This is Disparate Impact Theory in action.

I'll explain. It's a long post, but I think this stuff is worth knowing.

A law that criminalizes the knowing transmission of HIV is a law that generates a wildly disproportionate number of homosexual offenders. Same goes for a law that criminalizes sex with minors (also known as statutory rape).

Notice that neither law makes any mention of sexual orientation or any other identity traits. Every demographic is equal under these laws, and they are eminently sensible and moral laws - don't fuck kids, don't give people AIDS, simple enough.

A rational person sees all of this and thinks "Jesus Christ, why is the homosexual community filled with child rapists and people giving each other AIDS?? What's wrong with that community??"

A Marxist sees all of this and thinks "By the ghost of Jacques Derrida, these laws are unjust! Why else would they disproportionately criminalize homosexuals! Anyone who justifies these disproportionate homosexual incarceration rates by pointing to the high rates of infraction within the homosexual community is a bigot!"

If you're not allowed to acknowledge the reality of the disparate behavior of a specific demographic, then there can be no explanation for laws generating unequal outcomes. And you can't write laws (for the most part...) to exempt specific demographics because that qualifies as discrimination. So the only way to "level the playing field" is decriminalization. You make crimes legal until the disparity in sexual orientation of offenders disappears.

This is pure nonsense. In fact, it's pretty clearly evil.

Disparate Impact Theory didn't start out this way. It makes sense to identify and study disparities in outcome based on demographics. But if you are prevented from identifying issues within a demographic itself as the cause of the disparity, then the exercise becomes meaningless. And if you also believe that disparities must be addressed regardless, without including demographic analysis, then the exercise becomes a tool of raw destruction for radicals attempting to overthrow our society.

Google Disparate Impact Theory + Obama. You will find it played a central role in much of his domestic policy. You can also see DIT in almost every leftist argument, accusation, and idea. It's the central component of the leftist worldview. Learn it so that you can recognise and defeat it.

This is Disparate Impact Theory in action.

I'll explain. It's a long post, but I think this stuff is worth knowing.

A law that criminalizes the knowing transmission of HIV is a law that generates a wildly disproportionate number of homosexual offenders. Same goes for a law that criminalizes sex with minors (also known as statutory rape).

Notice that neither law makes any mention of sexual orientation or any other identity traits. Every demographic is equal under these laws, and they are eminently sensible and moral laws - don't fuck kids, don't give people AIDS, simple enough.

A rational person sees all of this and thinks "Jesus Christ, why is the homosexual community filled with child rapists and people giving each other AIDS?? What's wrong with that community??"

A Marxist sees all of this and thinks "By the ghost of Jacques Derrida, these laws are unjust! Why else would they disproportionately criminalize homosexuals! Anyone who justifies these disproportionate homosexual incarceration rates by pointing to the high rates of infraction within the homosexual community is a bigot!"

If you're not allowed to acknowledge the reality of the disparate behavior of a specific demographic, then there can be no explanation for laws generating unequal outcomes. And you can't write laws (for the most part...) to exempt specific demographics because that qualifies as discrimination. So the only way to "level the playing field" is decriminalization. You make crimes legal until the disparity in sexual orientation of offenders disappears.

This is pure nonsense. In fact, it's pretty clearly evil.

Disparate Impact Theory didn't start out this way. It makes sense to identify and study disparities in outcome based on demographics. But if you are prevented from identifying issues within a demographic itself as the cause of the disparity, then the exercise becomes meaningless. And if you also believe that disparities must be addressed regardless, without including demographic analysis, then the exercise becomes a tool of raw destruction for radicals attempting to overthrown our society.

Google Disparate Impact Theory + Obama. You will find it played a central role in much of his domestic policy. You can also see DIT in almost every leftist argument, accusation, and idea. It's the central component of the leftist worldview. Learn it so that you can recognise and defeat it.

This is Disparate Impact Theory in action.

I'll explain. It's a long post, but I think this stuff is worth knowing.

A law that criminalizes the knowing transmission of HIV is a law that generates a wildly disproportionate number of homosexual offenders. Same goes for a law that criminalizes sex with minors (also known as statutory rape).

Notice that neither law makes any mention of sexual orientation or any other identity traits. Every demographic is equal under these laws, and they are eminently sensible and moral laws - don't fuck kids, don't give people AIDS, simple enough.

A rational person sees all of this and thinks "Jesus Christ, why is the homosexual community filled with child rapists and people giving each other AIDS?? What's wrong with that community??"

A Marxist sees all of this and thinks "By the ghost of Jacques Derrida, these laws are unjust! Why else would they disproportionately criminalize homosexuals! Anyone who justifies these disproportionate homosexual incarceration rates by pointing to the high rates of infraction within the homosexual community is a bigot!"

If you're not allowed to acknowledge the reality of the disparate behavior of a specific demographic, then there can be no explanation for laws generating unequal outcomes. And you can't write laws (for the most part...) to exempt specific demographics because that qualifies as discrimination. So the only way to "level the playing field" is decriminalization. You make crimes legal until the disparities in offender sexual orientation and race disappear.

Disparate Impact Theory didn't start out as pure evil. It makes sense to identify and study disparities in outcome based on demographics. But if you are prevented from identifying issues within a demographic itself as the cause of the disparity, then the exercise becomes meaningless. If you also believe that disparities must be addressed without including demographic analysis, then the exercise becomes a tool of raw destruction for radicals attempting to overthrown our society.

Google Disparate Impact Theory + Obama. You will find it played a central role in much of his domestic policy.