What I defined are the pieces that constitute an actual scientific study. What you are trying to make a case for is correlation between murder victims and color. You are confusing "fact" with "Correlation" which is a huge scientific no no. You posted facts. The "pattern" to the numbers could come from any number of factors which may or may not be race related.

is it real?

Yeah, it's called pattern recognition.

If the article is supposed to be especially scary, I'm not sure it is any more scary than anything else Satan does. If you are staying in an evil hotel, you might wind up with some spiritual problems that you'd rather not have.

Nah. Those facts are a reflection of statistical measures of people who get murdered without any operational definitions defining what "murder" is. Skin color, on the other hand, is a measurable difference that people readily detect and foolishly base conclusions upon.

No, it's quite easy to verify existing concepts. You just have to repeat the same experiment and see if you get the same results. You don't need a high priest to tell you the truth. You can verify these things by yourself.

Sure, depending on the equipment needed you might lack the means to replicate the experiment personally, but there should be other labs with the necessary equipment around to verify the results.

Unfortunately these days replicating results seems not possible for a whole lot of things.

And as far as climate change goes it's even simpler. You just have to read a bunch of predictions for the next ten years, then wait twenty years and see if the predictions were true. As far as climate change goes, though, all the predictions of the past decades have been wrong. So you could be a total idiot and still know that it was predicted for the polar caps to melt by now and see that they haven't melted, so the prediction was wrong.

Racism isn't a hate of a skin color. That's the usual deflection. Racism is a reflection of facts like this: https://files.catbox.moe/i96yv9.png

Hang on. I'll get my wallet.

Those of blessed with excess sometimes engage in something called 'charity', you wouldn't understand.

Thanks for validating my "collective power". On the other hand, you aren't going to change a moron's mind so what you are saying is that you like wasting your time talking to morons who are going to do whatever it is they collectively do. You don't even get a share in the power in that scenario--you are just a total loss of life/time.

Even the smartest guy on earth (obviously not me) has to spend all day talking to the intellectually inferior. Morons may be morons, but they have collective power and are important nonetheless.

You nailed it. I'm retarded. Of course, you are trying to argue with a retard, so what does that make you? Not very clever for being so smart, apparently.

but understanding and verifying existing concepts isn't that hard.

Ah, but it is, and you also need the critical thinking skills to recognize the limitations and flaws in scientific arguments. Remember back at school, when some kids would get 98% on math tests, and others would fail: that's not just because of late bloomers, it's because some people are just intellectually incapable of understanding scientific/mathematical concepts. Perhaps you're one of them?

New rule: only smart people get to have free speech. (i.e. not you)

Well, that is your retarded argument in a nutshell. Which is the same argument as the censors and those fighting against free speech. I think you struck accidental lucidity.

No, that is someone's IDEA of the free speech argument. This isn't about what I "Like to hear". The classical argument is that you aren't, through free speech, allowed to yell out the word FIRE when there is no fire in a crowded theater. Such an action would cause probable death and panic. Therefore, the statement "your free speech doesn't go past your nose" is usually the metric because when you speak a thing, it enters into a larger arena than just your desire to say a given thing.

I'd argue racist statements are like yelling in that crowded theater when there is no fire. Just because you hate something or someone does not give you an automatic right to start raising an alarm about that someone or group of someones unless you have some kind of actual evidence. So, if I tell you you should be careful of the Chinese because of the Great Firewall and sleeper agents sympathetic to the communist party, that's different than if I say you should beware Chinese cause they gots yellow skins, and I hates me some yellow skins!

It isn't about what I want to hear, but it is about conveying information in a responsible way to a larger accountability than just saying whatever the hell comes into your mind. Most people censor themselves quite heavily, for instance, on a first date since they understand if they say things like "I want to be inside you" or "I want you inside me" most likely that isn't going to function in a way that moves to a second date and if it does, one has to wonder about the longevity of such a relationship since the sexual emphasis was so high and immediate...

No, that's the entire free speech argument. You don't need to protect the right of someone to say what you like to year. You only need to protect the right of someones saying things you do not like to hear.

Verbose delusion is still delusion buddy. Just another 'free speech for me but not for thee' hypocrite. Supporting free speech means supporting people's right to say stuff you disagree with - you deserve the thought police.

Gee golly. You totally supported your argument with all those facts. I feel like we are on an equal footing and you are a "smart person" who has the authority to call me names because you are so, so smart! Good job, you!

You don't believe in free speech at all. People should be free to speak, not to conduct illegal acts, and speech should not be restricted because of some vague possibility that it will lead to illegal acts. That's the nonsense thought-police argument.

K. Since I don't believe in free speech, and I do believe you should shut the fuck up, I think you should shut the fuck up because you are dumb. New rule: only smart people get to have free speech. (i.e. not you) (Just for reference, this is wholly satire based on your bad reasoning)

Just not true. Science is open to everyone. You might not be able to contribute anything new, but understanding and verifying existing concepts isn't that hard.

Your mindset is essentially dogma. "Don't try to read the Bible yourself, we tell you what it says. Trust us."

Verbose delusion is still delusion buddy. Just another 'free speech for me but not for thee' hypocrite. Supporting free speech means supporting people's right to say stuff you disagree with - you deserve the thought police.

Edit:

usually they start doing things to that class of people they shouldn't be doing

You don't believe in free speech at all. People should be free to speak, not to conduct illegal acts, and speech should not be restricted because of some vague possibility that it will lead to illegal acts. That's the nonsense thought-police argument.

Thinking your definition is the only one is delusional, but that's neither here nor there. It's not just something "I don't like". It's picking a class of people for usually imagined reasons, and making up stereotypes so you feel better than them. That's called being a fuckhead and when people are fuckheads and start doing this, usually they start doing things to that class of people they shouldn't be doing which involves law enforcement and lawsuits which ultimately create police states because people aren't really relating to free speech in the sense that it is meant as a concept and pretty soon, "Free speech" is all weirdly interpreted because of a group of fuckheads who didn't think there was consequence to being prejudiced bitches. The whole idea of "protected classes" has come about due to idiots thinking free speech means you can go out in your finest white sheets and burn crosses on lawns. So, I don't like that a bunch of idiots who can't figure out cause and effect start to steer legislation that affects my ability to speak in general since legislators usually institute "Thought police". Go bond over something else other than your mutual hatred of a specific group of people--or if you are going to do that, at least do it in private places where you aren't going to suddenly involve law enforcement agencies who decide what the laws should be due to your being an idiot. If you start posting it in public places which are governed most often by laws of one kind or another, you shouldn't be terribly surprised when your little hate groups receive...well hate.

Free speech isn't free speech unless it includes people saying things you don't like. We are all prejudiced in some way: to think otherwise is delusional.

Sighs. I do get tired of people trying to define prejudiced speech as free speech. It winds up ruining free speech for everybody else because somebody wants to scream about "Spics" or "Gooks" or something else juvenile.

Adding a link to the global mod log on the front page would be good.

No, science is not something everyone can do. Most people have no idea how much work and attention to detail is involved. Most people are just too stupid to be scientists. Unfortunately comprehending ones own stupidity takes intelligence, and so it's quite hard to explain to those who really need to understand.

Yeah, I didn't actually read those articles.

If it's a 'news' specific rule then the removal is consistent. Of course the moderator should have written 'old article' for a reason, not 'spam'. The article(s) that were recent shouldn't have been removed. This one is recent:

https://inf.news/en/world/4a894d32a5273367f78eb683b420c22d.html

Edit: Actually, it seems to say it's recent ^ but it's not. Perhaps it's a retarded date format.