro-Trump, anti-immigration, ultra conservative. Ami for example allegedly used video doctoring to present a distorted view on so called immigrant crime in Sweden (Trump swallowed it!) and further took quite a distorted view on the crime data in Sweden to make it look like immigration had significantly upped the crime rates in the country. Not had chance to look in any depth at “Tim-Cam” or whatever he calls himself, but listened to him and he was quoting Ami’s dubious reporting as some kind of truth as well as bombarding us with what comes over as obsessive rants using far right vocab: “Leftists” all over the place and not a little digging reveals that he isn’t the ‘centrist’ he likes to portray himself as: https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/com...to_hide_as_he/ . Also I see he took Infowars money to also try and find ethic induced crime in Sedish cities. Interestingly I’ve noticed having followed your links that now my You-Tube account is merrily sending me suggested viewings of far right promos and activists! All of whom seem to share that same tendency to promoting findings based on dubious research methods and/or twisting the findings to make hugely hyperbolic claims to support their world view.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that there is nothing in the arguments you have put forward here. But it doesn’t take much investigation to see that what these commentators, and I’m sure you, IBS and Monty really oppose is a challenge to the old order of white, male privilege. So whilst society generally churns on, adjusting to the way populations move around the world in the age of easy travel, whilst it tries to make adjustments to be more inclusive to the people in whatever society we live in (whether goodwill motivated or profit motivated, or both), I see nothing here in the collective commentators you’ve linked to that show anything other than the usual hysterical conspiracies and distortions that rational people, people who dig into evidence and look at both sides of arguments, have come to expect. Sorry!

P.s – really advise you to use this website: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ It’s quite reputable and from all I’ve investigated comes as close to being as unbiased when judging other media outlets as biased as its possible to be. It comments on both the media outlets political slant, the extremity of that slant and the historical accuracy of it’s reporting against reputable Fact Checking

Blimey. Good to see you making good use of the school holidays.

This isn’t really my argument (not least because I have neither the time nor the inclination to watch all the videos that people are putting up as an alternative to expressing their owns views) but this post caught my eye.

I agree 100% with the notion that it is important to check the provenance of ‘sources’, which begs the questions as to why you linked to an article on Russia Today a couple of weeks ago and demanded that others respond to the ‘facts’ that it contained. What checks had you made in respect of that 'news' outlet?

Are you sure that it’s not the case that you only take issue with the reliability of sources that don’t agree with your position and are a little less picky with those that say things that accord with your view of the world?

What does mediabiasfactcheck.com say about Russia Today?

[ragingpup]

Blimey. Good to see you making good use of the school holidays.

This isn’t really my argument (not least because I have neither the time nor the inclination to watch all the videos that people are putting up as an alternative to expressing their owns views) but this post caught my eye.

I agree 100% with the notion that it is important to check the provenance of ‘sources’, which begs the questions as to why you linked to an article on Russia Today a couple of weeks ago and demanded that others respond to the ‘facts’ that it contained. What checks had you made in respect of that 'news' outlet?

Are you sure that it’s not the case that you only take issue with the reliability of sources that don’t agree with your position and are a little less picky with those that say things that accord with your view of the world?

What does mediabiasfactcheck.com say about Russia Today?

I anticipated you would pick up on that Kerr - RT is a centre to centre right news outlet with "questionable source" reporting record. However, when you look into the facts of the report I linked to (and yes I just did 5 second search to counter GF's argument, guilty!). Get me, liberal lefty using a right wing source as an argument basis! At least I'm not just sticking to left wing sources! And tbf I've only just discovered the media bias checker site.

Yes, enjoying Easter hols thanks

Whilst you've reappeared, when are you going to answer my question above? To recap, you started with: “IBS is exploring” the sort of contradiction in the liberal left that apologises for bigoted behaviour from ethnic communities. When I pointed out that IBS’s OP did nothing of the sort you told me to “Develop an eye for detail. I didn’t equate the American joke to the OP – I related it to this thread and the contradiction that it has exposed.”

So again, give me the detail that you are referring to? Where in the thread is anyone making excuses for bigoted behaviour from any ethnic group? What contradiction has been exposed? My eye for detail is clearly ****ed.

[KerrAvon]

And interestingly, the article on Russia Today that you relied upon for 'facts' (which you continued to demand that others respond to even after the nature of your source was pointed out) was posted by you in support of your view that the BBC shows a right wing bias, whereas mediafactcheck has it down as centre left (if I’m reading it correctly – only had a glance). So which are you going with? Russia Today or medifactcheck?

[ragingpup]

And interestingly, the article on Russia Today that you relied upon for 'facts' (which you continued to demand that others respond to even after the nature of your source was pointed out) was posted by you in support of your view that the BBC shows a right wing bias, whereas mediafactcheck has it down as centre left (if I’m reading it correctly – only had a glance). So which are you going with? Russia Today or medifactcheck?

You are not reading it correctly. Media fact check has RT today as being between right-centre and right wing. Look where the little yellow ball is on the arrow-ometer! https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rt-news/