We have a lot to thank the military for. They did amazing work to keep us clear from a Bolshevik revolution or a civil war. Thank God.
We complain about timing and the like, but even another decade would be better than something like the devastation of the Spanish Civil War. Even after 100 years that country still has strong social fractures, and even became captured again anyway.
I echo u/TaQo . That "plan to save the world" is awesome, and so is the capitulation tour.
The tour is long, but it's very well done, entertains as you go so it doesn't feel long.
I just found another one, but it's a little different: goes into the reason for Q, and some military background before Q. He speculates some, but it rings true to me. About 40 mins, but very easy to listen to. https://rumble.com/v7b1u2o-q-refresher-course-the-military-was-the-only-way.html
Yes. I wish Elon had picked a simpler data point. But if it gets an uncomfortable debate to open and get people talking, I guess it'll all work itself out.
There are plenty of black people to whom this doesn't apply at all, and it's a shame to generalize in this way. On the other hand, if it can get the race-baiters to actually shut up, it could be worth it. That the race-based antagonism framework exists at all is a big part of the problem.
I am mindful of the Q post describing how blacks were integrating very well before welfare and the civil rights movement came along, and how there is a valuable intellectual and political history of blacks in America independent of the pervasively divisive narratives out there. Oh well, Elon will be Elon. Well see where it goes.
Before presenting an argument, you should be aware of how it can be discredited, and a statistic like this is presenting a partial truth as if it were a full truth. In other words, no matter how true the statistic is, what it measures doesn't match the conclusion it implies. This particular measurement presents a distorted picture. It's better to use statistics that are more clear in what they represent. A more useful one, one that is much harder to discredit, would simply cite violent crimes per capita among each group.
There's tons of screwed up statistics to say whatever you want. It's always best to keep it as simple as possible.
The implied conclusion may or may not be true, but there is a flaw in the way this is measured.
As an example, just assume that society is 80% white and 20% black: if (big if, I know) crimes were committed equally by both groups, every crime committed by a white person would have 80% white victims and 20% black victims. And the same victim ratio would be true for crimes committed by black people. But, for every 100 white crimes 20% would have black victims, and for every 100 black crimes 80% would have white victims, meaning that crimes by black people are 4x as likely to victimize the other race. In other words, this particular way of measuring reflects victims as a percentage of the overall population, not an indicator of character or motive or even criminal activity.
Theoretically, even with the graphic above being true, whites could have 160 violent crimes per 10k whites, making them equally violent and criminal just with a different breakdown of victims. Point is, you have to be careful with what you measure, and what it actually means.
Soccer has very easy rules.
Even though they're all rigged, it's still a legitimate display of athleticism.