corrupt_measure

That video is a 5 second long anecdote. Regardless, the woman was probably told to move and was refusing. When you disobey riot police in a riot situation that's what happens and I absolutely side with the police.

Data literally supports what I'm saying. A distorting narrative is what's driving all the recent calls to action and solidarity. People are being lied to and misled, either that or they are just using the narrative to push their own agendas.

Genuine unprovoked and unnecessary police brutality incidents are incredibly rare (relative to all police interactions) and hardly an epidemic. When someone is breaking the law and resisting arrest the police have no choice but to be violent with the resistor. Unfortunately these incidents often get categorized as "police brutality" when they're really just a necessary use of force.

More broadly, the entire narrative of police brutality and killings of minorities is basically nonsense. When controlling for violent encounters with police and crimes committed, blacks (armed and unarmed) are actually less likely to be killed by police than whites.

Sites like this and an irresponsible media simply exaggerate the issue and needlessly inflame tensions without providing proper and necessary context.

I actually am trending towards the view that once a social network reaches a certain size, all users must register their real identities with the network owner to maintain their accounts.

This information would not need to be stored, it would just be needed to verify an account as belonging to a real person.

Except it wasn't glorifying violence. Like at all. He was not saying that if looting continues then police would start shooting, that's a twisted and strained interpretation.

He was stating simply that looting begets violence, meaning that the looting must be stopped before things become more violent. It is a call to action to those who appear content to let the looting run rampant as if it's somehow OK or justified.

In such an escalation both protestors and counter protestors would be shooting, so bringing the situation under control quickly is in the best interest of the protestors and the community as a whole.

It is a clear example of the dangers of allowing Twitter to moderate when such an egregiously bad interpretation of Trump's tweet triggers moderation.

The government doesn't appear to be breaking any laws though.

You're assuming that a single variable is being changed, but the far more likely explanation is that, given the high complexity of the situation, there are some other variables that you're not accounting for.

The New York Times appears to me and many others misguided on the issue of race.

The 1776 Wikipedia page does not appear to be slated for deletion, I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

Perhaps chaos isn't the best word. Hightened tension is more appropriate.

> "when the looting starts the shooting starts"

That's simply a recognition that looting begets violence, meaning that the looting must be stopped before things become more violent, and a call to action to those who appear content to let the looting run rampant as if it's somehow OK or justified.

In such an escalation both protestors and counter protestors would be shooting, so bringing the situation under control quickly is in the best interest of the protestors and the community as a whole.

Trump's tweet was just a recognition of that.

While it may be tempting to jump to a racial interpretation of the arrest, it appears that the CNN reporters were just standing in the wrong place and in the chaos of the moment were arrested.

What is far more disturbing than a reporter ignoring police orders and facing the repercussions is that a city is burning from mindless violence, this violence encouraged by a media and other prominent figures that relish in stoking racial tensions by selective reporting and misrepresentation of facts.

Staying focused on the actual details of the tweet that spurred this order, Twitter's response highlights the problems inherent with content moderation.

There are hundreds of documented cases of people being convicted of mail in ballot voter fraud. In Paterson NJ there was an all mail election recently that is causing significant problems. I shudder at the thought of that playing out on a national scale.

Yet in spite of those facts, Twitter feels that Trump's warnings are somehow wrong. In light of the facts I think his fear is justified.

Twitter is a private company but we restrict the activities of private companies all the time. I see no reason why we shouldn't have a serious conversation about placing special restrictions on internet platforms' ability to censor users.

We need to bring down our national BMI.

Because many of us come from the US and Germany and are what many consider the "good guys". Even if we don't come from the US or Germany our political and economic systems are more aligned with those countries than some other countries.

I can look online now and see beautiful art whenever I want. In magazines and books beautiful imagery is ubiquitous.

Art is just a thing we expect to see now and is easily reproduced. We are surrounded by it. This is why I chose "commoditized".

We take beautiful art for granted today, but imagine how breathtaking and inspiring it must have been for an Ancient Roman to see these mosaics, in a time when beautiful art and artistic form had not yet been commoditized as they are today.

They're definitely difficult enough to separate the abilities of most students into rough groups. At the upper 1% it's certainly hard to differentiate but for the other 99% it's quite effective.

>Admissions tests, allegedly biased against minority students, will be phased out over five years

Why are we lumping minorities into one group when we know that many minority groups score better than average on standardized tests than the general population. Asian Americans, Nigerian Americans, Jewish people, etc all do very well.

In a world where the wealthy have ever more advantages in college admissions, standardized tests serve to level the playing field. I grew up in a very wealthy town and many kids I knew whose parents spent large sums on SAT tutors never improved their scores because they didn't have the intellectual horsepower.

Just because college administrators and others feel uncomfortable that certain groups continue to do better than others on the SAT is a horrible reason to get rid of the test.