you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]paranoid_android3 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

According to The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers.

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877

That is, cops may be biased against Blacks, but White cops are not more biased than other cops. That is Black cops are just as biased against Blacks as White cops. Hmm... Almost like experience makes you biased against Blacks no matter who you are. This is 100% consistent with Blacks not even wanting to live around Blacks.

[–]ChancellorMershekel 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It was Andrew Yang, of all people, who held the very politically incorrect view that 'diversity' increases rather than decreases 'racism'. Trying to be a stereotypical 'evil genius' he thus convinced himself that to beat Trump, all he had to do was fool Whites in very White areas to vote for him—supposedly he had 'done all the math' and knew what percentage he had to convince. He outright claimed that Whites were at their least racist (the exact opposite of what good Leftists believe) in such areas, and thus there they would be easier to convince.

So why was Andrew Yang such a thoroughly evil bastard, effectively seeing the world like we do, but taking the opposite side to us on practically every issue? Well, his view was that Whites would lash out as they got closer to becoming a minority, and therefore that this transition needed to be managed very carefully to minimize the possibility that Whites might just go postal on his kind. He is an Asian tribalist, through and through, worried that Asians (specifically, mentioning his own kids) would be expelled by Whites angry about their impending minority status. Fearful of that scenario, he stooped down to ostensibly accepting all sorts of things he probably personally thinks are ludicrous, such as 'reparations', in order to keep this fragile non-White coalition (which the Left desperately need) intact. I suspect he even knows that he's in the moral wrong, but simply doesn't care—the White civilization is too great to risk losing the chance of capturing it. Non-Whites in our societies are too accustomed to comparatively high living standards to seriously accept going back to the third-world. Why would anyone want to give up such a 'privileged' life to live in a third-world cesspool? This is one of the reasons for why they seemingly hypocritically 'want the White Man's world, yet without him in it'. If you found something of immense value created by someone you could easily overpower, indeed, why not take the risk? This scenario is playing out writ large, with non-White 'activist politicians' using the baizuo as an instrument to help provide the rope to hang us all with.

You can see the same pattern in France. Southern France has far more RN support, yet most browns/blacks also live in the south (and they mostly vote PS or other Leftist parties). Living around such people makes one more race-conscious. It's for that same reason that Leftists observe that police are quite 'racist' (thus the whole BLM thing), ignorantly failing to understand that if one disproportionately deals with criminals of a certain race, then one's view of that entire race will become increasingly negative. They're literally problematizing simple pattern recognition.