Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Air Grievances about BruceZ Getting Called Racist ITT: New Posts Arriving All the Time! Air Grievances about BruceZ Getting Called Racist ITT: New Posts Arriving All the Time!

04-19-2015 , 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zikzak
braves,

Welcome (back) to the forum. Could you link to a single post you have a problem with and explain the errors in it?
Why? (Please do not lie)
04-19-2015 , 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyJ
My money is on greatwhite
How much?
04-19-2015 , 08:51 AM
Now it's even more likely
04-19-2015 , 09:08 AM
Definitely not greatwhite, I've never been banned here before.


EDIT:
I would definitely not say this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatwhite
I think I'm right down the middle on racial issues while this forum is very far to the left on them, on economics I'm definitely to the right.
Can anyone tell me whats "far left" on racial issues? Or even middle?

I'm still up for taking your money.
04-19-2015 , 09:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by braves2017
Why? (Please do not lie)
Because if you can't clearly identify the behavior you find problematic and explain what is wrong with it there is nothing to discuss. You're just making baseless accusations.

For example, this thread is mostly about BruceZ. When he is accused of being racist, it is done with links to or quotes of his specific posts, along with explanations of why those posts are racist. When he is accused of threatening to ban people out of forum, it is because the evidence exists and is not in dispute. When we place the words "estrogen laden liberal butt buddies that think with their vaginas and suck at the teet of political correctness you pathetic douche bag" in quotes, it is because those were his words, a direct personal attack against a user that was also insulting to an entire forum. When people mention Bruce sending threatening PM's to a user, nobody made that up. It really happened. When people point out that Bruce took his ball and went home like a petulant child, it is because Bruce no longer posts here.

Evidence for all of the above exists and can be cited (indeed, has been many, many times). So now it is your turn. Show your work.
04-19-2015 , 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zikzak
Because if you can't clearly identify the behavior you find problematic and explain what is wrong with it there is nothing to discuss. You're just making baseless accusations.

For example, this thread is mostly about BruceZ. When he is accused of being racist, it is done with links to or quotes of his specific posts, along with explanations of why those posts are racist. When he is accused of threatening to ban people out of forum, it is because the evidence exists and is not in dispute. When we place the words "estrogen laden liberal butt buddies that think with their vaginas and suck at the teet of political correctness you pathetic douche bag" in quotes, it is because those were his words, a direct personal attack against a user that was also insulting to an entire forum. When people mention Bruce sending threatening PM's to a user, nobody made that up. It really happened. When people point out that Bruce took his ball and went home like a petulant child, it is because Bruce no longer posts here.

Evidence for all of the above exists and can be cited (indeed, has been many, many times). So now it is your turn. Show your work.
Any post that perpetuates a racial stereotype. Do I really need to point one out of fly's or MrWookie's extensive post history on this subject? Of course, now I will be fighting endless straw-man arguments that does not addresses my main point of contention, a racial stereotype has been perpetuated by these two and others for years, yet here you guys or gals are making a big deal of this guy being a racist.

Last edited by braves2017; 04-19-2015 at 09:29 AM.
04-19-2015 , 09:25 AM
Yes, you really do. You also need to include an explanation. Burden of proof is on the accuser.
04-19-2015 , 09:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zikzak
Yes, you really do. You also need to include an explanation. Burden of proof is on the accuser.
Come on guy, your smarter than this, you know exactly what I'm talking about. If its not clear, then you really need some help drawing conclusions. I've studied your game too and its not pretty for you either. If you need it spelled out for you, you are not worth my time. If your forum cant take objective criticism and only want to find holes in my argument, your not worth my time and that is exactly what you are trying to do. You have no interest in have an honest discussion about my criticism. If it does not apply, ignore me.

Last edited by braves2017; 04-19-2015 at 09:39 AM.
04-19-2015 , 09:39 AM
Apparently I am not smarter than that. I must insist on evidence, or the only conclusion I can draw is that you are lying. I do not have your ability to read peoples' souls. Examples of the behavior you are alleging are required.
04-19-2015 , 09:43 AM
Hi, my account is two days old and I swear I'm not a previously banned poster, but like, I've studied your posting history or whatever
04-19-2015 , 09:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zikzak
Apparently I am not smarter than that. I must insist on evidence, or the only conclusion I can draw is that you are lying. I do not have your ability to read peoples' souls. Examples of the behavior you are alleging are required.
Just assume I'm lying then, its not like anything I post will change your opinion and that's why I will not indulge in your game. You can think what ever you want, I could careless. I've studied the frequent posters in this thread, including you....you have no interest in my criticism, you only want to find a reason to discredit it.
04-19-2015 , 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anais
Hi, my account is two days old and I swear I'm not a previously banned poster, but like, I've studied your posting history or whatever
I find it kind of funny that the only people who would possibly take offence at my criticism have responded in short order.

Well except for one and I believe that person will clearly demonstrate their objection.
04-19-2015 , 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anais
Hi, my account is two days old and I swear I'm not a previously banned poster, but like, I've studied your posting history or whatever
Also, the guy who is the most vitriolic towards racism is the most racism person I've ever come across. I'm definitely not saying this as an emotional reaction because he called me racist a bunch of times
04-19-2015 , 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyJ
Also, the guy who is the most vitriolic towards racism is the most racism person I've ever come across. I'm definitely not saying this because he's called me racist a bunch of times
Anyone who perpetuates racial stereotypes as long as he has obviously has some cognitive dissonance and incapable of rational thought so it would not surprise me he is the most vitriolic towards certain kinds of racism. Its a little dishonest to say he is he most vitriolic towards racism, as if he cares about racism....rather he cares about what color the racism is and thats an important distinction in my criticism.

Last edited by braves2017; 04-19-2015 at 10:00 AM.
04-19-2015 , 10:05 AM
Cognitive dissonance itt
04-19-2015 , 10:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anais
Cognitive dissonance itt
Claim, counter claim and around we go.
04-19-2015 , 10:12 AM
If only somebody could take the time to back up their claims...
04-19-2015 , 10:18 AM
That's not how the religion of trolling works
04-19-2015 , 10:19 AM
Because my time apparently isn't super valuable and because I don't like the implications that I'm careless or a smear artist or whatever I went back and quoted every brucez post in the SMP ferguson thread up until the point where "the politics fruit loops" got involved. As I have said before here is the thread itself for all your other context needs. Hopefully someone can point out to me which of these missing bits is the important one. There are at least 3 deleted posts in the mix that I don't have access to because I don't mod SMP but if Zeno or whoever wants to post those too for extra context that'd be cool.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
Try that one again. It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt that he was charging for a guilty verdict.

It wouldn't be based on a numerical likelihood. I would consider the possible scenarios in which he might be charging, and I would classify those scenarios with the binary decision of "reasonable" or "not reasonable". If any of them are reasonable, he gets off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
Yes, believed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
It's not ill-defined. I use a neural network to compute it. The neural network doesn't have any notion of x. It only takes as inputs the scenarios, and it has 1 node that lights up reasonable or not reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
I mentioned this before. I once served on a jury where someone was on trial for being a felon and possessing a handgun. The only reasonable doubt was whether the police just planted the evidence. There was no particular reason to think this happened or didn't happen. So suppose I knew that statistically the rate of police planting evidence in such crimes was 1 in N. What would N have to be for this to become reasonable doubt?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
It simply isn't defined in terms of probability. What good would it have done me to know, for example, that 0.5% of the time, evidence in such cases is planted? Nobody told me what side of reasonable/unreasonable 0.5% falls on. And this is the simplest of all possible cases. In reality, I have no idea within orders of magnitude what that probability is. It would be reasonable to think it could be over 1%, or 0.1%, or 0.01%. So now I'm supposed to guess at a probability and then make a decision based on my guess when I wouldn't even know what to do if I knew the probability exactly?

We looked at what the cop said he did and what he found. We acknowledged the possibility that evidence could have been planted. But that mere possibility simply wasn't enough to change our belief that the guy was guilty. Not even close. Did we make the right decision? I never had any serious doubt that we did. But I'll say this. If that guy had been on trial for his life instead of for 18 months in Joliet, there's no way in hell he ever would have been convicted based on the scant evidence that was presented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
The independent autopsy conducted by Michael Baden (famous pathologist) showed that bullets entered through the front of the body, and the fatal shot entered through the top of the head. He said that this could be consistent with either charging forward or surrendering. I don't know where you heard about back to front, but that would be perfectly consistent with shooting someone who is charging forward with their head down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us...imes.html?_r=0
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
The standard should change with the severity of the punishment. That's a Bayesian loss function. Probability estimates are weighted by the cost of being wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
And what percentage of the time does an officer making a routine arrest on a violent suspect shoot him down in cold blood while he's surrendering because he's mad at him? Much less than 1/100. It virtually never happens. So by Bayes' theorem, not only wouldn't he be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he'd actually be innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
You're missing the point. You can't just look at how unlikely it is that he charged the officer. You have to compare that to the probability that an officer would shoot someone under this circumstance. It doesn't matter if the chances of him charging are 1 in a thousand, if the chances of an officer with a clean record murdering him were in in a million, then it's a thousand to 1 against it.




There were only something like 425 police shootings last year total out of 12 million arrests. On top of that we have a 6 year veteran with a clean record on the one hand, and on the other, some guy that just committed a strong arm robbery with assault and battery.

The wiki article about the shooting has all the witness reports, police statements, autopsy findings, investigations, etc, all in one place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
But if the Bayesian cost function says there's little to be lost by convicting you in error, then we don't need a high probability.

If we're going to apply probability theory, we should assume that some lives are more valuable than others. Of course the liberals will whine about how that violates their "equal protection under the law" bullcrap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
They're rioting because race hustlers have whipped them up into a frenzy and made them believe that white cops are out to kill black people. They do this every time just so they can stay relevant. Never mind that 91% of blacks that are killed are killed by other blacks. Why don't talk about that? Why don't they riot in the streets about that? Isn't that a much bigger problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
Where's the evidence that they are more likely to be shot based on their color/race/creed? They get shot in proportion to the crimes they commit that warrant being shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
We're talking about being shot, not general treatment. Cops treat people differently when they are suspected of being troublemakers. If they suspect blacks of being troublemakers more than whites, that doesn't imply that they suspect them of being troublemakers simply because they're black.

I don't know why anyone should be surprised. This is a perfectly normal occurrence that we should expect from time to time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
"And by the way, around 96 percent of people killed by police are men."

Those sexist cops. I'm going to riot in the street.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
If a cop uses race as one of his criteria for identifying potential troublemakers, is that racism? Much of the time it's just good police work and proper application of statistics. If they didn't do it, there's would probably be a hell of a lot more blacks shot by other blacks than are killed by the supposedly "racist" cops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm trying to clarify what you mean by racism.

I think cops make decisions based on certain characteristics, and those characteristics are often correlated with race. Race may sometimes be one of the influencing characteristics among other characteristics, and it's impossible to determine whether the same decision would have been made if only the race had been different. Race was part of the whole package and can't be removed. Even the cop probably couldn't tell you whether race played a decisive role.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
If Brown already tried to get Wilson's his gun once, and then he starts charging back at Wilson weighing 350 pounds even after being shot 5 times, that's a lethal threat that he will go for Wilson's gun again. I don't know what else you else you expect Wilson to do besides kill him when he gets close enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
You may have missed the post where I responded to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
After struggling with a guy that tried to get his gun, I don't think running away from Brown is a legitimate option for a police officer. Keep the car between them and let Brown chase him around it? No, I don't think so. Also, it isn't true that Brown was no longer a threat because he was shot and injured. You get a burst of adrenaline in a situation like that. You don't feel pain, and you get very aggressive. He was like a big angry wounded animal charging after him, and that's very dangerous for the officer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
What typically happens in situatons like this one and the Trayvon Martin case is that you have a couple of hotheads with attitudes that clash from the beginning, and then things escalate quickly from there. Wilson yelled something like, "Get your ass out of the street". We know Brown was an aggressive guy. Just look at how he shoved the clerk in the convenience store. Wilson may have then proceeded to make some tactical errors and even violations of proper procedure. That doesn't make him a murderer though because once all those errors were made, killing may have become a valid option. The problem is that all gets mixed in people's minds, and you end up with, "He murdered him because he's a racist". There's no reason to believe race had anything to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
The witnesses are likely to be racists.

Like the one that said Brown was shot several times in the back as he was fleeing when the autopsy clearly contradicted that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
Pattern recognition using the powerful neural network between their ears and trained through experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
Now you have to define "justly".




It's part of a larger pattern endemic to their culture. It's stems from a strong undercurrent intent on giving the big finger to established societal structure.




Probably not because it's not part of what he perceives to be a problematic pattern.

A lot of problems started in my neighborhood when a bunch of Mexicans moved in. Mostly this has to do with noise. Mexicans appear to be culturally predisposed to making a lot more of it than whites. Whites don't typically have parties in their cars where they drink beer and blast circus music. Whites don't have very large numbers of people and several generations living in a single house, with lots of other friends staying over temporarily. Whites don't typically work on their cars, do construction, and move heavy furniture around constantly. The Mexicans are a very industrious people who are always working to make their lives better. That makes a lot of noise. So if I hear some noise and look out the window to see some Mexicans congregating, I will get upset and do something about it much quicker than if I see some white guys. The white guys aren't part of the pattern of trouble. It doesn't make sense to immediately get upset at them because they aren't likely to ever make that noise again. They may just be passing through. It doesn't matter if I've never seen those particular Mexicans before. They are still part of a wider problem. They are generally associated with other Mexicans that have made noise in the past. If I complain to them, maybe that general population of Mexicans will start to get the idea that this won't be tolerated. When Pablo starts to make noise, maybe Chico will let him know to be careful because the crazy white guy doesn't like it.

If I have a cockroach problem, I will get upset as soon as I see any cockroach. It doesn't matter if I haven't seen that particular roach before. If a big fly comes through, that's just as unsanitary, but I won't get worked up about that because I don't have a fly problem.




Assuming he is likely a bigot is a form of bigotry in itself.

Suppose the black guys walking in the street had been dressed in tuxedos. The cop probably wouldn't have gotten upset the same way. So it isn't about race. It's about people walking in the street who are part of a larger pattern of people walking in the street, and then mouthing off, attacking an officer, and trying to steal his gun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
Why isn't thinking that string theory is worth pursuing not part of the same great neural network computation that produced the TOE according to Bozo the clown?




No, you don't understand. Wilson is part of a contingent of cops who are out to kill black people. That was his only criteria for killing Brown. It had nothing to do with the fact that Brown was a scumbag. It had nothing to do with the fact that Brown just robbed a convenience store and assaulted a clerk. It had nothing to do with his appearance and body language. It had nothing to do with the fact that Brown defied authority. It had nothing to do with the fact that Brown physically assaulted Wilson and went for his gun. Wilson just wanted to kill a black person. It was only about race. That is the hypothesis being floated. If some Temptations impersonators had been there, and they obeyed Wilson and got out of the street when told, it would have made no difference. Wilson would have blown them away. That must be true if the hypothesis is true. The fact that he might not have killed a white person with the same behavior as Brown doesn't correctly test that hypothesis. That could happen if Wilson's decision was due to some function of all the factors of which race was only one which interacted with these other factors in some complicated way via the hidden nodes of the network. But we certainly don't want to admit such a possibility. That would tend to put much of the blame on Brown and suggest that decisions by police are far more complicated than our thesis that cops are out to kill black people. We can't have that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
"The police departments of America are endowed by the state with dominion over your body."

Uh, no they aren't. If they had dominion over your body, they could just walk up and shoot you dead any time they please for no reason. If they do that, they go to prison for murder. If they are suspected of that, they have to answer to a jury of citizens.

You might find this interesting and informative:

http://humanevents.com/2013/07/19/bl...-white-racism/
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
I think we ought to privatize the police. Then if the blacks in the inner city don't like the way the government police operate, they are perfectly free to dismiss those guys from protecting them, and hire their own force armed with ASP batons. Let's see how that works out for them.

Maybe something like this:

"In 2010, following the serious injury of an unarmed officer in a knife attack, the chairman of the Police Memorial Trust, Michael Winner stated that he had put up memorials to 44 officers and that he believed, "It is almost certain that at least 38 of those [Police Officers] would be alive had they been armed".[13]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_...#Great_Britain

"In October 2000, Nottinghamshire Police introduced regular armed patrols to the St Ann's and Meadows estates in Nottingham, in response to fourteen drug-related shootings in the two areas in the previous year.[9] Although the measure was not intended to be permanent, patrols were stepped up in the autumn of 2001 after further shootings,[10] after which the firearms crime declined dramatically.[11]"
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
Yeah, let's take away the guns from both the police and the people so only the criminals can get them. Capital idea.





Aside from the fact that I said nothing of the sort, I find it amusing that you seem to think there's something unusual or noteworthy about different people applying statistics correctly and coming to different conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
Of course. That's because it's a completely different situation when the guns are already out there.

Here's some interesting reading for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ



Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
You don't need a degree in statistics to understand why if 96% of violent crimes in NYC are committed by blacks and hispanics, that you should stop-and-frisk more blacks and hispanics than anyone else. However, I'm not good enough in statistics to be able to conclude that it's likely that some cop that I don't know shot someone because he's a racist. It's not enough just to show that being a racist changed the way he approached the black people walking in the street, or how quickly he resorted to physical force. We have to show that in the few seconds that he was trying to fight for his life he thought "he's black, so I'll shoot him". As if it's possible to ever figure out what he would have done had the suspect been white.

If you can't see the difference between these things, then you're being intentionally obtuse. Hey, I think I'll start a blog called Intentionally Obtuse. There I can rant and rave and use hyperbole about how race-baiters hold their own people down by turning every event into an excuse for why its pointless to try to get ahead in this white cracker world instead of addressing the actual endemic problems that face their culture.




If you haven't been watching the media coverage enough to know that this is what is being said by the race baiters, then you can at least read this thread. Here we learn that it's the experience of many black people that the police can just walk up and shoot them for no reason. It's basically open hunting season on blacks. If that accounted for every single one of the 225 or so blacks killed by cops in the US last year, that would be about as many people as were killed by dogs over the last decade.




I was sarcastically saying that the other side doesn't want to make it more complicated than that. Because then they would have to admit that there were other factors in play, that cop's decisions are complicated, and that Brown brought this on himself. What I said wasn't an argument at all. It was a trivial observation. There were many other things that could have been different that would have changed the result. Things that were well within Brown's control. That's what I meant by "it's not about race". That the thought process that went into these decision didn't primarily focus on race to the exclusion of considering other factors. They want to argue that if Brown had been white with all other factors being equal, then he wouldn't have been shot. So I counter with the argument that if Brown hadn't been a scumbag, then he also wouldn't have been shot. Let's talk about that. But I can see why they don't want to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
We wouldn't be talking about it at all if it weren't for the people saying that and things remotely similar to that.




Why? BTW, he probably would have been shot if the FBI guy hadn't shot the guy that was about to shoot him. He had tried to convince the FBI guy to put his gun away, that he didn't need it.

Based on this and previous comments you made, I believe that you are bigoted against the red indians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
Bull****. I have stated facts, statistics, offered interpretations of events, applied logic, and given relevant links. You asked me a question that was so dumb it could have been asked by the race-baiters. I answered you. Now you have 3 choices as I see it. You can choose to argue logically why I'm wrong. You can thank me for answering and admit that the implication of your question was misguided. Or you can accuse me of destroying the thread with ranting hypberole, and then turn tail and run like a little bitch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
I don't know how much you watch FOX news, but the "root is family, community, education, jobs and choice of cultural icon" is exactly the message that Bill O'Reilly puts forth constantly.




They can't just all wait for the other guy to shoot, or maybe nobody will shoot.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
Because they come from an area where racial tensions are very high, and where the blacks tend to view everything through a filter of race, so much so that one of them looked right at someone being shot in the front as he was either standing still or coming forward, and she saw someone being shot in the back while he was running away, or else she outright lied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
She said that he was hit several times as he ran. We know that's false because the autopsy clearly showed that all shots that hit him were from the front.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
Getting the fruit loops from politics now.
04-19-2015 , 10:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zikzak
If only somebody could take the time to back up their claims...
I've explained why and I'm not interested in that game. I understand you do not accept that but I do not really care. My thing is, you've been around a long time, you should be able to open your mind, take in consideration my criticism and form your own opinion. If you do not think this behavior occurred, fair enough...

When I get constructive criticism about my work, I take it in consideration and take an honest look at my self....I do not need my supervisor to cite specific examples. I'm a grown ass man and capable of objective reasoning and honest self-examination.
04-19-2015 , 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anais
Hi, my account is two days old and I swear I'm not a previously banned poster, but like, I've studied your posting history or whatever
yea this, as if it wasn't even obvious enough already

these people are so stupid it's just mindblowing
04-19-2015 , 10:34 AM
More evasive nonsense from a previously banned poster. Fun!

This thread definitely needs to survive another 7 months!
04-19-2015 , 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomdemaine
CLIP
I would make the same argument against that guy as I would proponents of privilege. i.e. using empirical evidence to validate a stereotype. This is why this thread has gone on for 2000 post and zik still doesn't know what I'm talking about.

Last edited by braves2017; 04-19-2015 at 10:42 AM.
04-19-2015 , 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by +rep_lol
yea this, as if it wasn't even obvious enough already

these people are so stupid it's just mindblowing
I think you are operating on a false assumption. Hate for your mind to be blown for drawing the wrong conclusion.
04-19-2015 , 10:37 AM
I'm not going to ever provide any proof that what I'm saying has ever happened, but I think you should stop beating your girlfriend, Braves.

You can either take my criticism for what it is or ignore it, but I think I have a valid opinion that you should consider.

      
m