"We need that level of diversity, because it gives us capabilities" - damn straight. I highly recommend the miniseries "The Spy", as it's an excellent telling of the phenomenal story of Eli Cohen (topical nowadays!), and Sacha Baron's excellent portrayal of Eli really throws you for a loop if you're used to his other materials.
This is why I subscribe to Ryan's substack - to cut through the disinformation. Ryan calls out Chaya Raichik, the hate speech founder of the right wing troll site Libs of TikTok, for lying about the cause of the Bourbon Street terrorist event. It's important to call them out for their lies.
It's also no surprise that the immediate response from the right wing MAGA news world, including Fox News, was to flood the airwaves and social media sites with disinformation and try to blame the tragedy on Biden and an illegal alien. In truth it was a former military American born citizen. How long do we have to wait for them to apologize for lying about something that should bring us together against a common enemy instead of trying to divide us and to score a few cheap political points?
The difference between this guy, and say, a Timothy McVeigh, is next to nothing. An angry man who feels the world is unjust to him and/or people like him, has lost faith that it ever will be any better, and wants the world to feel his "righteous" rage by taking out as many perpetrators/enablers/beneficiaries of the perceived injustice as possible before leaving the world behind... and maybe inspire others to do the same. Of course, there are voices out there who can hasten such radicalization, and sometimes there's even a network of like-minded violent radicals to fund/organize such attacks, but it all comes from the same place in the human mind, no matter what ideology may be attached to it. "Me feel angry. Me feel powerless. Me make them pay."
The like minded people in this case are radical religious extremists. But you are correct. But anyone can be made to feel aggrieved. It's how they respond to the feelings of aggrievement.
It just occurred to me that one key difference between a Timothy McVeigh white nationalist mass murderer, or a Alek Minassian incel mass murderer, versus an Omar Mateen (Pulse nightclub, Orlando) mass murderer or the 9/11 mass murderers is how certain elements within the public react. I mean, yes, the horror is felt universally among all such incidents, but what you don't see in the US when the perps are white/male is a backlash of violent incidents perpetrated against while males in response. It's no secret that being Muslim in the US for years after 9/11 meant living in fear, and it still isn't exactly comfortable over 20 years later. For that matter, even the geographical origin of a pandemic can put people in the crosshairs once a narrative starts flowing - just ask anyone who even looked Chinese in the US in the first year of the CoVid-19 outbreak. To be clear, I don't think such responses are inherent to "whiteness", but rather a function of ANY dominant/majority culture having tribal, reactionary elements within it that see threats in "others".
I don't know how my local Muslims feel but they're all pretty much nice friendly people. And this is a redneck town in California oil country in a red county. Can't blame them for the acts of a very violent and vocal minority of people who follow the same faith. They're the only ones who ever get the press. You never see the local small business men and families running businesses who happen to be Muslim too. But the fascist brand of Islam is a distinctive thing and it's fed by certain governments to further their interests and weaken those that would not be disposed to favor or enable their theocratic ends and desires for power. As always follow the money and those preaching the ideology.
It's not a "very violent and vocal minority." There are millions who are true believers and would die for their faith. The problem people don't get is the tens of millions of Muslims who would not strap a suicide vest on and blow themselves up--but they wouldn't step up to stop it either. They sympathize with the goal. If their local City Council in Michigan told them that Sharia Law was now the law of their community--they would be okay with it. Our Constitution is just a piece of paper unless there is a willingness for government and society to enforce it.
Same thing happened in Germany. The "peaceful majority" were not Nazis, but how many stood up to oppose Hitler? How many knew that something bad was happening in the nearby camps--but said "Not my concern. I don't want to know. But if you keep bringing this up maybe I'll talk to the local authorities?" Could that happen in the United States? We just saw a mild version of it with COVID. Sure it could happen.
it's also, far too many adherants to that religion take it way too seriously. they actually think their book was written by god including all the things about taking over the world and slaying non belivers and "blasphemers"
Interesting choice in what vehicle was used. EVs can accelerate rapidly, and relatively quietly. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a driving factor in what vehicle was used, moreso than what was readily available.
Probably not a great idea to rent out your Cybertruck on Turo after the recent fatalities at New Orleans! And both the N.O. and Las Vegas rental Cybertruck explosion both used the Turo App...
I have no words for what happened last night. But for you, Ryan, you are very good at what you do, I can't understand why YouTube demonitzes you so often. You a year subscription, It's the absolute least I can do. Keep making your videos, I have a sickly feeling we are going to need them even more in the future.
On another issue Ryan. The reason why there is a backlash against the FBI that now includes this incident was the fact an FBI Agent right off the bat declared this was not a terrorist incident. If she didn't know, the statement should have been "We're still gathering evidence at this stage but will have more information shortly." That's all she had to say. But the second she made her statement it reminded people how the FBI has lied after other terrorist attacks--the Pulse Nightclub for example--because of political or ideological policies created with the goal of not unfairly maligning Muslims.
So you had incidents where obvious terrorist attacks were met with "We don't know" after it had become obvious, but when the attacker was apparently of another ideology or background "Oh now we definitely know! Who needs facts." This ideological creep has gone a lot further than just the FBI. Local news stories describing criminals or suspects leave out the race of the person--unless it's a white male. That has led to broad assumptions that any time a story omits this information it automatically means the perpetrator was black. How about just keeping to the facts.
Yeah, but what if I have a biased narrative that I really want to get out there? It's just so easy: all you need is a handful of incidents, perpetrated by a few angry angry men of one general political/religious persuasion, and then you can paint everyone from said group with the same brush! Works for everyone, too: if dude attacks a bunch of hispanic or black people while wearing a MAGA hat, voila! All MAGA folk are terrorists! If a riot breaks out a few hours after a BLM protest, voila! BLM is a terror org. It's such an easy game, and everyone can play!
And how many people wearing MAGA hats have attacked hispanic and black people? If such a thing were to actually happen the assumption would be that Antifa or some other entity with a violent leftist ideology did it for the "greater good." Wouldn't be the first time.
You're funny. So the BLM protest ends--and a few hours later there is this riot. You would think the BLM would send someone back to ask the rioters "Who are you? You're making us look bad." Maybe these rioters were wearing MAGA hats?
And no, BLM was a Marxist group, with a largely white membership, that had it's violent moments, but what it was really good at was grifting millions from people they fooled into believing it had anything to do with fighting police brutality or uplifting the black community. They were useful idiots for the Democrat Party, but they were always about the money--most of it being ripped off and used over the course of the last several election cycles; and to enrich some of the leadership. Notice how the "revolution" disappeared right after Trump lost the Election in 2020. They sure were busy prior to that happening. Notice how the government has targeted some of these prominent fraudsters for prosecution; and some of them are being sued by other members of BLM who actually believed in the cause; but nothing about the billions syphoned away to support the same system they were supposedly protesting against. You should read their old manifesto where they stated one of their goals was the destruction of the black family. They were certainly late to that party.
Anyone who believes Quran is the reference book to run a society is a potential terrorist. It literally commands Muslims to kill non-believers wherever they see them.
Thanks for the quick analysis, Ryan - came right to Substack to watch. As a reminder there was also a vehicle attack at a German Christmas Market a few weeks ago. Not sure that one was linked to a terrorist/religious motive though. It will be interesting to see if this guy left any writings and what his SM feed looks like.
I remember shortly after the Polonium attack in the UK, an ex MI-6 guy said he was confused that the GRU/FSB/SVR would use such a complicated operation. He said they should just throw them out the window. Apparently they learned their lesson. Seems like something similar here - go the easiest route.
Ryan, as brilliant as you are I wish you would examine your own ideologic bias if you're your going to discuss something as divisive as DEI. You're talking about two different things. FBI Agents should be hired on merit and only merit. There should be no hiring quotas based on race or sex. No candidate should ever be declined because of their skin color. The best person for the job. Racial discrimination in hiring should be illegal.
"After" hiring and training has taken place, if a particular task, job, or assignment "requires" the person to be of a certain race or sex--that has always been legal. You would not send a black FBI Agent to infiltrate a white supremacist organization for example. You may need a female officer to search a female suspect. You may need someone who speaks a certain language or have some type of specific knowledge. At this stage it's what is needed for the mission. DEI is a corruption.
I really hate this. I don't know if this is your version of virtue signaling? Your content is so good and out of the blue you shove this ignorant racist stuff into the mix. DEI has nothing to do with the quality of a human being. It's reducing people to their immutable characteristics. Years ago candidates for jobs in many professions were required to submit photos with their job applications with the unstated, and sometimes stated goal, of giving hiring managers the ability to screen candidates out by race, ethnicity, or sex. It took years to undo this nonsense. Affirmative Action, DEI--it brings this nonsense back. Only now the categories have changed; straight, white or Asian, and males are screened out.
And again, these bigoted hiring programs have nothing to do with a person's qualifications for a job or assignment. But their existence undervalues people by calling into question why they were hired in the first place.
So here’s how this works – there is no quote or whatever. The FBI is just making an effort to hire in certain areas to find people who may be interested that might never have thought of about joining the FBI. Had they not been reached out to individually.
Hello Ryan, I have to agree with Mr. Downing, on this you are a dreamer who never got past the surface of this issue. Of course there are quotas--or maybe you prefer hiring goals with a quantifiable number attached? As someone who was actually recruited by the FBI back in the day I can tell you there is nothing noble or practical about DEI. It's an ideology. It's been around in different forms under different names for a long time. Right now in companies across the country they are changing that acronym. Changing the wording to make it more acceptable in the short term. And again, this has nothing to do with "We need more Farsi speakers, preferably someone with a Persian cultural background." It has nothing to do with improving a workforce--it actually divides a workforce. There is a national backlash against it right now for a reason. No one wants to be the victim of government sponsored racism masked as something positive. It's also a grift. People have made a lot of money off this nonsense.
Anyway, I'm seen and met many brilliant people over the years, like you, who can explain the unexplainable, and then out of the blue, they speak words that should contradict everything they stand for--but the person doesn't see it that way. And that's how this type of indoctrination works.
I'll hope that you but your bias aside and actually dig a little deeper on this subject.
no way for us to know that. question - do they have more applicants than hiring positions or the other way around. if the former then do they compare applicants against each other or only those that fit a criteria such as a minority?
So, if organizations make the internal decision to hire strictly on 'merit' (test scores?), and the ranks of leadership just so happen to end up being mostly male, mostly white (as in, far beyond statistical representation in the general US population)... should we take that to mean that statistically speaking, white men just inherently have greater merit? Would that be the rational, objective conclusion?
Merit isn't just test scores. But in your hypothetical--and I'll just stick to race--if an organization has a standard that everyone must meet and the outcome is a mostly white work force then several things have to be looked at: 1) Is the standard excluding candidates purposely, discriminating based on race? 2) Is the standard vital to the continued success of that organization, or has it been tweaked to factor in something that shouldn't be a factor--the skin color of the candidate.
Entire books have been written on this subject so this comment won't cover the entirety of the issue, but if the standard is sound--it doesn't discriminate based on race; and the standard is needed to ensure the continued success of the organization; then what is the problem? Maybe it's a recruiting problem--are there qualified candidates out there and they are not being reached? Maybe it's a larger issue--the dumbing down of our schools has produced more graduates with opinions but fewer skillsets? So the overall quality of candidates have declined and since whites make up a majority of the population they are more represented among the qualified candidate pool?
As long as the standard is sound and not designed to discriminate based on race; and the people applying the standard are not adjusting it to discriminate based on race--then the problem lies elsewhere. This is where the flaw in your statement makes it way to the front. You are focused on the surface characteristics of an outcome rather fixing a perceived problem. Changing the standard to discriminate against those currently meeting the criteria will change the outcome numbers and presumably make you happy. Does that improve the organization? Does that improve the candidate pipeline? Does that help the people you would like to see do better? Does that improve the service that organization provides to its customers, or to the public?
I do wish the purveyors of this racism would pick a target that makes this obvious to the indoctrinated. Maybe pass a law mandating that NBA teams stop discriminating against whites, Asians and women by implementing certain hiring and playing criteria. And when the first person complains they can use your line..."should we take that to mean that statistically speaking, black men just inherently have greater merit? Would that be your rational, objective conclusion?" And don't forget to add the condescending tone.
As usual - amazing coverage, thank you for the video.
From your experience, is there a pattern of behavior for terrorists on twitter/instagram/facebook that i can train some ML model on to predict jihadi’s before they paint streets in red?
Thoughtful and informative, Ryan, thanks for that, but especially thanks for not doing this like a network news report. You remained calm throughout, there were no flashy graphics, no hyperbole, you just explained the event and the wider context. I almost always learn something from your posts, and this was no different. This kind of thing is why I sent you the five dollars. Keep up the good work.
The pickup turned right into the side street (away from the camera’s position), accelerating into the crowd crossing at the intersection, and those walking in the street.
"We need that level of diversity, because it gives us capabilities" - damn straight. I highly recommend the miniseries "The Spy", as it's an excellent telling of the phenomenal story of Eli Cohen (topical nowadays!), and Sacha Baron's excellent portrayal of Eli really throws you for a loop if you're used to his other materials.
Great retelling the story of Eli Cohen.
The fact that you covered this so quickly and so well pushed me to subscribe to your substack. Thank you!
I appreciate that. I haven’t eaten all day, which don’t get me wrong. I can skip a meal, but I knocked this out as fast as I could.
This is why I subscribe to Ryan's substack - to cut through the disinformation. Ryan calls out Chaya Raichik, the hate speech founder of the right wing troll site Libs of TikTok, for lying about the cause of the Bourbon Street terrorist event. It's important to call them out for their lies.
It's also no surprise that the immediate response from the right wing MAGA news world, including Fox News, was to flood the airwaves and social media sites with disinformation and try to blame the tragedy on Biden and an illegal alien. In truth it was a former military American born citizen. How long do we have to wait for them to apologize for lying about something that should bring us together against a common enemy instead of trying to divide us and to score a few cheap political points?
so it's the fault of the military then. will maga thank him for his service i wonder /s
I wouldn't hold your breath Dude!
Propagandists never apologize, they double down or deflect...
Not caused by DEI. Not caused by the radical right wing. Not caused by the radical left wing. Caused by islamofascism.
The difference between this guy, and say, a Timothy McVeigh, is next to nothing. An angry man who feels the world is unjust to him and/or people like him, has lost faith that it ever will be any better, and wants the world to feel his "righteous" rage by taking out as many perpetrators/enablers/beneficiaries of the perceived injustice as possible before leaving the world behind... and maybe inspire others to do the same. Of course, there are voices out there who can hasten such radicalization, and sometimes there's even a network of like-minded violent radicals to fund/organize such attacks, but it all comes from the same place in the human mind, no matter what ideology may be attached to it. "Me feel angry. Me feel powerless. Me make them pay."
The like minded people in this case are radical religious extremists. But you are correct. But anyone can be made to feel aggrieved. It's how they respond to the feelings of aggrievement.
It just occurred to me that one key difference between a Timothy McVeigh white nationalist mass murderer, or a Alek Minassian incel mass murderer, versus an Omar Mateen (Pulse nightclub, Orlando) mass murderer or the 9/11 mass murderers is how certain elements within the public react. I mean, yes, the horror is felt universally among all such incidents, but what you don't see in the US when the perps are white/male is a backlash of violent incidents perpetrated against while males in response. It's no secret that being Muslim in the US for years after 9/11 meant living in fear, and it still isn't exactly comfortable over 20 years later. For that matter, even the geographical origin of a pandemic can put people in the crosshairs once a narrative starts flowing - just ask anyone who even looked Chinese in the US in the first year of the CoVid-19 outbreak. To be clear, I don't think such responses are inherent to "whiteness", but rather a function of ANY dominant/majority culture having tribal, reactionary elements within it that see threats in "others".
I don't know how my local Muslims feel but they're all pretty much nice friendly people. And this is a redneck town in California oil country in a red county. Can't blame them for the acts of a very violent and vocal minority of people who follow the same faith. They're the only ones who ever get the press. You never see the local small business men and families running businesses who happen to be Muslim too. But the fascist brand of Islam is a distinctive thing and it's fed by certain governments to further their interests and weaken those that would not be disposed to favor or enable their theocratic ends and desires for power. As always follow the money and those preaching the ideology.
It's not a "very violent and vocal minority." There are millions who are true believers and would die for their faith. The problem people don't get is the tens of millions of Muslims who would not strap a suicide vest on and blow themselves up--but they wouldn't step up to stop it either. They sympathize with the goal. If their local City Council in Michigan told them that Sharia Law was now the law of their community--they would be okay with it. Our Constitution is just a piece of paper unless there is a willingness for government and society to enforce it.
Same thing happened in Germany. The "peaceful majority" were not Nazis, but how many stood up to oppose Hitler? How many knew that something bad was happening in the nearby camps--but said "Not my concern. I don't want to know. But if you keep bringing this up maybe I'll talk to the local authorities?" Could that happen in the United States? We just saw a mild version of it with COVID. Sure it could happen.
it's also, far too many adherants to that religion take it way too seriously. they actually think their book was written by god including all the things about taking over the world and slaying non belivers and "blasphemers"
Thanks Ryan
Interesting choice in what vehicle was used. EVs can accelerate rapidly, and relatively quietly. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a driving factor in what vehicle was used, moreso than what was readily available.
Could be. I really didn’t want to cover that because I was trying to keep this as sanitized for YouTube as possible. They de monetized it anyway.
Probably not a great idea to rent out your Cybertruck on Turo after the recent fatalities at New Orleans! And both the N.O. and Las Vegas rental Cybertruck explosion both used the Turo App...
I have no words for what happened last night. But for you, Ryan, you are very good at what you do, I can't understand why YouTube demonitzes you so often. You a year subscription, It's the absolute least I can do. Keep making your videos, I have a sickly feeling we are going to need them even more in the future.
Thanks, man
On another issue Ryan. The reason why there is a backlash against the FBI that now includes this incident was the fact an FBI Agent right off the bat declared this was not a terrorist incident. If she didn't know, the statement should have been "We're still gathering evidence at this stage but will have more information shortly." That's all she had to say. But the second she made her statement it reminded people how the FBI has lied after other terrorist attacks--the Pulse Nightclub for example--because of political or ideological policies created with the goal of not unfairly maligning Muslims.
So you had incidents where obvious terrorist attacks were met with "We don't know" after it had become obvious, but when the attacker was apparently of another ideology or background "Oh now we definitely know! Who needs facts." This ideological creep has gone a lot further than just the FBI. Local news stories describing criminals or suspects leave out the race of the person--unless it's a white male. That has led to broad assumptions that any time a story omits this information it automatically means the perpetrator was black. How about just keeping to the facts.
Cursed moslems.
The mere fact that someone adheres (or does not adhere) to a religion has nothing to do with this.
well it seems in this case it does have alot to do with it
Yeah, but what if I have a biased narrative that I really want to get out there? It's just so easy: all you need is a handful of incidents, perpetrated by a few angry angry men of one general political/religious persuasion, and then you can paint everyone from said group with the same brush! Works for everyone, too: if dude attacks a bunch of hispanic or black people while wearing a MAGA hat, voila! All MAGA folk are terrorists! If a riot breaks out a few hours after a BLM protest, voila! BLM is a terror org. It's such an easy game, and everyone can play!
And how many people wearing MAGA hats have attacked hispanic and black people? If such a thing were to actually happen the assumption would be that Antifa or some other entity with a violent leftist ideology did it for the "greater good." Wouldn't be the first time.
You're funny. So the BLM protest ends--and a few hours later there is this riot. You would think the BLM would send someone back to ask the rioters "Who are you? You're making us look bad." Maybe these rioters were wearing MAGA hats?
And no, BLM was a Marxist group, with a largely white membership, that had it's violent moments, but what it was really good at was grifting millions from people they fooled into believing it had anything to do with fighting police brutality or uplifting the black community. They were useful idiots for the Democrat Party, but they were always about the money--most of it being ripped off and used over the course of the last several election cycles; and to enrich some of the leadership. Notice how the "revolution" disappeared right after Trump lost the Election in 2020. They sure were busy prior to that happening. Notice how the government has targeted some of these prominent fraudsters for prosecution; and some of them are being sued by other members of BLM who actually believed in the cause; but nothing about the billions syphoned away to support the same system they were supposedly protesting against. You should read their old manifesto where they stated one of their goals was the destruction of the black family. They were certainly late to that party.
Sorry Glynn...but the Muslims that I know are great people.
Now, if you had said "Cursed Islamists"...I would have agreed with you
Anyone who believes Quran is the reference book to run a society is a potential terrorist. It literally commands Muslims to kill non-believers wherever they see them.
exactly it's not a live and let live religion at it's core to true believers.
Thanks for the quick analysis, Ryan - came right to Substack to watch. As a reminder there was also a vehicle attack at a German Christmas Market a few weeks ago. Not sure that one was linked to a terrorist/religious motive though. It will be interesting to see if this guy left any writings and what his SM feed looks like.
I remember shortly after the Polonium attack in the UK, an ex MI-6 guy said he was confused that the GRU/FSB/SVR would use such a complicated operation. He said they should just throw them out the window. Apparently they learned their lesson. Seems like something similar here - go the easiest route.
You are a constant beacon of reality and facts in a World full of BS. I can't thank you enough!
Ryan, as brilliant as you are I wish you would examine your own ideologic bias if you're your going to discuss something as divisive as DEI. You're talking about two different things. FBI Agents should be hired on merit and only merit. There should be no hiring quotas based on race or sex. No candidate should ever be declined because of their skin color. The best person for the job. Racial discrimination in hiring should be illegal.
"After" hiring and training has taken place, if a particular task, job, or assignment "requires" the person to be of a certain race or sex--that has always been legal. You would not send a black FBI Agent to infiltrate a white supremacist organization for example. You may need a female officer to search a female suspect. You may need someone who speaks a certain language or have some type of specific knowledge. At this stage it's what is needed for the mission. DEI is a corruption.
I really hate this. I don't know if this is your version of virtue signaling? Your content is so good and out of the blue you shove this ignorant racist stuff into the mix. DEI has nothing to do with the quality of a human being. It's reducing people to their immutable characteristics. Years ago candidates for jobs in many professions were required to submit photos with their job applications with the unstated, and sometimes stated goal, of giving hiring managers the ability to screen candidates out by race, ethnicity, or sex. It took years to undo this nonsense. Affirmative Action, DEI--it brings this nonsense back. Only now the categories have changed; straight, white or Asian, and males are screened out.
And again, these bigoted hiring programs have nothing to do with a person's qualifications for a job or assignment. But their existence undervalues people by calling into question why they were hired in the first place.
So here’s how this works – there is no quote or whatever. The FBI is just making an effort to hire in certain areas to find people who may be interested that might never have thought of about joining the FBI. Had they not been reached out to individually.
Nobody is lowering standards.
Hello Ryan, I have to agree with Mr. Downing, on this you are a dreamer who never got past the surface of this issue. Of course there are quotas--or maybe you prefer hiring goals with a quantifiable number attached? As someone who was actually recruited by the FBI back in the day I can tell you there is nothing noble or practical about DEI. It's an ideology. It's been around in different forms under different names for a long time. Right now in companies across the country they are changing that acronym. Changing the wording to make it more acceptable in the short term. And again, this has nothing to do with "We need more Farsi speakers, preferably someone with a Persian cultural background." It has nothing to do with improving a workforce--it actually divides a workforce. There is a national backlash against it right now for a reason. No one wants to be the victim of government sponsored racism masked as something positive. It's also a grift. People have made a lot of money off this nonsense.
Anyway, I'm seen and met many brilliant people over the years, like you, who can explain the unexplainable, and then out of the blue, they speak words that should contradict everything they stand for--but the person doesn't see it that way. And that's how this type of indoctrination works.
I'll hope that you but your bias aside and actually dig a little deeper on this subject.
Dreamer.
no way for us to know that. question - do they have more applicants than hiring positions or the other way around. if the former then do they compare applicants against each other or only those that fit a criteria such as a minority?
So, if organizations make the internal decision to hire strictly on 'merit' (test scores?), and the ranks of leadership just so happen to end up being mostly male, mostly white (as in, far beyond statistical representation in the general US population)... should we take that to mean that statistically speaking, white men just inherently have greater merit? Would that be the rational, objective conclusion?
Merit isn't just test scores. But in your hypothetical--and I'll just stick to race--if an organization has a standard that everyone must meet and the outcome is a mostly white work force then several things have to be looked at: 1) Is the standard excluding candidates purposely, discriminating based on race? 2) Is the standard vital to the continued success of that organization, or has it been tweaked to factor in something that shouldn't be a factor--the skin color of the candidate.
Entire books have been written on this subject so this comment won't cover the entirety of the issue, but if the standard is sound--it doesn't discriminate based on race; and the standard is needed to ensure the continued success of the organization; then what is the problem? Maybe it's a recruiting problem--are there qualified candidates out there and they are not being reached? Maybe it's a larger issue--the dumbing down of our schools has produced more graduates with opinions but fewer skillsets? So the overall quality of candidates have declined and since whites make up a majority of the population they are more represented among the qualified candidate pool?
As long as the standard is sound and not designed to discriminate based on race; and the people applying the standard are not adjusting it to discriminate based on race--then the problem lies elsewhere. This is where the flaw in your statement makes it way to the front. You are focused on the surface characteristics of an outcome rather fixing a perceived problem. Changing the standard to discriminate against those currently meeting the criteria will change the outcome numbers and presumably make you happy. Does that improve the organization? Does that improve the candidate pipeline? Does that help the people you would like to see do better? Does that improve the service that organization provides to its customers, or to the public?
I do wish the purveyors of this racism would pick a target that makes this obvious to the indoctrinated. Maybe pass a law mandating that NBA teams stop discriminating against whites, Asians and women by implementing certain hiring and playing criteria. And when the first person complains they can use your line..."should we take that to mean that statistically speaking, black men just inherently have greater merit? Would that be your rational, objective conclusion?" And don't forget to add the condescending tone.
As usual - amazing coverage, thank you for the video.
From your experience, is there a pattern of behavior for terrorists on twitter/instagram/facebook that i can train some ML model on to predict jihadi’s before they paint streets in red?
Thoughtful and informative, Ryan, thanks for that, but especially thanks for not doing this like a network news report. You remained calm throughout, there were no flashy graphics, no hyperbole, you just explained the event and the wider context. I almost always learn something from your posts, and this was no different. This kind of thing is why I sent you the five dollars. Keep up the good work.
Did I miss something? It looks the video was following the white pickup. Where did it come from?
The pickup turned right into the side street (away from the camera’s position), accelerating into the crowd crossing at the intersection, and those walking in the street.
Sorry, I meant who was taking the video? I know it turned right and accelerated, but it was pretty random that someone would be videoing/following it.
Oh, looked like someone recording the screen of the security system playback already knowing what vehicle to follow.