What do you think the percentage of whites to blacks is? — Janus

Black people are 13% of the US population, but commit a lot more crime. For example, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics data from 2003-2012, blacks commit around 6000 murders per year - and whites about 5000, even though white people are 76% of the population.

Have a look at this video on youtube:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube%2c+john+oliver%2c+voting+machines&docid=608054794221454549&mid=F3D928B00F76B8480811F3D928B00F76B8480811&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

It's John Oliver - a left wing comedian, from before 2016, talking about voting machines. The Dems cast doubt on the integrity of the vote before 2016. Trump isn't the author of this narrative. The left are. If Trump is a raving imbecile, misleading his followers - it must be that Trump fixed the voting system, then declined to take credit for it. Or, the left were lying in 2016. Which is it?

50% of people are below average intelligence - and average intelligence isn't much to brag about. Those working in the media; one would assume, are above average intelligence. They should know better than to mislead the muggles.

It's like Black Lies Matter. It has absolutely no basis in statistical fact. In fact, police arrest over 10 million people per year. There are around 1000 arrest related deaths, 42% white, 32% black. There's no racist genocide being committed by the police. Yet the media cheer as businesses are burned and looted, and Black Lives Matter is painted in 10 foot high letters along 5th avenue - while the same media condemn those who seek to defend democracy from what they believe is a fraudulent election.

I would like to agree with you, but objective truth is a very difficult thing to establish, particularly - in the midst of a politicised, polarised media frenzy. Those who occupied the capital believed what they were led to believe - and acted to defend democracy. It's not they who should be condemned, but those who misled them - namely, the media.

Similarly, I don't condemn Extinction Rebellion. They're wrong, or misled anti-capitalists. They believe they are acting in a just cause. Thing is, it's not capitalism to blame. The climate and ecological crisis is a consequence of our mistaken relationship to science. We use the tools - but we don't read the instructions - in that, we don't act on the basis of a scientific understanding of reality. We act on the basis of ideology, and apply technology according to what's ideologically valid.

Perhaps the democrats and republicans should appoint a scientist to design an objectively fair and fraud proof voting system. Unlike journalists, scientists have ethics built in to their methodology.

I don't know if the election was a fraud or not. I'm in the UK - a long way from this, and I could get just as convincing arguments from the other side, saying the 2016 vote was valid and the 2020 vote a fraud. I don't know enough to form an opinion. But I can say, both sides have made claims the election system is open to fraud - and that's not good. Particularly as, it seems, in 2016 and 2020 - the apparent results have been, or are going to be sustained. Is all this sour grapes?

No. It's not sarcasm. My philosophical aim is to save humankind from extinction, and I know how. The only conceit is the immodesty of saying so. So, yes, it's tongue in cheek, but true nevertheless.

Sorry for the delay - I was washing up and making dinner. There's more to news than merely catering to the audience. There's supposed to be journalistic ethics - standards of practice for news organisations, and fake news is entirely unethical. Reporting what someone said - knowing it to be untrue, and not challenging it, is unethical. There's no excuse in profit making businesses, who only cater to their audiences supposed biases. That's like a doctor handing out puberty blockers to children who are suffering from gender dysphoria. It's utterly unethical.

I haven't paid Trump a great deal of attention. I know he has lent credence to claims of fraud, but I also recall the 2016 election being decried as fraudulent by the left - and what's missing, is the left saying the integrity of the democratic system must be assured. It seems like, they don't care if the election was a fraud because they "won." Or are we to suppose, Trump fixed what Obama left broken, and then declined to claim credit for assuring the integrity of the vote? He's soooo modest! Or are we to suppose that you were lying in 2016, and now - don't like the same lies used against your champion?

Thank you for the warm-ish welcome. I was attracted to the forum because I am the most significant philosophical thinker of this, or any other generation - and I'm duty bound to share my uniquely enlightened thoughts, and shepard humankind into a prosperous and sustainable future - despite your apparent determination to misunderstand, and blunder into extinction.

For example, you claim I advocate

if you do not want something to be true, you are justified in proceeding on the basis of its opposite, even to the extent of destroying democracy and attacking police officers. — Kenosha Kid

There is no alternative to acting on the basis of belief; the important thig is to make sure those beliefs are valid. I said, I don't know if the election was fraudulent - but if it was, they did the right thing. If it wasn't - then they didn't do the right thing. If they acted on the basis of false belief - the consequences were wrongful.

That is my general philosophical position - and incidentally, it's why humankind is headed for extinction. It's not capitalism. It's a lack of regard for science as an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality, particularly, in the application of technology.

I don't see it that way. Rightly or wrongly, those people believed the election was a fraud - in much the same Democrats called the 2016 election a fraud. Go on youtube and search for John Oliver, voting machines, 2016. Maybe there's good reason to doubt the result. I don't know. I'm in the UK, a long way from the action.

Nevertheless, if the election was a fraud, those people did the right thing. They occupied the seat of power - and that's exactly what people should do if the system is corrupted. Afterall, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution both begin "We, the people...." It belongs to them. It's shameful that a police officer shot someone dead for trying to enter a building that they own.

But who should really be ashamed in all this is a highly politicised and polarised news media - who are quite willing to publish claims the election system is fraudulent without sufficient evidence; the left wing media in 2016, and the right wing media in 2020. The people who occupied THIER seat of power to prevent a fraudulent election have nothing to be ashamed of.

It doesn't demonstrate anything about racial dominance - as far as I can tell. If you think it does, please explain in what way. I don't see it.

Given that half of government and all of the media are steeped in political correctness; given that Kier Starmer leapt to his knees for Black Lies Matter, and unequivocally endorsed gender self identification - and that the London Mayor just spent £1.3m of public money promoting Black Lies Matter on New Year's Eve, given that Parler has been banned by Google in an ongoing politically correct crusade against freedom of speech, I'd say, they're getting there. Which takes me back to where I came in - with StreetlightX, saying he would murder racists. So how is any of this funny?

You're right. I don't understand. It wasn't intended as a joke. Did I make a funny? Please explain it to me.

Bias is exactly the same as opinion. Bias is a synonym for opinion. Not that it's a particularly significant point. I was merely drawing out the views of StreetlightX - who doesn't seem able to explain why he wants to murder people.

Similarly, I'm interested in what you mean by "dominant position" - particularly with regard to race. Are you saying that all white people have dominance over all black people? I don't think that's true; neither in the world, or within Western society. But then, I don't stereotype people based on skin colour. Left wing, politically correct ideology does - and so suggests that I, for example, a working class white man, am in the same racial stereotype as Eton and Oxford educated members of the Bullingdon Club; heirs to vast fortunes and the seats of power. I'm not. Not even close. I'm just as disadvantaged as my best friend at school who was from Trinidad. So left wing skin colour stereotypes fail; in that they discriminate against people like me, assuming I have some dominant position I don't have - even if, it might be argued some white people do.

Yes, I suppose you did. Were you virtue signalling?

Okay. As a matter of fact, humankind are a single species. In those terms, there is no such thing as race. And yet, left wing ideology insists there is. So, in scientifically rational terms - sure. IN political terms, not so much. The left simultaneously propose a contest between the interests of racial groups, and deny white people the right to compete.

It's easy to be a centrist when the two main political parties have run away to the extremes. In practice, it makes me politically homeless. What I want to know, is what allows people like streetlightx - follow the left all the way to the extremes, and keep pushing?

I suspect, political correctness has a 'holier than thou' tendency that acts like a ratchet. No matter how unreasonable it becomes, there's no turning back. Anyone who doubts the absolute righteousness of the dogma is automatically a nazi - like JK Rowling, darling of the left for years, one sceptical tweet and she's the devil.

Thanks for the advice. I'll stop when it gets boring.

As I were... what? I don't understand you. Don't dehumanize me. I am very much a real person. Politically, I consider myself centrist, and I'm not racist. But nor am I on board with the dictatorial dogma that is political correctness, and you expressed a desire to proceed to the extremes, beyond twitter mobs and de-platforming - to murdering people who don't adopt your dictatorial ideology. Don't you think, that before you start killing people for what you believe - and they don't, you should at least be capable of justifying those beliefs?

If racism is not an opinion - what is it? I don't understand what you mean by 'its active hurt from the get go.' We're not chatting here. This is a philosophy forum, and left wing politically correct dogma seeks to control Western civilisation. So can you be more specific in explaining your rationale? Because I don't understand it. It seems hypocritical in several ways; not least that it decries stereotypes as racist, or sexist, or homophobic, and then employs those same stereotypes to insist that all black people, or all women, or all gay people suffer the same discrimination and disadvantage. Why do you stereotype by skin colour - rather than height, or weight, or hair colour? Why does political correctness not just judge individuals on the basis of their moral conduct, regardless of other factors? Why do you make race an issue?

I have problems with cogito ergo sum; both the means by which Descartes arrives at this conclusion, and its implications. Firstly, its radical skepticism that suffers from Occam's Razor. To doubt that the external world, and even his physical body exist, because perhaps, a demon may be deceiving him is unreasonable, not least because - it implies a much more complex explanation than the apparent reality; and as Occam asserts, "the simplest adequate explanation is the best."

Having posited unreasonable premises, Descartes cannot proceed toward a reasonable conclusion. Clearly, Descartes does have a physical body, and the external world does exist, so cogito ergo sum does not follow; or, it invokes the unreasonable conditions of its birth in every moment.

This leads to my second problem; that cogito ergo sum is invoked free of this unreasonable context in support of subjectivist philosophies - as if, in reality, the only thing of which we can be certain is our subjective experience. It seems to me, had Descartes thrust his hand into the fire - rather than a ball of wax, he would have become suddenly and painfully aware of the existence of his physical body and an objective reality; an awareness that would be prior to "cogito" in its undeniable urgency.

You say: "Racists should hang from the rafters and have their life slowly squeezed out of them until they choke on their own spit and blood."

That seems quite extreme to me. Would you genuinely kill someone for having a 'wrongful' opinion? Do you not believe in freedom of conscience, thought and expression?

Also, does that include black racists? Or does your philosophy maintain that only white people can hate others on the basis of skin colour? If so, what is it that makes black people immune to this sentiment?