Which is most fair and right?

[OGTEleven]

 

And that's already been done, for anyone paying attention. But the people pushing the BLM narrative have no intention of understanding what is actually going on. You fail to realize that you've swallowed their narrative whole by even acknowledging that there might be a problem with homicidal maniac racist cops.

 

The violent crime disparities between whites and blacks are well documented. In 2015 there were 987 fatal police shootings in the USA. Blacks made up 26% of those shootings. Of those, 36 "unarmed" black males were shot, though "unarmed" includes those who went for the officer's gun, were beating a cop with his own equipment, the results of accidental discharge during a struggle, and a bystander.

 

If BLM and co. actually had a legitimate gripe with cops, you would know about the white guy in Tuscaloosa, Alabama who came at a cop with a !@#$ing spoon and was tazed and then shot. But that doesn't suit the narrative. So guys like Michael Brown (who clearly attempted to take an officer's weapon - an immediate deadly force response was needed) become household names because it's convenient for the narrative.

 

It has sort of been done but not really. I get what you are saying about BLM and all of the other stuff and I have my own opinions about this as well as guesses about the reality. My point is that the more facts we have and the fewer opinions and guesses we have to rely on, the better off everyone will be.

 

I also get that the facts get filtered through agendas. 26% of the fatal shootings involved a black person. 12.3% of the population is black. So your statistic, taken on its own, does not answer all of the questions. In your next sentence you get into the unarmed cases and then start throwing qualifiers around. It is not a compelling way to make an argument because you haven't addressed at all why shootings of blacks are basically double the population percentage, you haven't said how many shootings of whites involved unarmed whites (or just non-blacks), you haven't qualified any of those but you did say one of the armed white guys shouldn't be counted as armed. Whether i agree or disagree with a spoon being a weapon is moot. If I'm someone who believes blacks are treated unfairly, much of what you've written confirms what I think, because the stuff you wrote is all over the place.

 

Mathematically you have to start with the number 987 and determine if that is enough of a sample size from which to draw a statistical conclusion. Then you take the factors other than race into account and measure the best you can. Was income level a more important factor than race? Drug involvement? Domestic dispute? If you have enough information you can determine that race was a factor ini x% of the shootings and likely resulted in the deaths of x additional people because of skin color. Tasker's study tried to do this but also pointed out that not all the data was reliable.

 

I have conclusions I have made in my own head about a lot of this stuff as do many people. I don't think they would all be proven correct if every bit of related data was suddenly available. I don't think anyone's would. I hope I've done a good job reaching mine. I haven't even shared them at this point. The point I'm trying to make is that talking past each other with partial information isn't going to change anything. As you point out, people with agendas will ignore or hide information as well. I'm not naive enough to miss that.

 

I think there is a lot of stupidity to go around on this topic. I think Kaepernick was off base (but within his rights) to base this off of Michael Brown. I am not all that sympathetic to Michael Bennett based on the information I've seen at this point and I think Goodell fanned those flames a little with his statement of support based on what was probably limited information. I assume he did so for NFL-centric reasons and disregarded societal impact. I think Trump was very stupid with his stream of comments on the topic and I think the players and teams were put in an awful weird spot by all of the factors listed above. Trump isn't the first or last president to put his foot in his mouth. Obama did it on racial topics too in my opinion.

I am not agreeing with Kap here. If I had to choose I would say he shouldn't have done it. But it's always good to understand context and circumstance as well as you can.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/24/colin-kaepernick-debates-merits-of-fidel-castro-with-miami-reporter/amp/

 

 

I'm glad you're not agreeing with him because that interview is not a good look for him. Having the context of any friend of Malcolm X's is a friend of mine isn't a real good context, and that isn't a comment on Malcolm X. It's a comment about him needing to evaluate Castro based on Castro, not on someone whose hand he shook. In the interview he seemed to know a lot about Castro and seemed to have a positive impression.

Edited September 26, 2017 by OGTEleven

[GoBills808]

Has the Fryer paper been peer reviewed yet? Asking for a friend.

[grinreaper]

 

It has sort of been done but not really. I get what you are saying about BLM and all of the other stuff and I have my own opinions about this as well as guesses about the reality. My point is that the more facts we have and the fewer opinions and guesses we have to rely on, the better off everyone will be.

 

I also get that the facts get filtered through agendas. 26% of the fatal shootings involved a black person. 12.3% of the population is black. So your statistic, taken on its own, does not answer all of the questions. In your next sentence you get into the unarmed cases and then start throwing qualifiers around. It is not a compelling way to make an argument because you haven't addressed at all why shootings of blacks are basically double the population percentage, you haven't said how many shootings of whites involved unarmed whites (or just non-blacks), you haven't qualified any of those but you did say one of the armed white guys shouldn't be counted as armed. Whether i agree or disagree with a spoon being a weapon is moot. If I'm someone who believes blacks are treated unfairly, much of what you've written confirms what I think, because the stuff you wrote is all over the place.

 

Mathematically you have to start with the number 987 and determine if that is enough of a sample size from which to draw a statistical conclusion. Then you take the factors other than race into account and measure the best you can. Was income level a more important factor than race? Drug involvement? Domestic dispute? If you have enough information you can determine that race was a factor ini x% of the shootings and likely resulted in the deaths of x additional people because of skin color. Tasker's study tried to do this but also pointed out that not all the data was reliable.

 

I have conclusions I have made in my own head about a lot of this stuff as do many people. I don't think they would all be proven correct if every bit of related data was suddenly available. I don't think anyone's would. I hope I've done a good job reaching mine. I haven't even shared them at this point. The point I'm trying to make is that talking past each other with partial information isn't going to change anything. As you point out, people with agendas will ignore or hide information as well. I'm not naive enough to miss that.

 

I think there is a lot of stupidity to go around on this topic. I think Kaepernick was off base (but within his rights) to base this off of Michael Brown. I am not all that sympathetic to Michael Bennett based on the information I've seen at this point and I think Goodell fanned those flames a little with his statement of support based on what was probably limited information. I assume he did so for NFL-centric reasons and disregarded societal impact. I think Trump was very stupid with his stream of comments on the topic and I think the players and teams were put in an awful weird spot by all of the factors listed above. Trump isn't the first or last president to put his foot in his mouth. Obama did it on racial topics too in my opinion.

 

 

I'm glad you're not agreeing with him because that interview is not a good look for him. Having the context of any friend of Malcolm X's is a friend of mine isn't a real good context, and that isn't a comment on Malcolm X. It's a comment about him needing to evaluate Castro based on Castro, not on someone whose hand he shook. In the interview he seemed to know a lot about Castro and seemed to have a positive impression.

You are attempting to use analytics while in this case I feel confident that the "smell test" is good enough. It seems like everyone is afraid to address this and tip toes around the subject. The reason that more blacks percentage wise are shot by policemen is that more blacks commit crimes percentage wise and put themselves in confrontation with the police more often than whites. Can anyone dispute this? There are high crime areas in our country and they are almost exclusively inner city areas with overwhelming populations of blacks. The real question to ask has nothing to do with percentages but whether or not the police treat a knife wielding black any different than a knife wielding white. I think not. With that said, until the blacks as a whole look at themselves and take responsibility for their condition, then they'll continue to be the slaves of the forces enticing them to be so.

[LeviF]

 

It has sort of been done but not really. I get what you are saying about BLM and all of the other stuff and I have my own opinions about this as well as guesses about the reality. My point is that the more facts we have and the fewer opinions and guesses we have to rely on, the better off everyone will be.

 

I also get that the facts get filtered through agendas. 26% of the fatal shootings involved a black person. 12.3% of the population is black. So your statistic, taken on its own, does not answer all of the questions. In your next sentence you get into the unarmed cases and then start throwing qualifiers around. It is not a compelling way to make an argument because you haven't addressed at all why shootings of blacks are basically double the population percentage, you haven't said how many shootings of whites involved unarmed whites (or just non-blacks), you haven't qualified any of those but you did say one of the armed white guys shouldn't be counted as armed. Whether i agree or disagree with a spoon being a weapon is moot. If I'm someone who believes blacks are treated unfairly, much of what you've written confirms what I think, because the stuff you wrote is all over the place.

 

Mathematically you have to start with the number 987 and determine if that is enough of a sample size from which to draw a statistical conclusion. Then you take the factors other than race into account and measure the best you can. Was income level a more important factor than race? Drug involvement? Domestic dispute? If you have enough information you can determine that race was a factor ini x% of the shootings and likely resulted in the deaths of x additional people because of skin color. Tasker's study tried to do this but also pointed out that not all the data was reliable.

 

 

Again, the disparities in the commission of violent crimes in white vs. black populations is well documented; that you can't separate that from a population number is your problem. If we go off of the commission of violent crimes, then blacks are actually underrepresented in fatal police encounters.

 

As to sample size and statistical relevance, I think it's hard to say what would be an effective sample when police have millions and millions of encounters with civilians every year. As far as the factors that play into whether or not a cop pulls a trigger, again I'm not sure we'll ever have a good way to measure that because deadly force encounters happen very quickly and involve human minds that have been flooded with adrenaline and what have you.

 

It's remarkably easy to not get shot by a cop. Millions of people manage to not get shot in their encounters with police every year. Close to half a million manage to not get shot while being arrested for a violent felony. The number of "bad" shoots is remarkably small, and those cops are dealt with accordingly (not with "paid leave" like Kaep and BLM like to say).

 

Edited to add: if I recall correctly there were 30 shoots of "unarmed" whites in 2015, but again the use of the word "unarmed" can be extremely misleading to the point of useless. That was more the point I was trying to make by "qualifying" its use.

Edited September 26, 2017 by LeviF91

[OGTEleven]

You are attempting to use analytics while in this case I feel confident that the "smell test" is good enough. It seems like everyone is afraid to address this and tip toes around the subject. The reason that more blacks percentage wise are shot by policemen is that more blacks commit crimes percentage wise and put themselves in confrontation with the police more often than whites. Can anyone dispute this? There are high crime areas in our country and they are almost exclusively inner city areas with overwhelming populations of blacks. The real question to ask has nothing to do with percentages but whether or not the police treat a knife wielding black any different than a knife wielding white. I think not. With that said, until the blacks as a whole look at themselves and take responsibility for their condition, then they'll continue to be the slaves of the forces enticing them to be so.

 

 

In the part you colored red I wasn't trying to use analytics at all. I was putting myself in the shoes of the person who thinks cops are racist and trying to figure out how I'd respond to Levi's points. His facts weren't wrong, but they were incomplete and they hopped around trying to fit his conclusion. If i were someone who disagreed with his premise, I'd probably dismiss his arguments more quickly than I should and might even start to mistrust him. That would probably be the wrong thing to do, but it probably wouldn't stop me. I'd probably proceed to cite incomplete facts of my own leading Levi to believe he couldn't trust me or my intent.

 

The rest of what you wrote is something I'll have to come back to at a later time. Sorry about that.

[OGTEleven]

 

Again, the disparities in the commission of violent crimes in white vs. black populations is well documented; that you can't separate that from a population number is your problem. If we go off of the commission of violent crimes, then blacks are actually underrepresented in fatal police encounters.

 

As to sample size and statistical relevance, I think it's hard to say what would be an effective sample when police have millions and millions of encounters with civilians every year. As far as the factors that play into whether or not a cop pulls a trigger, again I'm not sure we'll ever have a good way to measure that because deadly force encounters happen very quickly and involve human minds that have been flooded with adrenaline and what have you.

 

It's remarkably easy to not get shot by a cop. Millions of people manage to not get shot in their encounters with police every year. Close to half a million manage to not get shot while being arrested for a violent felony. The number of "bad" shoots is remarkably small, and those cops are dealt with accordingly (not with "paid leave" like Kaep and BLM like to say).

 

Edited to add: if I recall correctly there were 30 shoots of "unarmed" whites in 2015, but again the use of the word "unarmed" can be extremely misleading to the point of useless. That was more the point I was trying to make by "qualifying" its use.

 

 

I'm not attempting to separate or ignore crime rates any more than you are attempting to say that skin color leads to the higher crime rates. Some people would read what you said and think you feel that way because they have made false assumptions about your intent.

 

I think that when conversing with someone on the other side of an argument, it is smart to attempt to discern what the person factored in when arriving at their conclusion. And even though I like to think I have the noblest of intent, I have to realize that the other person might think the exact opposite of me. For that reason, I try to avoid making points with partial data and blanks filled in by things that ring true to me. If they simply ring true to me, they probably ring false to the person on the other side of the table. It is better to start with things that are simply true and explain your side from that foundation. It is fair for someone to challenge the things that you feel are obvious just as it is fair for you to challenge someone that thinks it is obvious that all cops are racists.

 

I completely agree with what you say about the quickness and charged nature of deadly encounters leading to foggy memories.

 

From what I can see, emotion takes too prominent a place in this discussion (most discussions really but even more so in this). I think that needs to be stripped out to whatever degree it can be and replaced with facts. If that doesn't lead everyone to the same conclusion, it should at least be helpful in having them trust people with opposing points of view and not lump them into some unnecessary category.

 

I remember way back in school one of the things that stuck with me was the assumptions of pure competition and at first thinking they were simply bad assumptions. One was "full knowledge of the available products by all consumers". I thought it was crazy because how could anyone know everything that went into making a Corn Flake as opposed to a Wheatie and how would this knowledge matter anyway? As I got older I realized that the point was that pure competition had not yet been achieved but we should always move toward it, not away from it. My guess is that with the advent of the internet and many other tools, people know a lot more about they products they buy than at any other time in history. We still don't know everything, but we know a lot more and that is a good thing. There is still a lot of filtering out that needs to be done, but if you want to compare a Ford to a Chevy you are in a much better position to do so today than you were in 1970. Do Chevy and Ford each try to highlights their strengths and ignore their weaknesses? Of course. But there is much more out there can be found much more quickly.

 

The same should apply to things we aren't buying. We know more now about events around the country and the world than we ever have. If Michael Brown happened in 1980 we probably barely hear about it unless we live within a relatively close distance to Ferguson. In some cases the stuff we hear about is useful, in others it is useless (reality TV), and it certainly can carry unintended consequences. The whole country is like a big neighborhood now in many aspects and if there is a theme someone wants to drive, it can be driven. It doesn't even have to be something serious like race relations or police shootings. Remember all the creepy clowns last Summer? That stupid thing fed on itself. If it happened in 1980 in two neighboring towns in Pennsylvania it would have made the local news, tops.

 

As time moves on, facts should inevitably become clear if information is allowed to flow freely. Right now, we are in a place more similar to the 1970s Ford vs. Chevy paradigm than the 2017 Ford vs. Chevy paradigm. There is a lot of spinning going on and it is coming from more angles than simply two competitive auto companies. The point is that the more we move toward fully objective information and not away from it, the better off we'll be.

[Kelly the Dog]

Geez, OGT. Did you just get a new job working for Hallmark or something? Your posts are so short, terse, and succinct lately.

[OGTEleven]

Geez, OGT. Did you just get a new job working for Hallmark or something? Your posts are so short, terse, and succinct lately.

 

 

Hallmark fired me but I got them back because I stole the company sarcasm detector on my way out. It still works.

Edited September 27, 2017 by OGTEleven

[boyst]

 

 

I'm not attempting to separate or ignore crime rates any more than you are attempting to say that skin color leads to the higher crime rates. Some people would read what you said and think you feel that way because they have made false assumptions about your intent.

 

I think that when conversing with someone on the other side of an argument, it is smart to attempt to discern what the person factored in when arriving at their conclusion. And even though I like to think I have the noblest of intent, I have to realize that the other person might think the exact opposite of me. For that reason, I try to avoid making points with partial data and blanks filled in by things that ring true to me. If they simply ring true to me, they probably ring false to the person on the other side of the table. It is better to start with things that are simply true and explain your side from that foundation. It is fair for someone to challenge the things that you feel are obvious just as it is fair for you to challenge someone that thinks it is obvious that all cops are racists.

 

I completely agree with what you say about the quickness and charged nature of deadly encounters leading to foggy memories.

 

From what I can see, emotion takes too prominent a place in this discussion (most discussions really but even more so in this). I think that needs to be stripped out to whatever degree it can be and replaced with facts. If that doesn't lead everyone to the same conclusion, it should at least be helpful in having them trust people with opposing points of view and not lump them into some unnecessary category.

 

I remember way back in school one of the things that stuck with me was the assumptions of pure competition and at first thinking they were simply bad assumptions. One was "full knowledge of the available products by all consumers". I thought it was crazy because how could anyone know everything that went into making a Corn Flake as opposed to a Wheatie and how would this knowledge matter anyway? As I got older I realized that the point was that pure competition had not yet been achieved but we should always move toward it, not away from it. My guess is that with the advent of the internet and many other tools, people know a lot more about they products they buy than at any other time in history. We still don't know everything, but we know a lot more and that is a good thing. There is still a lot of filtering out that needs to be done, but if you want to compare a Ford to a Chevy you are in a much better position to do so today than you were in 1970. Do Chevy and Ford each try to highlights their strengths and ignore their weaknesses? Of course. But there is much more out there can be found much more quickly.

 

The same should apply to things we aren't buying. We know more now about events around the country and the world than we ever have. If Michael Brown happened in 1980 we probably barely hear about it unless we live within a relatively close distance to Ferguson. In some cases the stuff we hear about is useful, in others it is useless (reality TV), and it certainly can carry unintended consequences. The whole country is like a big neighborhood now in many aspects and if there is a theme someone wants to drive, it can be driven. It doesn't even have to be something serious like race relations or police shootings. Remember all the creepy clowns last Summer? That stupid thing fed on itself. If it happened in 1980 in two neighboring towns in Pennsylvania it would have made the local news, tops.

 

As time moves on, facts should inevitably become clear if information is allowed to flow freely. Right now, we are in a place more similar to the 1970s Ford vs. Chevy paradigm than the 2017 Ford vs. Chevy paradigm. There is a lot of spinning going on and it is coming from more angles than simply two competitive auto companies. The point is that the more we move toward fully objective information and not away from it, the better off we'll be.

you can tell when someone sucks at arguing because their response is usually three times longer than the original. Levi is owning you and he's like 12

[grinreaper]

you can tell when someone sucks at arguing because their response is usually three times longer than the original. Levi is owning you and he's like 12

Just because Levi doesn't have as many doctorates as you and is stuck up in Wasilla, Alaska doesn't mean he can't hold his own.

[boyst]

Just because Levi doesn't have as many doctorates as you and is stuck up in Wasilla, Alaska doesn't mean he can't hold his own.

he's boinking a Palin

[OGTEleven]

you can tell when someone sucks at arguing because their response is usually three times longer than the original. Levi is owning you and he's like 12

 

 

Well then I guess I got owned then. But I wasn't arguing with Levi's points so I don't know how. I was really talking about how he made his points and why I thought people don't listen.

[GG]

Geez, OGT. Did you just get a new job working for Hallmark or something? Your posts are so short, terse, and succinct lately.

 

Cut him a break. He's still mourning McLaughlin's passing

 

 

As time moves on, facts should inevitably become clear if information is allowed to flow freely. Right now, we are in a place more similar to the 1970s Ford vs. Chevy paradigm than the 2017 Ford vs. Chevy paradigm. There is a lot of spinning going on and it is coming from more angles than simply two competitive auto companies. The point is that the more we move toward fully objective information and not away from it, the better off we'll be.

 

In the absence of a full data set, would you be wrong by extrapolating a conclusion by triangulating the available information?

 

Let's say that you're a hockey goalie (schmuck), and you stop a shot, but its momentum carries your entire body into the net. The ref and the replays don't show the puck because it's tied up somewhere in the equipment. But your entire body is inside the goal, behind the line. Is that a goal?

[LeviF]

 

 

Well then I guess I got owned then. But I wasn't arguing with Levi's points so I don't know how. I was really talking about how he made his points and why I thought people don't listen.

 

Here's the thing: I don't bother citing statistics and facts and such when I encounter a BLM type. You can't reason someone out of an emotional position, so why bother? You can't "strip out" their emotions and replace them with facts. You can only replace their misplaced anger with well-placed shame. And here's the thing: this has only increased with time, not decreased. Information is more readily available, but I think you underestimate people's willingness to believe disinformation (also more readily available) simply because it makes them feel good.

 

Mockery is the only tool against them. This applies generally to SJWs, as SJWs always lie. They have no use for facts, only rhetoric. This, among other things, is a big reason why Trump took the country by storm last November. He fought rhetoric with rhetoric, while Republicans generally have tried to engage in good-faith debate. Republicans played a game that they couldn't win because leftists weren't even playing the same game. Trump played their game, and he played it better.

[mbossman2]

Observations:

 

Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral

Just because something is illegal doesn't make it immoral

 

the problem is that moral/immoral are personal, legal/illegal are societal

[OGTEleven]

 

Here's the thing: I don't bother citing statistics and facts and such when I encounter a BLM type. You can't reason someone out of an emotional position, so why bother? You can't "strip out" their emotions and replace them with facts. You can only replace their misplaced anger with well-placed shame. And here's the thing: this has only increased with time, not decreased. Information is more readily available, but I think you underestimate people's willingness to believe disinformation (also more readily available) simply because it makes them feel good.

 

Mockery is the only tool against them. This applies generally to SJWs, as SJWs always lie. They have no use for facts, only rhetoric. This, among other things, is a big reason why Trump took the country by storm last November. He fought rhetoric with rhetoric, while Republicans generally have tried to engage in good-faith debate. Republicans played a game that they couldn't win because leftists weren't even playing the same game. Trump played their game, and he played it better.

 

 

I get it and you're probably right about a lot of people. I think you are right about Trump playing that game and large portions of the press and Democrats falling for it. I also agree about disinformation being increased.

 

I disagree with it being the right approach because there are also people on the other side of the argument that aren't the best people. There are racists and bigots. There are bad cops. I'd prefer the other side not think every cop is a racist or everyone not agreeing with Kaepernick is a bigot. The shout down and shaming arguments are fine one on one I suppose (Personally I don't even bother with the discussion).

 

What gets me is when the Sean Hannity's of the world make them. From everything I have seen, Hannity is a decent guy who is not a racist or anything like that. But the way he makes his arguments would lead someone on the other side to want to shout back as a group and fight rather than talk. He's not the only one and Bill Maher is no better. But none of it makes sense to me if the goal is a society that keeps moving forward gradually. We are not going to be a perfect society tomorrow or any time soon, but we are far better than a Castro society and the fact that someone following Castro can get such action tells me that we are not communicating very well.

 

Cut him a break. He's still mourning McLaughlin's passing

 

In the absence of a full data set, would you be wrong by extrapolating a conclusion by triangulating the available information?

 

Let's say that you're a hockey goalie (schmuck), and you stop a shot, but its momentum carries your entire body into the net. The ref and the replays don't show the puck because it's tied up somewhere in the equipment. But your entire body is inside the goal, behind the line. Is that a goal?

McLaughlin lives (you'll see)

 

I get what you're saying about triangulating facts and agree. I just think that too often the known facts get skipped over and people go right to the triangulation. Or they skip facts that they can't reconcile and go hammer the ones that bolster them. Both sides do it. The fact that more whites were killed by cops is a fact, but so is the fact that more blacks per capita were killed. You can't use one and ignore the other and frame a good argument.

 

As for the last part, yes I need to lose a little weight and I also need to improve my skills but that doesn't make your comments less mean or unnecessary.

[Kelly the Dog]

I get it and you're probably right about a lot of people. I think you are right about Trump playing that game and large portions of the press and Democrats falling for it. I also agree about disinformation being increased.

 

I disagree with it being the right approach because there are also people on the other side of the argument that aren't the best people. There are racists and bigots. There are bad cops. I'd prefer the other side not think every cop is a racist or everyone not agreeing with Kaepernick is a bigot. The shout down and shaming arguments are fine one on one I suppose (Personally I don't even bother with the discussion).

 

What gets me is when the Sean Hannity's of the world make them. From everything I have seen, Hannity is a decent guy who is not a racist or anything like that. But the way he makes his arguments would lead someone on the other side to want to shout back as a group and fight rather than talk. He's not the only one and Bill Maher is no better. But none of it makes sense to me if the goal is a society that keeps moving forward gradually. We are not going to be a perfect society tomorrow or any time soon, but we are far better than a Castro society and the fact that someone following Castro can get such action tells me that we are not communicating very well.

McLaughlin lives (you'll see)

 

I get what you're saying about triangulating facts and agree. I just think that too often the known facts get skipped over and people go right to the triangulation. Or they skip facts that they can't reconcile and go hammer the ones that bolster them. Both sides do it. The fact that more whites were killed by cops is a fact, but so is the fact that more blacks per capita were killed. You can't use one and ignore the other and frame a good argument.

 

As for the last part, yes I need to lose a little weight and I also need to improve my skills but that doesn't make your comments less mean or unnecessary.

There is an awesome quote that I often tell writers, which has hard to determine origins, but is often attributed to Benjamin Disraeli. The author penned a letter to one of his friends and wrote, "Please excuse the long letter, I didn't have time for a short one."

 

That's one of my favorite quotes.

[Rob's House]

Anyone bitching that players kneeling is unAmerican, or is somehow disgracing the flag by kneeling is unAmerican, or other people that have a different life experience with or opinion on racism is wrong, or who genuinely believe this is a systemic problem is being an idiot.

 

Do white nationalists get the benefit of this point of view also?

 

 

And I for one don't think they're all idiots, I think they just choose to go with their preconceptions rather than where the evidence leads them.

[Kelly the Dog]

Do white nationalists get the benefit of this point of view also?.

Yes. They are idiots, too.

[DC Tom]

There is an awesome quote that I often tell writers, which has hard to determine origins, but is often attributed to Benjamin Disraeli. The author penned a letter to one of his friends and wrote, "Please excuse the long letter, I didn't have time for a short one."

 

That's one of my favorite quotes.

That sounds like George Bernard Shaw.

 

Pretty sure I read on Facebook that it's from Tiglath-Pileser III