According to the left, speech (that they disagree with) is violence, and real violence against speech is self defense.

>Lefties used to profess an almost absolutist belief in the freedom of expression.

Lefties professed an absolutist belief in the freedom of expression because they were not the group of people, and freedom of expression served their interests. Now that they are in power (having completed the long march through the media, academia, big tech, the Federal bureaucracy, Congress, and the Presidency), free speech isn't nearly so useful to them when empowers the voices of the people they want to silence and disappear.

>though I could because your claim that black people account for the majority of violent crime is apparently false [fbi.gov].

That's arrest data. Not offence data.

If you go to https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcrime-data-explorer.ap..., you can pull up the "All Violent Crime Offender vs. Victim Demographics" report for 2021. The numbers for offences by race are: Black: 335,507, White: 328,817, Unknown: 74,048, American Indian: 11,984, Asian: 6,278. Excluding unknown, blacks were responsible for 49.1523% of violent crime where offender race is known. So, you're right, I was wrong. Blacks did not commit a majority of all violent crime. Just really, really close to it. And for things like homicide, they committed 60.4% of homicides and 66% of robberies where offender race was known.

The racial data for Asian violent crime victimization is really hard to get to; going off of the data here:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata.ojp.usdoj.gov%2FVic...

I came up with 704 violent attacks against Asians, 126 by whites, 264 by blacks, 6 by AAPI, and 308 by fellow Asians. Cutting out the Asian on Asian violence (since we are interested in racially motivated crime for this discussion), you get 67% committed by blacks.

Now, I wouldn't bet any significant amount of money defending those numbers because I don't think the data set is comprehensive (it only had 64k total incidents across all races), but the overall % are in line with homicide and robbery numbers, and anecdotal observation of incidents that were filmed, so it "fits the pattern." Official DOJ publications don't have a breakout for race based offender and victim where the victim is Asian, so you have to dig into the data sets themselves to retrieve that, and it's possible I made a mistake in my first attempt. Nevertheless, fundamentally we are talking about a situation where it isn't bias created by a false and racist media narrative over promoting the relative rates of black violent crime, as you suggested earlier in the thread.

You're not nearly as good at propping up strawmen as you think you are.

>Your logic seems to be: violent crime among black people is high, therefore all violent crime is mostly committed by black people

It's not "my logic." Quantitatively and provably, the majority (and just in case you are numerically challenged like most leftists, that means >50%) of all violent crime in the United States, where an perpetrator is identified, is by blacks. If you need to figure out the difference between "majority", "most", and "all", I strongly recommend you pick up a dictionary.

>therefore any particular type of violent crime must be mostly committed by black people, and violence against Asian people is a type of violent crime No, my logic is the vast majority of documented violent attacks against Asians were committed by blacks during the "anti-Asian violence epidemic." Unlike your "argument," there's no elaborate sophistry or complex logic chain here to parse. It's look at the evidence, draw a conclusion. Whereas, yours seems to be "this is the way I want the world to be, so this is the way I will insist it is, contrary to any and all evidence to the contrary."

>Viral videos featuring Black perpetrators have been circulating on social media. It is critical to contextualize social media and news coverage of such incidents as research shows that the media and crime news overreport and overrepresent Black suspects.

LOL. That might have been true in 1965. It certainly isn't true today. In fact, the media suppresses the amount of violent crime inflicted by blacks on other blacks and other races, frequently leaving out an accurate description of perpetrators if the perp is black, but broadcasting a description otherwise.

Blacks are about 13% of the population in the United States, black men about 6.5%, and black men between the ages of 15 and 49 about 3%, and yet they account for over half of the violent crime in America. That isn't something the media will tell you, you have to dig into the FBI data to figure that out, because everyone is whistling past the graveyard of black violence, see no evil, hear no evil style.

>None of this says anything about the political affiliation of the perpetrators, these white people could be Democratic as you claim.

Given that blacks vote Democrat at around a 95% rate, it's pretty safe to say, they were Democrats. As far as political alignment to a particular sub-group, it's about as dependable as it gets as a predictor.

What's the optimal percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere?

>I strongly disagree that the majority of mainstream media has a consistent ideological slant.
LOL. I would say, let me guess, you are left of center, but your straw horse "rebuttals" are basic NPC stereotypes that the left has of the right, so I don't even have to ask.

The media has a consistently left of center ideological slant. You aren't the center, nor is the center defined by the middle of you and your group of friends (and the same holds true for me).

Media bias is reflected in a lot of things: what stories are covered, what stories are not covered, how stories are presented and the language that is used - which isn't to say that the media isn't also closely controlled and manipulated by the state and there aren't valid left-of-center criticisms of the media (as well as different but valid right of center criticisms of the media). For example, Douglas Valentine makes the argument that the media is made up of the "compliant left" who are instruments of the state (which he sees as largely right wing and fascist).

I'll give an example of obvious left wing media bias. Remember the rash of attacks on Asians in the United States? The media narrative was to blame those attacks on the right and Donald Trump's rhetoric around the coronavirus and his blaming of China. They seemed to never mention that the attacks were overwhelmingly by blacks. That is, it wasn't MAGA white people attacking Asians, it was largely Democratic blacks attacking Asians. But there was a left-wing agenda (paint Donald Trump as a racist encouraging his followers to attack minorities and people of color), and so attacks on Asians by blacks were covered in a way that the black perpetrators were left out and Donald Trump and MAGA was injected into the conversation.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...

Over and over the media pushed this narrative.

Another thing to think about is the media gets paid to push a product, and the product that pays the best is outrage. For both the left and the right.

Air deployed directed energy weapons will change the game again though.

Damn their efficiency and ...shipping goods quickly and cheaply to my door!

>well trained pilots.

Well, that's the challenge.

It costs a lot of money to get well trained pilots. There really isn't any substitute for flight time, and flight time costs a lot of money. It takes money to keep your aircraft running, especially as the hours on the airframe and engine start mounting. It costs money developing an effective air doctrine, especially when most air forces don't have any practical, living memory experience in air to air combat.

The reality is, there aren't any countries that can afford to train the numbers of pilots it would take to contend with the United States on a pilot qualitative level (one could make the argument that the US can't afford it either), much less an equipment qualitative level, and no one can do it at a qualitative AND quantity level.

Fundamentally, even near-peer adversaries like China focus on area denial (that is, using short and medium range ballistic missiles to saturate bomb airfields and aircraft carriers in combat range of operational interest).

>socialism: The population should have a balanced diet. So vouchers for food are given to people who are unable to purchase a healthy diet. In which they can pick what they want and when they want. Market demand will determine what foods will be delivered and when. Stores will normally want to keep a good stock to meet demand.

And when the market fails to provide, that's when the communists step in and force it and everyone else to comply.

All this is, is Stephen King and Roger McNamee trying to suppress alternative viewpoints to their own, they are de-platforming because Facebook and Google aren't *sufficiently* enforcing the left-wing orthodoxy. And I say *sufficiently* because they are really doing their damnedest to enforce it (but in a way that doesn't boil the frog quickly and cause a mass defection of right of center and independents from their platform).

>Putting the "solution" for time management inside a smartphone is like telling an alcoholic the cure for addiction will be sold inside your local bar.

Or even worse, the cure for addiction will be in that bottle of vodka.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...

Not the next war, but the next war after that.