Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
You missed the point of the study. The study was developed to see if they could develop an algorithm which could be used to censor speech in social media. The premise of that study was that white racists were the ones they were attempting to flag and censor.
Lo and behold, what they revealed was a surfeit of minorities engaging in precisely the behavior they were attributing to whites.
BTW, over the course of years I have worked with thousands of blacks as associates, and in the work place I've heard them talk quite disparagingly of black, homosexual males. By today's PC culture, that's genuine "hate speech", and it cannot be written off as a "cultural phenomena" as you and these researchers are trying to do. Keith Ellison, Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, Sharpton, Omar, Tlaib, etc., are racists and the shit they post is racist.
|
It dissembling bullshit to pretend it isn't.
The premise of that study
Starting a study, any study with an object of where you want it to go, and the answers you are looking for, automatically makes the study invalid. That is using made up numbers to prove the point you want to make. Not valid. It is called propaganda.
I am sure I don't know as much as you about sociology, few do. I do know research methods, and a great deal about statistics: few people even comprehend that statistical methods are used to find and isolate problems so that a problem, you didn't know existed, can be corrected. If you already know the answer you are looking for: it is not research, it is bull shit.
By today's PC culture, that's genuine "hate speech", and it cannot be written off as a "cultural phenomena" as you and these researchers are trying to do. Keith Ellison, Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, Sharpton, Omar, Tlaib, etc., are racists and the shit they post is racist.
I agree that these people are racists. What does that have to do with the overall question? Nothing, because we should be looking at the overall population: how are we doing there?
These people are talkers who are trying to influence the innercity to vote the Democrat ticket, again. Nothing ever changes, and the cities are less in everyway where they are controlled by the Democrat party because the pupose is not on bringing positive changes: the purpose is to remain in power - for the sake of power only. (I know some republicans are bad: at least they have a different philosophy.)
I don't vote for any Democrat any longer: the party does not seem to want to address the real problems, just those things where they can have talking points about while real solutions are ignored. The republicans at least seem to try to bring real solutions to the society even if there are some jerks in the party. I heard the old line about republicans are just for the rich, an we should tax the rich from a stupid college professor. My quiet, but firm, replies to his presentations showed that he did not understand reality, or American hstory. One of the great moments of my life was when the professor of political science quit teaching the class after my fourth reply to his nonsence. A replacement professor gave me an A for the course. By the time asshole left he wanted to flunk me, but couldn't.
The point, there are basic differences between the two parties. The viewpoint of the Democrats today is different from when I was growing up: The result, is the end of the Democrat party as it is today. It will have to change, or be replaced by a different party. Trump will win in 2020, you know it: you may not like it, but you know it.
Because of the events by certain asshole democrats in congress; the Republican party will probably take control of both houses of congress soon. Then, the Democrat party will be finished, and Trump will get his border wall. They may call then call themselves the Democratic, or something else; but, they will be finished as the current party is structured.
