*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

I mean, the difference between us is you just think "racism", while I try to consider other reasons. I don't pretend to be right, but you do. You are certain it's racism. I don't think it is. I could be wrong. You don't think you could be wrong. There's a big difference in the way we present our arguments. I know I am speculating. You don't realise that you are too.

No the difference is that I recognize when the evidence is strong and leans towards a certain conclusion, and you grasp for any excuse to dismiiss the evidence. And when each excuse you present gets shot down, you come up with another.

[OngBonga]

No the difference is that I recognize when the evidence is strong and leans towards a certain conclusion, and you grasp for any excuse to dismiiss the evidence. And when each excuse you present gets shot down, you come up with another.

Ok so we disagree on what "strong evidence" is. Because I haven't seen any yet.

I think you're reading that wrong. 1.1x means 110% more, not 10% more.

I'm trying my hardest to understand why you would think this. It seems completely illogical to assume this.

This means that, across London, black people were subject to an account at 1.1 times the rate of whites

This is the exact wording. I'm pretty sure you're wrong to say this represents 110% rather than 10%. If 100 whites get pulled, 110 blacks get pulled. That's 1.1x the rate.

^^ Gives a race-based explanation that he claims isn't racism.

Once again, you knee jerk into racism. It was a speculative suggestion, but it could be accurate. There could be a cultural problem with how black people interact with police compared to white people. I don't know this, but if it's true, it's not the police's fault, so it's not police racism.

[Poopadoop]

Once again, you knee jerk into racism. It was a speculative suggestion, but it could be accurate. There could be a cultural problem with how black people interact with police compared to white people. I don't know this, but if it's true, it's not the police's fault, so it's not police racism.

Pointing out a racist comment isn't knee-jerk.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt for a long time before this. But your continued insistence on pretending there's no racism in the UK police in the face of clear evidence to the contrary is going beyond just ignorance and entering the realm of MEGA territory.

[Poopadoop]

I don't know this, but if it's true, it's not the police's fault, so it's not police racism.

I'm going to join your speculation game and guess there's quite a few racist cops who use the same argument.

[OngBonga]

I'm going to join your speculation game and guess there's quite a few racist cops who use the same argument.

You're already speculating, and have been for as long as I have. Like I say, the difference is I know I'm speculating, while you think you're not.

[Poopadoop]

You're already speculating, and have been for as long as I have. Like I say, the difference is I know I'm speculating, while you think you're not.

The difference is I'm giving you facts and numbers and you're giving me bullshit...

[OngBonga]

"Maybe black people get searched because they're obnoxious to cops" is a racist statement.

No, it isn't. It's not hateful, it's not discriminatory, it's not a statement of superiority. It's speculation that might or might not be accurate. Like I say, if you think that comment is racism, you don't understand racism.

Yeah, statistics count as evidence

Statistics do not tell us why something is happening, and the why is extremely important when it comes to racism.

In contrast to the statistics, all you have is 'blame the victim' arguments. Which are, as I pointed out, in themselves racist.

I didn't "blame the victim". For a start, I said "maybe", as in speculation. And secondly, you're not a victim just because a cop asked you what you're doing.

People who think they aren't racist because they don't go around beating up people of a different colour, while at the same time say racist shit and try to stick up for racist cops, are still racists in my book.

Your book is stupid.

You don't have to do physical violence to a POC to be a racist, if you condone racist behaviour and make excuses for it, that's enough.

I'm not condoning racist behaviour. I'm speculating as to why allegedly racist behaviour might not be racist. You just really, really want me to be racist because that's what lefties do when they can't get into the head of someone who doesn't knee jerk into racism at the first opportunity.

[Poopadoop]

No, it isn't. It's not hateful, it's not discriminatory, it's not a statement of superiority. It's speculation that might or might not be accurate. Like I say, if you think that comment is racism, you don't understand racism.

Yes, it is. You think you're not being racist because you don't come right out and admit it, but your words show that you'll go to great lengths to stick up for cops' racist behavior. You're also keen to show black people who overreact to being stopped because that further supports your view that the blame for their mistreatment must be on them, not the cops.

It's the old "This woman got raped because she was dressed slutty." approach to justice. Blame the victim.

[OngBonga]

The difference is I'm giving you facts and numbers and you're giving me bullshit...

You're giving me contradictory numbers that don't tell us anything about the why. I seem to understand, and you don't, that this proves nothing. When you accuse someone of racism, whether that be the police or an individual, you need conclusive proof, not statistics alone, and not a hypothetical book.

[Poopadoop]

You're giving me contradictory numbers that don't tell us anything about the why. I seem to understand, and you don't, that this proves nothing. When you accuse someone of racism, whether that be the police or an individual, you need conclusive proof, not statistics alone, and not a hypothetical book.

The proportion of stop and searches that are POC contradicts nothing except your worldview.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize it's the cops who decide who they stop and search. Your theory seems to be that the cop randomly picks someone to stop, ignoring their colour, and then if that person happens to mouth off, they also get searched. Otherwise they get a nice pat on the head and a smile. And then, on top of that, you "speculate" that black people are wayyyy more likely to mouth off than white people, perhaps because of their "culture" (which is a chickenshit way of saying race).

You know what? I speculate that when black people used to get lynched In the US they all deserved it. They were all serial killers. And that's not a racist thing to say 'cause you can't prove they weren't. So don't accuse me of saying racist things 'cause I'll ask you for evidence and get all butthurt too.