- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tyler Robinson is the shooter
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:04 pm to Tiger_Claw
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:04 pm to Tiger_Claw
What do you think are the strongest factors that have led you to your current ideological stances?
0
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:04 pm to Tiger_Claw
quote:
Yes, I noticed the date, it was published Jan 2024, drawing on data projects that go back as far as the 1990s and earlier. “Right-wing” vs. “left-wing” isn’t something NIJ made up for politics; it’s coded from indictments, group membership, manifestos, and court docs in PIRUS and related datasets. And the exact date range just reinforces the point: whether you look at the ’90s, 2000s, or 2010s, the far-right dominates the stats (sorry).
Sorry, calling bullshite. The left has their own army of black shirts that spent an entire summer engaged in nonstop violence and mayhem.
Lies, damned lies, and stats.
Publish the raw data please
These things are highly susceptible to bias and interpretation and govt agencies who research theses things are always dominated by Dems.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:05 pm to Tiger_Claw
quote:
Thanks for proving my point. Zero facts, zero argument, just bathroom-stall graffiti. Appreciate you showing everyone exactly what you bring to the table
Tell me how NIJ is independent when its head is a political appointee that doesn't need senate confirmation?
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:09 pm to Hateradedrink
quote:
Bro, take a lap.
There’s a time and place and this ain’t it.
Nah, this is the time. The reason we’re even here is because people shrug, look away, and let lies and hate fester unchecked. That’s how bad ideas spread: reposted, re-tweeted, repeated. Until people start treating them like fact. If calling that out makes some folks uncomfortable, maybe they should think about why.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:10 pm to Tiger_Claw
That’s a ChatGPT answer if there ever was one!
Why 1990 as a baseline and to describe a trend? If the figures showed a different trend since say 2020, would that be significant?
Do you think a January 2024 article might have been based on the ideological biases of an admin that had been in power for the previous three years? Similarly, would you trust a 2027 study that showed a trend in the opposite direction or might it be suspect coming from the Trump DOJ? ( I know I probably would have some questions)
I didn’t say that the term left or right wing were made up, but in the article, they were never adequately defined at all. When the term “hate crime” is repeatedly included and the article specifically says that individually committed and individual victim crime is included, might that skew the data? When you are looking for/at crimes that have a racial motivation, is it possible that those are one sided? The murder in Charlotte for example will likely not be included in this data set, despite the perpetrator saying I got that white girl, but had the races been reversed it almost certainly would have. (I know that guy was mentally ill, but the article actually addresses the fact that such cases would be included)
Why 1990 as a baseline and to describe a trend? If the figures showed a different trend since say 2020, would that be significant?
Do you think a January 2024 article might have been based on the ideological biases of an admin that had been in power for the previous three years? Similarly, would you trust a 2027 study that showed a trend in the opposite direction or might it be suspect coming from the Trump DOJ? ( I know I probably would have some questions)
I didn’t say that the term left or right wing were made up, but in the article, they were never adequately defined at all. When the term “hate crime” is repeatedly included and the article specifically says that individually committed and individual victim crime is included, might that skew the data? When you are looking for/at crimes that have a racial motivation, is it possible that those are one sided? The murder in Charlotte for example will likely not be included in this data set, despite the perpetrator saying I got that white girl, but had the races been reversed it almost certainly would have. (I know that guy was mentally ill, but the article actually addresses the fact that such cases would be included)
quote:. Stats aren’t included in the link you gave. It does say that the SPLC was used as a source of info, so that has me a little suspect from the jump.
whether you look at the ’90s, 2000s, or 2010s, the far-right dominates the stats
quote:. Data only has meaning if it is adequately and fairly defined. Such quibbling is pretty much how you are arguing in this thread, and I have no problem with that. The meaning of words being unclear is how people bs their way to convincing people of bad ideas. It is crucially important.
quibble about definitions
This post was edited on 9/12/25 at 8:15 pm
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:10 pm to Tiger_Claw
It just won’t stick. It does the opposite of what I presume to be your intent.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:13 pm to Crimson K
So I realized why there's a sudden push for this half-assed, clearly false narrative... if Trump declares Antifa as a terror organization, they're just fostering any shred of doubt they can to create a backlash. They're getting desperate, and sloppy.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:13 pm to gaetti15
quote:
Tell me how NIJ is independent when its head is a political appointee that doesn't need senate confirmation?
This is a lazy dodge. NIJ’s Director being a political appointee doesn’t make the research fake any more than the Census Bureau or CDC suddenly stop being credible because their heads are appointed too. NIJ doesn’t sit in a DOJ office making up numbers, it funds universities, independent labs, and long-running projects like PIRUS and ATS that have spanned both Republican and Democratic administrations.
If you want to attack the data, do it. But trying to dismiss an entire research body because of how the org chart works is just you looking for an escape hatch.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:15 pm to Hateradedrink
You’re misjudging his intent. He’s not trying to convince anyone but himself. It’s unclear how well that’s going.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:16 pm to Hateradedrink
quote:
It just won’t stick. It does the opposite of what I presume to be your intent.
Oh, I am well aware. I am fairly certain that I will not change an opinion or view, but I do what I can and drop some knowledge to the best of my ability.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:16 pm to Crimson K
quote:
Crimson K
They say drug addicted losers like Dylan Roof are committing far right political murders but don’t count the summer of love George Floyd destruction and mayhem because it was a “peaceful protest”.
These people are disingenuous pieces of excrement.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:18 pm to Tiger_Claw
quote:
NIJ’s Director being a political appointee doesn’t make the research fake any more than the Census Bureau or CDC suddenly stop being credible because their heads are appointed too. NIJ doesn’t sit in a DOJ office making up numbers, it funds universities, independent labs, and long-running projects like PIRUS and ATS that have spanned both Republican and Democratic administrations.
If you want to attack the data, do it. But trying to dismiss an entire research body because of how the org chart works is just you looking for an escape hatch.
Im sorry im pretty sure the Head of Census and CDC need senate confirmation
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:18 pm to the808bass
Nah, I’m not here to convince myself, I already know what the data says. I’m laying it out so everyone else can see who’s bringing facts to the table and who’s just bringing vibes. If that makes you uncomfortable, maybe it’s because the scoreboard isn’t in your favor.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:20 pm to Hateradedrink
Correct, nobody's going to buy it. They hate it but this is who they are. He's pushing an agenda and trying to change facts.
Like you said: "Charlie was not the monster that the shooter believed him to be, but the shooter believed him to be a monster that wanted to stone gays."
Like you said: "Charlie was not the monster that the shooter believed him to be, but the shooter believed him to be a monster that wanted to stone gays."
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:21 pm to foosball
He's probably telling it straight; but I don't think anyone with a pedo stache and Ed Hardy hat has any room to be calling someone else weird.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:21 pm to gaetti15
quote:
Im sorry im pretty sure the Head of Census and CDC need senate confirmation
And I’ll happily grant you that detail, the Census Bureau Director does require Senate confirmation, and the CDC Director usually gets confirmed too.
But that doesn’t change the point: both are still political appointees, just like NIJ’s Director. Nobody dismisses all Census or CDC research as “fake” because of who’s in charge, and you don’t get to wave away decades of NIJ-funded data with the same cheap trick either.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:21 pm to the808bass
quote:
You’re misjudging his intent. He’s not trying to convince anyone but himself. It’s unclear how well that’s going.
Probably. I guess I’m just trying to help with some introspection.
I had the same instinct as you, that this is a bit of a coping mechanism and I mean that in the non-ironic sense.
There is no way around this one and it’s time for the left to have a reckoning with themselves. Charlie Kirk was murdered because of a strawman that was constructed.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:25 pm to Tiger_Claw
Almost every post in this thread has been you focusing on what you admit is an irrelevant data point.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:27 pm to Tiger_Claw
quote:
CDC research as “fake” because of who’s in charge, and you don’t get to wave away decades of NIJ-funded data with the same cheap trick either.
A 2016 analysis found that 95% of federal employees political donations went to Hilary Clinton.
Your data is government sponsored bunk.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 8:33 pm to Tiger_Claw
quote:
Nobody dismisses all Census or CDC research as “fake” because of who’s in charge, and you don’t get to wave away decades of NIJ-funded data with the same cheap trick either.
I dont believe you after everything thats been said since RFK jr was confirmed
Page 46 of 51
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News