adding 'on some metrics' is going to include a bunch of shit that you evidently don't want because it's a phrase that can be used in both the improving and degrading cases. try trimming it down. it'll still probably give you all the bullshit you're objecting to, but it won't have as much of an excuse.
Fundamentally, the main interest of search engines is not so much finding what you want to see, but showing you what they want you to see. AI is just a more sophisticated way to do that.
"I didn't read the article but definitely know better about the subject of it".
Oh, you mean the Minneapolis initiative, which (while termed 'defund the police') actually aimed to.... rename it, shift some funding, and transfer where the oversight rested?
Ah yes, of course. But you know that in a lot of decisions, a basis can be found for pretty much any result if you really stretch and twist some definitions. That's what they do: utilise whatever interpretation best suits their political inclination, even if better and more solid rationales exist.
Strange, considering people have already been voting third party for dozens of electoral cycles, and it hasn't shifted the pointer an inch. Any day now!
www.voanews.com
That's hotBe warned, the following is NSFL
Institutional racism started a long time ago in any organization and had nothing to do with the far-right.
Institutional racism wasn't started by the far-right...
Institutional racism is born of racism. The far right are racists. Therefore the far right will promote institutional racism.
Irrelevant non-argument. It's extremely prevalent among the far-right, and you know this-- you're just deflecting.
...with a law-enforcement agency with the same role, but a different name and oversight.
Well not really. The SCOTUS justices have used much, much worse reasoning themselves for other decisions, when it suited their political inclinations. The only reason you think this is because you have an odd sympathy for the authoritarian right.
It's not born out of racism, it's normal human psychology to be fearful of those different (whether race or not). You can't really promote institutional racism when it started/created long ago and not by the far-right. I bet anyone not Asian would face institutional racism in Japan for example, and it ain't because the Japanese are inherently racist or some far-right Japanese groups either.
Far-right is racist but they didn't create said structures that cause institutional racism.
When you talk about people having an anxiety-based adverse reaction to difference, you are explaining a theory for why people might be racist. I have no idea how you think that people somehow get from fearing difference to institutional racism completely bypassing racism. Actually, I do very much have an idea how, it's just not going to be constructive for me to say it.
Yeah. Perhaps you've missed the replies to this from me and Silvanus: it doesn't matter.
"We don't want those people! They're the enemy we're trying to destroy!"
They didn't create the Metropolitan Police, and thus we can't say they're prominent within the Metropolitan Police? That's what you're going with?
Not really interested in your catastrophising opinions on the measure. It wasn't going to leave the area without law enforcement, as you seemed to be implying; it was essentially just a reform of the police. And it didn't even pass. So 'defund the police' is not a rational reason to avoid the Democratic Party.
Uh-huh. Yet the justices have employed rationale just as flimsy, or more flimsy still, for their own decisions on other cases. It doesn't depend on the strongest reading of the law-- it depends on their political leaning.
Ha, i like the part with "... animal control services shall be contacted to remove the student"
Oklahoma banning furries in schools. But "engage in anthropomorphic behavior", isn't that walking on two legs?
