Silent Hill

Anyone watch the George Floyd bodycam footage? Going to be really difficult to pin murder on those cops, and I can only imagine the backlash if they walk. Side note: Anybody still think there was any racist component to the situation?

She will burn Pence to the ground. He is a total doofus, who we already know is uncomfortable dealing with women 1:1. It's going to be hilariously embarrassing for him. I bet she torches him just like she did Biden last year.

(Have I supported racist comments from others?) Nah, this doesn't offend me personally, as I already know how Biden really feels about black people. Too bad others seem to give him a pass while chastising other things that are less racist.

Oopsh! https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-faces-backlash-comparing-diversity-african-american-latino/story?id=72218939

? Blasting this outdoor "rave" (which apparently was a BLM protest that "spiraled out of hand") , dispersing funerals, limiting/shutting down places of religion, etc. all while encouraging BLM protests is hypocritical IMO. Maybe protesting is covered under your rights, but attending a funeral or church isn't? Clearly he's been a bit selective when it comes to enforcing COVID protocols.

Oh the hypocrisy! "Last week, Gov. Andrew Cuomo blasted a weekend Hamptons concert headlined by The Chainsmokers where 3,000 attendees openly flouted coronavirus social distancing rules. “We have no tolerance for the illegal & reckless endangerment of public health,” the governor said about the outdoor concert."

Picked this up for $21 on Amazon and everything you said is spot on. Beat it the other day and while it was fun most times, it definitely lacks in many areas.

Close to the Sun and Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 are toast.

90% sure it's a reseal, though I'm not exactly a sealed NES expert. Some others will confirm, I'm sure.

The "In Water" ending of Silent Hill 2 is brutal. It will always stick with me, even more so now that I'm married.

What do you call it when people of color are still much more likely to be arrested for crime than white people are even when offense rates are virtually identical across races? My only confusion with the article is that they don't seem to be comparing stops/charges, just "usage rates", which seems tough to directly tie to interactions with the law. They do refer to "possession" throughout but I'm wondering if they're excluding distribution (or even adjusting for total amount at all), since I believe that carries a higher charge and is more susceptible to arrest. Also, I'm assuming they're only referring to sole marijuana possession without the presence of other drugs. Regardless, weed should be legal in general.

Says the guy who denies systemic racism exists. Whether I personally deny it or not, nothing you said of the situation reflects systemic racism. Idk if deserving is the right word but if you ignore the science and encourage people to not wear a mask, and then contract the virus and die, well.... deserving? idk. But it fucking makes sense. It does make sense. I was just pointing out that you dismissed that same logic when discussing the Michael Brown case. If you commit a crime, ignore police commands, attack an officer and attempt to take his weapon, you get shot. "Fucking makes sense", right?

Shocking that the people cheering the death of someone who chose not to mask, are the same ones blaming police/systemic racism for Michael Brown's death. Didn't mask and died? = Deserving Stealing, assaulting an officer, attempting to take his gun, and then being shot? = Unjustified

Police brutality, over use of force, and arresting on bogus charges.... all of this used on peaceful citizens protesting RACISM. Literally using the racist system to suppress racism. I don't get what's not clear. "Police brutality, over use of force, and arresting on bogus charges.... all of this used on peaceful citizens protesting RACISM" =/= Systemic Racism

Not sure what part of this is systemic racism, just looks like overuse of force.

If Jone says it's legit, then you're golden.

Weed should be legal, period. I'm conflicted about alcohol laws, as I don't think there is a "magic" age. I do think the laws seem to be too lenient for DUIs though, as I've known many people who've had multiple before they faced any real consequence. Drunk driving is my biggest issue with alcohol. It'd be nice to have a breathalyzer come standard in every vehicle. Opioids is a whole other mess.

I wonder where it'd rank if you account for justified use of force.

People are being treated differently because the color of their skin that is the definition of racism. If you are okay with this policy, you are okay with racist policies. It's very simple. Are you racist? I don't know, it sounds like it. There's a very thin line between racial profiling and criminal profiling, and Stop and Frisk straddled the line. I can see both the positive and negative outcomes with it, but I don't agree that it was implemented to specifically target innocent minorities for the pleasure of racist cops.

There is a circular problem to your logic. You think that racism is okay because it results in 715 less guns on the streets in one year. In reality, you are removing a few hundred guns and there are still hundreds of thousands available because this is America. And because of the way you removed the guns you are making hundreds of thousands of people feel like they don't belong in their communities and that the laws in America are not there to protect them. I would argue that people are more likely to join gangs and become criminals because of situations like this. You keep repeating that old racist trope that black people are criminals because they come from single parent homes. If you care about the psychology within the black community why do you think it is okay for them to feel targeted, harassed, and less than equal? I've explained why I don't think Stop and Frisk was a blatant example of racism, so stop implying that I think racism is "okay". I don't see the logic in "well, you only removed 715 guns but there are hundreds of thousands more" as a reason to undermine the results of the process. The removal of 715 guns is better than none, but obviously not as good as the removal of more. And I don't see the logic in "well, I was stopped by police, searched and was innocent so now I'm going to commit crimes and join a gang". Not sure why you would think that would be a reasonable response/reaction. Single parent homes have been directly connected to outcomes in crime, education and poverty through many studies, and I haven't seen anything that disputes it, so I don't think it's a "racist trope", especially since this holds true for any race. It's just that the black community has (by far) the highest rate of single parent households. It's a shame that people would feel targeted, harassed, victimized, etc. because of something like Stop and Frisk, when the actual goal of the process was to prevent crime in their high-crime area. (Again, was the effort worth the results? That is debatable, but crime was definitely prevented because of it) You'd think that they'd look at the bigger picture, especially since the #1 cause of death for young black males is homicide. I'd think any process to proactively remove guns/weapons and drugs, would be welcomed by a community plagued by crime. The removal of police presence and proactive policing is most definitely not going to decrease crime rates.

You don't have to explain to me why racism is wrong, of course I agree that it's wrong. But I've shown why you can't just look at stops vs. population data to identify racism. I understand if you're too busy to address that. And I personally think removing 715 guns during 2012 is a huge win. Potentially prevented hundreds, if not thousands, of crimes from happening (armed robberies and even homicides) But if you'd rather see those 715 guns back on the streets in exchange for innocent people not being stopped and checked, then that's your opinion and your right to hold it.

You specifically referring to me or Rhino?

I agree that the collateral damage from Stop and Frisk was that a lot of innocent people were stopped, and then let go. Does that outweigh the actual crime that was prevented by finding illegal weapons and drugs? I suppose it's subjective whether the 'juice was worth the squeeze". I'm assuming some amount of innocent people that were stopped and then let go weren't offended because they understood the actual goal of the process, which was to prevent crime in their area. Then you have other innocent people that felt like they were targeted because of their race (even though that study I linked shows that stop rates aligned with crime-suspect description rates, though hispanics were over-represented by a small percentage). For example, if I'm a black male who is stopped by police, I can think of it in two ways: 1. The police are racist because they stopped me for being a black male 2. The police stopped me because black males commit a majority of the crime in this area I'm curious how you think police could proactively prevent crime if they shouldn't stop people based on their population's representation of crime rates in the area?

Many factors of course, but which have the biggest impact today is the question. You may say trickle down effects from historic systemic racism play the biggest part, while I may say the lack of two parent households, culture and personal decisions have the most impact in recent years/decades.

Found an analysis of Stop and Frisk around the peak of its volume (2006) https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR534.html It looks like some officers had patterns of stopping minorities more than the average, but it's a very low percentage. Also, hispanic people were stopped slightly more than their crime rates would suggest: "This analysis identified 15 officers who stopped more blacks and hispanics than their colleagues, while 14 officers stopped fewer. This means 0.5 percent of the 2,756 NYPD officers most active in pedestrian-stop activity were flagged as having stop patterns warranting further investigation. Those 2,756 most active officers accounted for 54 percent of the total number of 2006 stops. The remaining stops were made by another 15,855 officers, for whom an accurate internal benchmark could not be constructed, mostly because they conducted too few stops." "We found that black pedestrians were stopped at a rate that is 20 to 30 percent lower than their representation in crime-suspect descriptions. Hispanic pedestrians were stopped disproportionately more, by 5 to 10 percent, than their representation among crime-suspect descriptions would predict."