That isn't science as such. That's an opinion that might explain why there are countries that don't seemingly do as well.

Racial? Cultural? Environmental? All factors to that outcome.

Murders of a particular race can be correlated with many factors--perhaps say poverty or drug usage or even extreme wealth or lately "being a rich Russian billionaire." Why those factors exist might be spiritual, economic, self-caused, other-caused, or a whole slew of sociao-political reasons. The bottom line is, if you want to see it as race alone, that's how you are going to see it, but that isn't really science talking. More likely, it is some "liberal academic conditoning" talking, which often masquerades as science.

What I defined are the pieces that constitute an actual scientific study. What you are trying to make a case for is correlation between murder victims and color. You are confusing "fact" with "Correlation" which is a huge scientific no no. You posted facts. The "pattern" to the numbers could come from any number of factors which may or may not be race related.

If the article is supposed to be especially scary, I'm not sure it is any more scary than anything else Satan does. If you are staying in an evil hotel, you might wind up with some spiritual problems that you'd rather not have.

Nah. Those facts are a reflection of statistical measures of people who get murdered without any operational definitions defining what "murder" is. Skin color, on the other hand, is a measurable difference that people readily detect and foolishly base conclusions upon.

Hang on. I'll get my wallet.

Thanks for validating my "collective power". On the other hand, you aren't going to change a moron's mind so what you are saying is that you like wasting your time talking to morons who are going to do whatever it is they collectively do. You don't even get a share in the power in that scenario--you are just a total loss of life/time.

You nailed it. I'm retarded. Of course, you are trying to argue with a retard, so what does that make you? Not very clever for being so smart, apparently.

No, that is someone's IDEA of the free speech argument. This isn't about what I "Like to hear". The classical argument is that you aren't, through free speech, allowed to yell out the word FIRE when there is no fire in a crowded theater. Such an action would cause probable death and panic. Therefore, the statement "your free speech doesn't go past your nose" is usually the metric because when you speak a thing, it enters into a larger arena than just your desire to say a given thing.

I'd argue racist statements are like yelling in that crowded theater when there is no fire. Just because you hate something or someone does not give you an automatic right to start raising an alarm about that someone or group of someones unless you have some kind of actual evidence. So, if I tell you you should be careful of the Chinese because of the Great Firewall and sleeper agents sympathetic to the communist party, that's different than if I say you should beware Chinese cause they gots yellow skins, and I hates me some yellow skins!

It isn't about what I want to hear, but it is about conveying information in a responsible way to a larger accountability than just saying whatever the hell comes into your mind. Most people censor themselves quite heavily, for instance, on a first date since they understand if they say things like "I want to be inside you" or "I want you inside me" most likely that isn't going to function in a way that moves to a second date and if it does, one has to wonder about the longevity of such a relationship since the *****ual emphasis was so high and immediate...

Verbose delusion is still delusion buddy. Just another 'free speech for me but not for thee' hypocrite. Supporting free speech means supporting people's right to say stuff you disagree with - you deserve the thought police.

Gee golly. You totally supported your argument with all those facts. I feel like we are on an equal footing and you are a "smart person" who has the authority to call me names because you are so, so smart! Good job, you!

You don't believe in free speech at all. People should be free to speak, not to conduct illegal acts, and speech should not be restricted because of some vague possibility that it will lead to illegal acts. That's the nonsense thought-police argument.

K. Since I don't believe in free speech, and I do believe you should shut the ***** up, I think you should shut the ***** up because you are dumb. New rule: only smart people get to have free speech. (i.e. not you) (Just for reference, this is wholly satire based on your bad reasoning)

Thinking your definition is the only one is delusional, but that's neither here nor there. It's not just something "I don't like". It's picking a class of people for usually imagined reasons, and making up stereotypes so you feel better than them. That's called being a *****head and when people are *****heads and start doing this, usually they start doing things to that class of people they shouldn't be doing which involves law enforcement and lawsuits which ultimately create police states because people aren't really relating to free speech in the sense that it is meant as a concept and pretty soon, "Free speech" is all weirdly interpreted because of a group of *****heads who didn't think there was consequence to being prejudiced bitches. The whole idea of "protected classes" has come about due to idiots thinking free speech means you can go out in your finest white sheets and burn crosses on lawns. So, I don't like that a bunch of idiots who can't figure out cause and effect start to steer legislation that affects my ability to speak in general since legislators usually institute "Thought police". Go bond over something else other than your mutual hatred of a specific group of people--or if you are going to do that, at least do it in private places where you aren't going to suddenly involve law enforcement agencies who decide what the laws should be due to your being an idiot. If you start posting it in public places which are governed most often by laws of one kind or another, you shouldn't be terribly surprised when your little hate groups receive...well hate.

Sighs. I do get tired of people trying to define prejudiced speech as free speech. It winds up ruining free speech for everybody else because somebody wants to scream about "Spics" or "Gooks" or something else juvenile.

Sounds like a whole lot of useless commentary that could be summed up as "Do unto others".

That's only if you are investing for ultimate winning. Ultimate winning produces highly likely ultimate losing.

Yeah, I don't think Tor is the answer to this issue.

More reasons to develop alternetworks that make this kind of thing more difficult.

I suspect the issue is more about what gets funded, and what doesn't. Then, not far behind "network effects".

That would probably qualify.

I think if they examine the relationship between game developers and "extremism" developed in certain games, they will discover that some gaming companies are more likely to produce games that correlate to this kind of activity.

Are we saying the kiwifarms site had crappy code or the media site or both? I'd say when your whole site is compromised with all user data there is enough "fault in the code" to go around.

I cannot justify spending any money on games or Xbox game pass scenarios these days. All of that falls under "disposable income" and I have hardly any of that due to socio-political factors outside my control. Hence, my opinion is it is a waste of money and you are getting a negative experience because it is a waste of money.

However, when I used to have disposable income due to socio-political factors again not under my control, and I did game, and did get on networks like Xbox, there was always a division between people who gamed for the love of gaming versus people who gamed to try to impress people or else somehow made money off of gaming. Most modern gaming has gotten entirely away from gaming for the love/fun of gaming and gotten into franchising and "being the best" and a bunch of other shit that really was never exactly the core of gaming other than maybe getting the "high score" or something.

So, the joy is all "Drained out of it" and that's partly due to money, and so I'd say probably that is why you are feeling pissed off about the experience.

In other news, people who stand to make a lot of money from lies and ***** are all about covering up the fact they are lying and raping.

Since Facebook is a terrible company, you'd think people by now would stop using the damn thing. No. We keep getting articles on how more terrible it is than we thought!