Bruh once again you miss the point.. it's not merely just a complaint on a wage I earned for a job I held in the past. It's discrimination told from the viewpoint of a poc and somehow that upsets and triggers you enough to comment the things you did.

I'd also like to point out that I never called you a racist. You're comprehension seems lacking. Bizarre how quick you are to not understand simple statements?

You weren't questioning my experience, you were saying it's worthless, dismissing it and downplaying it. Let's not get things twisted lmao

Do you want to know why I don't believe your story? And no, it has nothing to do with your being a poc. It has to do with the facts being provided (not only did you know your wage compared to your white co-worker friends...plausible; your brother also knew his wage relative to the white employees he supervised as well as all of the white employees who had the same role as him. Bro...that's just a little far fetched for me to believe), and you being the first to completely freak out. I simply stated, hey, there might be some more details you aren't aware of here. You responded with a rude comment back, and called me an ignorant white person with privilege.

You then went on to tell me that I potentially sucked at my job, am too racist myself, or just suck at being a people person (you conveniently then later stated this was all just a joke). Came across as you being pretty upset and lashing out at me. I should have simply reported you here rather than having a worthless argument where I also got tilted.

Thanks for getting me tilted. I'm done.

You should've simply stated you didn't believe me, instead of being incredibly insensitive and offensive by dismissing my experience. I would've just ignored you. I don't have to explain every little detail of how my brother got to know his co-workers pay and that whole situation because I don't owe you that and that's his business I just highlighted it as an example.

It wasn't "convenient" you were just too triggered to realize it was ironic in the first place.

I think you believe discrimination of this nature, and maybe in general, just doesn't exist or doesn't matter and when confronted with reality you get upset because it doesn't fit your bias you've already decided on.

Sorry if I was insensitive towards the topic/situation at hand. I should have kept my temper under control and approached it differently.

@Hiku yeah you're right, my bad. I should've been more mindful of my language.

The chart clearly shows the 90's was still historically bad and only the 70s is comparable.

The fact that Democrat cities like Detroit ran the automobile industry away that caused Detroit to be the shit hole it is today with their extreme business regulations.

sundin13 said: Snoopy said: Dude, look at the chart, it wasn't until the late '90s when things started to really improve for some of the cities. It was extremely bad and not just for murders, but the crime rate as a whole. All Democrats really did was move their problems from one city to the next. That chart doesn't show all the major Democrat cities especially ones that are suffering now like never before like Baltimore, San Jose and Memphis. This is objectively false. All I have left to say to you is this: Please, provide evidence that what you are saying is true if you wish to have a conversation. I can only argue against broad, subjective generalizations and conjecture for so long.

Dude, look at the chart and notice that the 90's was terrible and had a higher murder rate than the last two decades. It was until the end of the 90's when the murder rate started going back down to the level of the 60's which is considered pretty normal. However, if you look at the end of the chart (last 10 years) you can see another spike is occurring.

The homicide rate was plummeting through almost the entirety of the '90s. Under your assertion that democratic policies are the cause of increasing crime rates, this trend makes no sense. You cannot claim that something is making something else worse without evidence past the fact that rapid improvement was seen during the time period that was supposedly "the worst".

How does this not compute? Like, do you not understand how time works? Do you not understand that in order to get from bad->good, you typically have to go through everything in between?

While it is tremendously unnecessary, here is yet another graph showing how this argument is bullshit:

As you can see, the trend is consistent across both Rural (largely Republican) and Urban (largely Democrat) areas for the past two decades, with Urban areas rapidly catching up to the lower crime rates of Rural areas (meaning improvement has been greater in Democratic areas than Republican areas). This implies a lot of things. First of all, it implies that you are thoroughly full of shit, but we already knew that. Second, it implies that the spike in crime in the early '90s was not strictly a result of local politics. It implies that there was instead larger cultural or national level trends leading to this higher crime rate, which is further obfuscated by the fact that this was not just a national trend, it was largely a global one.

You have nothing.

No, you have less than nothing.

I don't think I've ever seen him debate in good faith before, to be honest.

Beside the fact that he doesn't make sense. After all, he's claiming that there's more gun violence because democrats restricted gun access. So they cause more gun violence because they don't have access to guns so they're killing with the guns they don't have... huh?