Lib Bluecheck Sounds Alarm Over “Racist” Police Crime Prediction Software

Let me just preface this post with the warning that you’re going to lose brain cells reading this woman’s arguments. Like any good libtard, she’s more concerned with this supposedly “racist” police software unfairly targeting minority neighborhoods than she is about, you know, actually stopping and reducing crime.

She spends all this time complaining about how the software is somehow “racist” against minorities, but not a whole lot of time discussing the important question of whether the software is actually accurate in predicting crime.

Again, warning, you will lose brain cells after reading this. But here we go:

Well, gee, I wonder why that is? Could it be that whiter, wealthier neighborhoods have less crime, and that the best way to predict crime is to focus on the areas where crime is most prevalent?

Hell, man, you don’t even need expensive software to do this. You just need to ask a 20-year veteran on the police force, “Hey, where is crime the highest in this area?” He’ll tell you.

I honestly think police departments are using this software as a way to prove they’re not racist.


Police: “Okay, then. We’ll start using this sophisticated software to tell us which areas to focus on. We’ll let the predictive software decide.”


Notice the problem with this tweet here? “Everyone uses drugs at similar rates.”

Yeah, that may be so, but not all drugs are the same. There’s a difference between someone smoking a joint and someone smoking crack. Police are mainly concerned with the hard drugs–meth, crack, heroin, PCP. While yes, there are a lot of white methheads out there, they’re mainly in rural areas. And yes, while heroin is increasingly creeping into the whiter suburbs (I remember from my predominantly white suburban hometown at least a handful of kids who died from heroin overdoses), the main “white” drugs are weed, coke, acid, molly and shrooms.

Those are not the “hard drugs” that police place the greatest emphasis on going after.

She included a link to a study, so I took a look at the study. It’s from 2012, which means it’s a bit outdated, but whatever. Here is a table of the data she’s referring to:

What she’s trying to say, but does not explicitly say, is that white people commit just as many crimes as minorities do, but the reason this isn’t reflected in the official crime stats is because white people just don’t report their crimes to the police as much.

But the data she uses to “back up” her claim shows that about 54% of white crimes go unreported vs. 46% of black crimes and 51% of Hispanic crimes.

This is not anywhere near enough of a disparity to explain away the difference in white vs. nonwhite crime rates. It would only be about 342,000 additional crimes for white people if they reported their crimes at the same rate as black people, and about 85,000 if they reported their crimes at the same rate as Hispanics.

I could understand making the argument that the white crime rate is in reality way higher if the data showed that only like 25-30% of white crimes were reported to police, while other races reported like 65-70% of their crimes, but this isn’t what the data shows. The data shows a disparity of only 8 percentage points between whites and blacks, and 3 percentage points between whites and Hispanics.

This study she cites is absolutely not proof that white people commit just as many violent crimes as blacks and Hispanics.

And, as someone on Twitter brought up, it also seems to contradict the popular liberal narrative that racist white Karens are always calling the cops on innocent minorities.

Also, if the police have data on how often crimes go unreported broken down by race, wouldn’t that factor into how each racial group is policed? If the official crime rate is x for a given race, but police also know that y amount of crimes among that race go unreported, then the police already know the true crime rate of each race.

And don’t crime rates take this into account? I don’t see why they wouldn’t include both reported and unreported crimes in the overall crime rate.

According to Angwin, the PredPol CEO said “the software mirrored reported crime rates.” Angwin responded by saying actually white crimes are underreported.

But was the PredPol CEO actually talking about rates of reported crime, or was he instead talking about the crime rate reported by the FBI?

We don’t know. But do you get what I’m saying here? Maybe the PredPol CEO was talking about the crime rates reported by the FBI rather than the crime rates reported by individuals. Does that make sense? I think Angwin may have misunderstood the PredPol CEO’s statement. I don’t think the CEO was talking about reported vs. unreported crime. I think by “reported” he meant the official crime data reported by the FBI.

Maybe I’m wrong here and the CEO was actually saying his software only uses reported crime, and excludes unreported crime, in its algorithm.

Still, though, it’s incumbent on people critical of the algorithm to actually understand why that is, instead of just assume it’s a product of “racism.”

Also, as we’ve gone over, even if the software doesn’t include unreported crime, that would not have a serious impact on the overall crime rates. It is not anywhere near sufficient in explaining why crime rates vary so much by race. It doesn’t explain why the white crime rate is lower.

Bottom line: this is a really weak argument by this lib blue check. She’s probably banking on people not actually clicking the link to the study and examining the data she’s citing. It’s a bluff.

In essence, what her argument boils down to here is that white crime often goes unreported, meaning police should just baselessly profile and target white neighborhoods.

She’d rather the police go looking for unreported white crimes than reported black and Hispanic crimes, I guess. Because she…. really cares about black and Hispanic people? Or something like that. I don’t know.

I guess she’s operating under the assumption that policing is a bad thing for a neighborhood rather than a good thing. I guess she would rather have the police ignoring black and Hispanic people when they call the police. That’s how you know white liberals care about minorities.

It’s a really bizarre argument when you actually start thinking about it, but whatever. Let’s keep moving here:


This is liberalism in a nutshell, right here: sure, the algorithm would be less accurate, but it would be more “fair,” and that’s what really matters, right?

Huh? How does this make any sense at all?

Does this dumb lady realize that an inaccurate algorithm is also an unfair algorithm?

I guess as long as it’s only unfair to white people, that’s fine with her.

No word on whether the software was ACTUALLY ACCURATE IN ITS PREDICTIONS, but as we know by now, that doesn’t actually matter to these White Liberal Saviors.

They don’t care if the software is accurate in its predictions. In fact, they’re rather upset that the software is accurate.

I can’t really put it much better than that 😂.

This was a great response as well:

Well it would be less racist, of course!

This person asks the question that Julia Angwin should’ve been asking, but for whatever reason didn’t:

This would’ve been the case to make, from her perspective: “This police software predicts x amount of minority crime, but the real number of minority crimes was way lower! This is proof the software is racist!”

But of course she doesn’t make that case. If she could’ve provided any proof of that, she would’ve. But the proof doesn’t exist.

Undeterred from the fact that she had no real case to make against this police software, she simply turned her ire on the “fairness” of the software’s predictions, totally ignoring the question of accuracy.

The lengths these libs go to, man. It’s unreal.

These people discuss the idea of “bias” as libs understand it:

Finally, the funniest tweet:

This is her haircut:

I am personally “biased” towards skepticism of any argument that comes from a person who looks like this.

My predictive AI software indicates that a person who looks like Julia Angwin has a 78.4% chance of having a White Savior Complex.

Look, I really don’t like to get into these “race war” topics. I think they’re dumb and really serve no other purpose other than to divide the country along racial lines, and make black people hate white people and white people hate black people.

But I am also someone who cares about FACTS.

The truth should not be controversial, or “divisive” or “political.” We should not be afraid to speak the truth just because the libs will get angry about it.

Why won’t libs just live in the real world?

How about this: we strike a deal with all the Julia Angwin types where we agree that they’re Super Not Racist, and in fact are the Least Racist People in the world. We’ll give them certificates–even awards if need be.

In return, they have to simply stop being such ignorant idiots all the time. They have to live in the real world with us.

This is all so tiring. It’s not just that they’re ignorant and stupid, but that they’re aggressively ignorant and stupid. They have to shove it in your face.

Look at this:

No. Just no. Stop it.

Why do you have to be like this, libs?


Nobody actually believes this. Probably not even this trans “woman” “herself,” deep down.

I mean honestly: give me a number here. What percentage of the country do you think truly believes trans “women” are actually women? I’m talking people who truly believe it deep in their hearts.

I’m not talking about these virtue signaling liberal white women on social media who say they believe trans “women” are truly women, and that men can get pregnant and all that nonsense. Those people probably know deep down that it’s not true, but harbor an Emperor’s New Clothes-esque fear of admitting plainly obvious but politically incorrect truths.

I’m talking about people who really and sincerely believe you can change your gender.

1%? 2%? It can’t be any more than 5-10% at most, right?

We’ll never know the answer for certain because even if you did a poll, libs would still lie to the pollsters. They’re lying to themselves. Why wouldn’t they lie to pollsters, too?

I’m just so sick of these libs and their stubborn refusal to live in the real world.

Minority neighborhoods have higher crime rates.

Deal with it.

Men who dress up like women aren’t women.






I hear all this talk these days about how America is so DIVIDED and so POLARIZED, and we’re going to have to break the country up or, worse, have another civil war.

Because we’re just too DIVIDED!

No. We don’t need to have another civil war. We don’t need to break the country up.

The libs just need to live in the real world.

They need to stop this bullshit.

Are we really going to destroy America because the libs can’t handle reality?

Leave a Reply