Anonymous #1 5w

You should spend less time parroting misleading statistics and more time looking into actual American history

45

Anonymous #2 5w

myb the stats released by the fbi is def misleading and not memes made by rando on the internet lol

4

Anonymous #1 5w

The 50% figure refers to arrests for violent crimes, not the actual number of crimes committed. Arrest data is an unreliable measure of criminal behavior because it is not an indicator of guilt and is subject to police bias.

38

Anonymous #3 5w

“violent crimes”. what is this post about again? someone that shot up a church right? i don’t care if arrests aren’t a “good indicator” you don’t get 52 fucking percent by being perfectly innocent lol stfu u clown

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Read what I said bro. You lack critical thinking skills 😭

18

Anonymous #3 5w

buddy missed the part abt police bias😆

12

Anonymous #4 5w

yes because police bias will get you to 52 fucking percent as well. i would call all of you a bunch of chimps but that would be rude to chimps so ill just call u guys r x t x r d s instead

-2

Anonymous #1 5w

Result to insults instead of actual talking points then. It doesnt matter what you think the statistic is garbage and based off BIAS. When you get real stats with no bias we can talk

4

Anonymous #3 5w

ok so like how far in percentage do you think police bias alone would get you. bc you know, it’s that easy to arrest people based on color alone and I’m just resorting to insults right?

0

Anonymous #1 5w

Literally find the statistic bro 😭😭 its definitely recorded

1

Anonymous #5 5w

bro remember when he banned all muslims from travelling here 😭 crazy work

137

Anonymous #3 5w

then why didn’t you just fucking say that from the start. you wouldn’t happen to be lying to me lol

0

Anonymous #1 5w

Because there is a statistic for it, you just pulled up the bias one. Please use your brain or take a statistics class lol

-1

Anonymous #3 5w

YEAH SO LIKE SAY WHAT THE FUCKING STATISTIC IS LMAOOO

0

Anonymous #1 5w

Political extremism/mass homicide is heavily dominated by the right for the past 2-3 decades (by a huge margin). Majority of that violence is carried out by caucasian males. The cycle of poverty and street violence can trap any child, so it’s more likely to be a minority today due to generational poverty and societal history. Read There Are No Children Here to understand it better.

8

Anonymous #6 5w

We’re not talking about extremist shootings here

7

Anonymous #7 5w

the original post literally says “identity of the shooter” and they go on to misconstrue the meme with a wildly out of context ratio. This was evidence that gets them back on track and provides actual context and opposes the main point he was trying to make with the 12/52 comment

1

Anonymous #7 5w

Their thread is all over the place, so I expanded on my understanding of what they’re trying to drive home in that nonsensical discussion

5

Anonymous #6 5w

Trump never banned Muslims from traveling to the US, he banned all travel from a list of about a dozen nations that had terrorism issue, and Obama did the same thing with those same nations

-10

Anonymous #6 5w

Is “banning travel from some countries = blaming an entire race.” Your best argument? He didn’t ban travel from all Muslim countries, let alone all Muslims. And I don’t realize “Muslim” was a race in the first place.

20

Anonymous #8 5w

Incorrect. Obama suspended the processing of refugee applications only for Iraq after arresting 2 Iraqi refugees on US soil for an active terror threat. Trump issued an EO against 6+ predominantly muslim countries with NO specific inciting incident, and not only suspended refugee processing but also travel for immigrant and nonimmigrant visa holders. The ban was court ordered to be revised TWICE for lack of security foundation and violating discrimination protections

20

Anonymous #5 5w

It was quite literally known colloquially as the muslim ban for targeting predominantly muslim countries without a security cause or legal foundation. It was struck down and ordered to be revised from the court TWICE for religious and ethnic discrimination and no justification

15

Anonymous #6 5w

He literally used a list made by the Obama admin which restricted immigration from all of these nations and the nations had been identified as high threat terror hot beds. Show me the SCOTUS case that struck it down. I’ll wait

3

Anonymous #8 5w

Obama used that list to make incredibly focused decisions. Anything he did was limited to an intentional, targeted scope and narrow focus. He didn’t wildly ban all types of travel from any one country willy-nilly. I said court not SCOTUS. It goes to federal court BEFORE it can reach SCOTUS, and the ban was blocked as “unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam” by the federal district court in Maryland, whose decision was then upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

4

Anonymous #5 5w

you’re doing backflips to avoid the point now. Is banning a religious group any better than banning a race? The preview overreached any normal boundaries of a ban and was without foundation for a security threat; it didn’t specify heightened processes, certain types of travel, refugees, or even one region or country. Federal courts struck it down twice

5

Anonymous #6 5w

ah yes so the fbi stats are bogus and bias carries that stat all the way to 52%, but a fucking political affiliation stat with less than 500 samples is ok? now that's some faultless info there

1

Anonymous #6 5w

When the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional then come talk to me. What one federal judge or circuit judge says isn’t final and doesn’t speak for the entire judiciary. How could it possible target Muslims when there were Muslims from most Muslim nations still allowed in and given that the travel restrictions on those nations were for anyone, not specifically Muslims

-1

Anonymous #8 5w

*Circuit court

0

Anonymous #1 5w

I’m not even bringing up bias you keep doing that. If you want to discuss that stat you need to identify it (the 52%) and explain it with legible sentences. That wasn’t a study with 500 samples that was a TOTAL of violent political killings confirmed to be motivated by extremism.

1

Anonymous #6 5w

you literally brought up police bias first and then you dodged my other question lol

-1

Anonymous #8 5w

The ban was from his first term and no longer in effect, that’s how. After multiple revisions and judicial blocks, the conservative supreme court *shockingly* 😱 upheld the newest edit. But it was biased enough towards islam that federal courts blocked it 2x. I wasn’t arguing it’s unconstitutional, I was arguing that he DOES discriminate against races and religious groups at times, and his lack of purpose or restraint IS specific to his presidency, not republicans or presidents as a whole

3

Anonymous #1 5w

that wasn’t me, go back and read through the thread

0

Anonymous #1 5w

That was #3 or #4 or something. I entered the discussion afterwards

0

Anonymous #6 5w

that one stat still tells me absolutely nothing about the methods used to produce it i bet you’re one of those bots that actually believes the guy that tried to kill trump was a republican lol

-1

Anonymous #6 5w

What the SCOTUS says is final, not what lower courts say, particularly one judge who had their own political biases too. So using them as proof that this is racial discrimination is debatable at best. Again, their opposition to it was purely political because logically it makes no discrimination towards Muslims, the order targets nations and it targets all people from those nation regardless of religion, and those nations are a fraction of all the Muslim majority nations in the world.

-3

Anonymous #1 5w

No, i don’t live in delusion and I don’t celebrate assassination either. Here are 3 links that informed my statements and why I choose that graph: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9335287/ https://www.adl.org/resources/report/murder-and-extremism-united-states-2021 https:// www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna233704

0

Anonymous #6 5w

Also, Islam is purely a religion, not an ethnicity or ethnic-based group at all, so this still isn’t an example of racial discrimination.

0

Anonymous #6 5w

you dead ass linked a broken link, an “anti hate” organization, and some nbc news article that says nothing about how they gathered their info like you actually showed up with these links with so much confidence lmao

-1

Anonymous #8 5w

It’s debatable to disregard other courts simply because SCOTUS is the highest law of the land. Yes, they made final ruling. No, they weren’t presented with the same versions blocked by the lower (still influential & less political) courts which cited religious discrimination. Again, whether it’s allowed or not is convoluted and irrelevant to “Name a time DT had ever blamed one race or religion.” Even though it wasn’t confined to muslims, it targeted those areas without a goal

6

Anonymous #8 5w

Well if that example doesn’t satisfy you could very well argue he exemplifies ethnic discrimination with how he’s commanding ICE to target hispanics, and pushed that through SCOTUS too. He even defied SCOTUS when they demanded his admin facilitate a citizen’s return after unlawful deportation, justifying it by saying they didn’t have to “accomplish” that but only “help via facilitating”

8

Anonymous #6 5w

He should’ve return a citizen who was wrongfully deported, but what ICE is doing isn’t an example of racial discrimination given that they are deporting people based on immigration status, regardless of ethnicity. Otherwise they wouldn’t be deporting white people with European nations of origin

0

Anonymous #1 5w

the formatting is weird, but the “deadlink” is literally the NIH, our government (maybe the world’s) premier research institution. 2nd is a research organisation specialising in fairer, more accurate studies and sampling. NBC consolidates and simplifies a lot of the data in the other sources, I added it for those who won’t take the time to go through them if they’re too wordy or academic. Can you link your 52% study too and maybe get to the topic instead of just poking around for any hole?

1

Anonymous #6 5w

ok but like… you literally just sent a broken link for your sources? hello???

-1

Anonymous #8 5w

The racial and ethnic component doesn’t stemming from the lack of white and european deportees, it’s from the unethical detainment and deportation of US citizens and Visa holders simply by profiling their appearance and accent. Targeting that caricature then deporting or “losing” those citizens and refugees, holding legal residents for 12+ hours without accepting their papers isn’t due process, and neither is revoking visas from activists who speak publicly against the situation.

9

Anonymous #1 5w

Helloooo????? I just gave you where you can find every single link. I’m sorry it didn’t work for you, I tried to space them out for ease and maybe I did it wrong. But if that’s all the logic you can summon it’s not worth tracking them down again if you’re not providing me with LITERALLY ANYTHING 😭

8

Anonymous #1 5w

since you love stats so much I bet you hate all men for committing the most violent sex crimes right? Or are you a pussy that picks and chooses what’s convenient for their hate?

1

Anonymous #6 5w

What the opponents of a bill colloquially call that bill does not mean someone is blaming an entire race. And I’m not doing backflips, “this ban doesn’t restrict Muslims” pretty readily leads to “this is not a Muslim ban.”

0

Anonymous #6 5w

If they aren’t discriminating based on race then it isn’t racist smh, they are detaining and deporting based on legal status, otherwise they’d have a long way to go for the 60+ million Latinos in the US, plus they wouldn’t be treating white illegal immigrants the same way. If you don’t agree with what Trump’s doing that’s one thing, but thinking it’s racist is just dumb.

-1

Anonymous #6 5w

so you send me a broken link for your sources, but you also know exactly what “52/12 lol” means off the rip with no context? and now you’re asking for sources LMAO is somebody grasping for straws lol

1