Now Nazi tattoos are cool

[1032004]

7 hours ago, jross said:

False.  That is only one of multiple senses of the word.  The definition includes “an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge”

The data provides just ground for an adverse opinion or leaning.

Many including myself would argue that statistics based on the color of their skin is not “just grounds,” but I know you disagree.

[jross]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

Many including myself would argue that statistics based on the color of their skin is not “just grounds,” but I know you disagree.

Most individuals of this group are not criminals, but it is fact that the risk for certain crime is higher and prudent to be aware of it.

The same holds true for males compared to females on crime.

Refusing to acknowledge the data doesn’t make it go away and results in higher risk decisions.

[jross]

2 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Many including myself would argue that statistics based on the color of their skin is not “just grounds,” but I know you disagree.

It sucks because skin color does not cause crime.  Using skin color to describe a person is natural... it is unfortunate that some skin colors are associated with a wildly higher rate of violence.  In the USA we still associate black skin with African-ancestry, so it's a loose proxy for it.  Now ask if people with African-ancestry, as a group, have a lower violent crime rate globally than other groups.  Data answers "no."  

 

[Scouts Honor]

4 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Many including myself would argue that statistics based on the color of their skin is not “just grounds,” but I know you disagree.

but it's 'ethnic cleansing'

[Scouts Honor]

we need some cleansing

 

[Scouts Honor]

is this white privelege?

 

[jross]

Sad and sadder.

1. Overall, a slim majority (~56.5%) said scientists should prioritize truth over social equity when the two conflict (only ~3.1% prioritized social equity; the rest said “it’s complicated”). Men were more likely to prioritize truth (66.4%) than women (43.0%).

Wrong.

2. In the last few years, journals such as Nature Human Behaviour and Nature Communicationshave either changed their publication guidelines or published editorials indicating that scientific papers may be rejected or retracted on the basis of harm concerns surrounding research conclusions.

Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38752984/

[Bigbrog]

14 hours ago, jross said:

Sad and sadder.

1. Overall, a slim majority (~56.5%) said scientists should prioritize truth over social equity when the two conflict (only ~3.1% prioritized social equity; the rest said “it’s complicated”). Men were more likely to prioritize truth (66.4%) than women (43.0%).

Wrong.

2. In the last few years, journals such as Nature Human Behaviour and Nature Communicationshave either changed their publication guidelines or published editorials indicating that scientific papers may be rejected or retracted on the basis of harm concerns surrounding research conclusions.

Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38752984/

Scary!!

[wrestlingguy]

23 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

we need some cleansing

 

Underdeveloped prefrontal cortex.

[Scouts Honor]

racism comes in many forms

 

[Caveira]

8 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

racism comes in many forms

 

They can’t even figure out how to get ID to vote right?

if we only taxed you more to give to the public schools though.  Bam.   ID capable right @1032004

Edited August 27 by Caveira

[1032004]

1 minute ago, Caveira said:

They can’t even figure out how to get ID to vote right?

if we only taxed you more to give to the public schools though.  Bam.   ID capable right @1032004

You already made a racist joke about ID’s, don’t try to blame the side opposite you now 

[Caveira]

11 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

You already made a racist joke about ID’s, don’t try to blame the side opposite you now 

Ooh I did not.  I think they’re smart enough to get their own IDs and computers.  The left on the other hand which you support does not

 

Edited August 27 by Caveira

[1032004]

6 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Ooh I did not.  I think they’re smart enough to get their own IDs and computers.  The left on the other hand which you support does not

 

Yes you did, racist:

On 8/20/2026 at 9:33 AM, Caveira said:

There is no way 40% of them have IDs 

 

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Yes you did, racist:

 

its 220% racist to say blacks, women, and browns can’t get ID to vote   That idea the Ds subscribe to as well as you.   It’s 0% racist to point out in joke format you who pretend to care about (the black and brown and real women) are actually the ones keeping them down…. and holding them there 

Edited August 27 by Caveira

[1032004]

Just now, Caveira said:

its 220% racist to say blacks women and browns can’t get ID to vote   That the Ds subscribe to as well as you.   It’s 0% racist to point out in joke format you who pretend to care about (the black and brown) are actually the ones keeping them down…. and holding them there 

You’re a racist.  Be better.

[Caveira]

8 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

You’re a racist.  Be better.

You think blacks aren’t educated enough to get ID.  Thats real systemic racism

you are to chicken to even explain why you think they’re not intelligent enough to get ID.   Classic 

Edited August 27 by Caveira

[1032004]

On 8/20/2026 at 9:33 AM, Caveira said:

There is no way 40% of them have IDs 

@jross lol at the reaction to my post.  Above is a clearly racist post, and @Caveira has made several others.  Don’t defend obvious racism please.

[Scouts Honor]

12 hours ago, 1032004 said:

You already made a racist joke about ID’s, don’t try to blame the side opposite you now 

yes, we know. the soft racist side

[Scouts Honor]

leftists: we love poc

also leftists: we can't have all these people up in marthas vineyard, lets give them a nice bus ride

[jross]

3 hours ago, 1032004 said:

@jross lol at the reaction to my post.  Above is a clearly racist post, and @Caveira has made several others.  Don’t defend obvious racism please.

His ID comment was sarcasm.  

[Scouts Honor]

14 hours ago, 1032004 said:

You’re a racist.  Be better.

ok racist 

[Scouts Honor]

wait wait wait

is it b/c there are more brits moving to birmingham? 

 

[Scouts Honor]

i just can't put my finger on which one is more dangerous

 

[Scouts Honor]

racial profiling something something