Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Otherwise, they are a minor statistic that only happens every now and then.

Yeah, just costs a few black lives every few years once their rhetoric gets someone worked up enough to start killing. (Setting aside the effect letting that rhetoric float around America for so long has.....like maybe getting guys into law enforcement who don't value black lives? Hhrrrrrrmmmm.)

Nenjin, please dont make the mistake that racial hateds only go in one direction; white->black.  Racial hatreds go EVERY direction, between EVERY group.

Take this little story for instance.

The real problem here is that we (the US) have people like Al Sharpton who make a living out of turning EVERYTHING into a racially motivated issue, and a media that is every so ready to lap that shit up like it was icecream, and then shit it on everyone's TV set, because RATINGS! 

When you whip up passions with statements like yours, you only fan the flames.  Please dont do that.

Not trying to make light of the whole thing, but that article sounds like it has a bit of the The Onion style satire.

[wierd]

It reeks of spin, but then again, if you want to see something like that reported (which goes against the mainstream flavor of spin) filthy rag press is the only place you will find it. (I include Fox news in "Filthy rag press")

I sometimes forget that other countries dont have such hyper-biased media that people dont have "take with huge ass grain of salt" filters by default.

Here's a few other sources.

Shot one. and shot two

Note how the race of the assailants and of the victims are not mentioned AT ALL in the channel 3 news version.
Whee

So, while the first one I pointed out was hyperbolic filth with an agenda, the agenda it had to point out was that there is such a thing as race hatred related crimes  against whites.  The reporting favors that angle with the quotations from the city councilman. The only place that will be found in the media is from shit rags, because it is not popular to have news of that kind in mainstream press. That does not mean that it did not happen, nor that black->white race hatred and crime is not epidemic.

[Bohandas]

The Transpacific Partnership is closer than ever to passing.

You can bet that in the next election I won't be voting to reelect anybody who supported it or anyone endorsed by Obama.

[wierd]

Didlo legislation, at its best.

They pull one scary-large dildo out of that rape kit after another, completely ignoring that we dont want to be raped.

[nenjin]

Otherwise, they are a minor statistic that only happens every now and then.

Yeah, just costs a few black lives every few years once their rhetoric gets someone worked up enough to start killing. (Setting aside the effect letting that rhetoric float around America for so long has.....like maybe getting guys into law enforcement who don't value black lives? Hhrrrrrrmmmm.)

Nenjin, please dont make the mistake that racial hateds only go in one direction; white->black.  Racial hatreds go EVERY direction, between EVERY group.

Take this little story for instance.

The real problem here is that we (the US) have people like Al Sharpton who make a living out of turning EVERYTHING into a racially motivated issue, and a media that is every so ready to lap that shit up like it was icecream, and then shit it on everyone's TV set, because RATINGS! 

When you whip up passions with statements like yours, you only fan the flames.  Please dont do that.

And there's plenty of articles about groups of white teenagers fucking up just about anyone they run across (or is some cases, murdering them.) Point is, blacks don't organize into "racial protection" groups to the same degree whites do. And if they're gathering in groups to talk about how much White People are destroying their America, it sure has a disproportionately less impact in the media. (Or maybe it's just wrapped in garden variety crime like robbery and inner city murder.)

It's the level of organization that sets them apart. (Also you know, more than 100 years of racial discrimination, prejudice and violence in one group's corner.) Or are you really trying to equate a mob of black kids who run around beating people up and looting because they're bastards to the guy who walked into a church and shot 9 people to death? No where did I say black on white crime doesn't happen.

The real problem here is that we (the US) have people like Al Sharpton who make a living out of turning EVERYTHING into a racially motivated issue, and a media that is every so ready to lap that shit up like it was icecream, and then shit it on everyone's TV set, because RATINGS!

You're arguably just as bad when you say "it's not race, stop talking about race!" despite the prevalence of who is on the receiving end of lethal violence more often than not these days (I'm not talking normal crime, I'm talking about hate crime.) People that want to cover their ears and go LALALALA are in the same category as Sharpton, just on the other side of the spectrum.

When you whip up passions with statements like yours, you only fan the flames.  Please dont do that.

When you continually assert there's no underlying issues, you're feeding the apathy toward the plight of a racial group you don't share, backed up an article to say "See! Black people can be bad too!" Don't do that.

Sometimes wierd, being a die-hard neutral is part of the problem. Which, based on some of your other posts I've read, seems to be your default mode.

[wierd]

I agree that hyper neutrality can be a liability.

What I disagree with, is the statement you just made-- "Black people dont form racial protection groups to the same degree as whites do" -- That is simply not supportable as a position.

[nenjin]

I agree that hyper neutrality can be a liability.

What I disagree with, is the statement you just made-- "Black people dont form racial protection groups to the same degree as whites do" -- That is simply not supportable as a position.

You gotta back up your refutation if you're going to categorically state I'm wrong. Because my searches show about 5, most of which have been disbanded and/or arrested into non-relevance in the US.

[Lord Shonus]

I agree that hyper neutrality can be a liability.

What I disagree with, is the statement you just made-- "Black people dont form racial protection groups to the same degree as whites do" -- That is simply not supportable as a position.

You gotta back up your refutation if you're going to categorically state I'm wrong.

I've been attacked by such groups personally, and several people I know have been badly beaten for the crime of being white.

[nenjin]

The group being? And I don't count "Man Circle Gangsters" or other inner city gangs as quite the same thing.

[Bauglir]

They pull one scary-large dildo out of that rape kit after another, completely ignoring that we dont want to be raped.

When you whip up passions with statements like yours, you only fan the flames.  Please dont do that.

[wierd]

I agree that hyper neutrality can be a liability.

What I disagree with, is the statement you just made-- "Black people dont form racial protection groups to the same degree as whites do" -- That is simply not supportable as a position.

You gotta back up your refutation if you're going to categorically state I'm wrong.

Personally, I would say I dont really need to, as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; I am asserting that black people are people, like everyone else, and will have similar statistics of engaging in racially motivated violence as any other group.

You are saying that black people, for some mysterious reason that you wont disclose, simply are not as racially violent, or prone to forming assiciations based around racial violence.  I would say that your claim is the more extraordinary, and in need of providing statistical proof that does not cherry pick.

But, since you asked--

The FBI released a report recently concerning statistics of race crimes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-releases-hate-crime-statistics/

On the face of it, it looks like there is more race hatred from whites than from blacks, by about double. However, when you factor in the racial majority of whites over blacks, the statistical prevalence actually swings the other way. It means black people are more than twice as likely to engage in a violent hate crime as white people are.

[nenjin]

It means black people are more than twice as likely to engage in a violent hate crime as white people are.

Your math seems dubious at best. According to 2014 US Census data:

U.S. Census Bureau
9
The non-Hispanic White alone
population is currently the “major-
ity” group, as it is both the larg-
est racial and ethnic group and
accounts for greater than a 50
percent share of the nation’s total
population.

77% vs. 13.2.

You are saying that black people, for some mysterious reason that you wont disclose, simply are not as racially violent, or prone to forming assiciations based around racial violence.

I say they're less likely because:

a) They've formed fewer groups historically.
b) Their groups have not waged organized campaigns of intimidation and violence in their areas. (Unless you're saying street crime is now a organized, racially and politically motivated group, which is moving the goal posts quite far.)
c) Their groups have not lasted nearly as long as the longest running white hate groups.
d) They've got less of a vested stake in America as is versus white people, because they economically disadvantaged, less educated and socially marginalized. Protecting the status quo is not a motivation for them. There's nothing mysterious about it.

[smjjames]

The Transpacific Partnership is closer than ever to passing.

You can bet that in the next election I won't be voting to reelect anybody who supported it or anyone endorsed by Obama.

I don't know much about it, so what's the problem with it?

[wierd]

Organization skills are not to be conflated with racial hatred prevalence.

An angry mob is not organized, but does devistating damage. Or, did the LA riots, and the more recent Furgeson and Baltimore riots not cause sufficient damage for you to consider them worthy of consideration?

Last I checked, you dont find other ethnic groups destroying their own towns over racial hatred.

Also, my math is not dubious. It relies on innate rules of statistics, and implied homogeneity.  A random sample from a mixed population will statistically favor the true profile of the whole population.


We can model this easily with M&M candies.  Take a mixed bag of M&Ms.  We will divide them out, and say that yellow M&Ms represent white people, brown ones represent hispanics, red ones native americans, blue ones represent black people, and green ones represent "other".  We make a sample of 100 total MMs, and count out the appropriate total numbers MMs. 

Now, we replace some of each of our counted out MMs with peanutbutter MMs. These are our race haters.  There are more whites by far than there are african americans in the US. So, for any given random sampling of our mixed bag of these MMs, yellow MMs will dominate. There are simply more of them, so any sample will always have more, barring some VERY significant signal. To get the values the FBI are reporting, more than twice the baseline statistic of blue MMs must be peanut butter compared to the statistic of the yellow ones.

Feel free to model this with the MMs. You will find I am correct.


EG, 2% of 100 is 2 mms.
But 10% of 20 is also 2mms.  Thats a 5x increase in prevalence, with the same statistical scatter.

So, if we have 500 yellow
300 brown
200 blue
50 red
and 10 green

MMs in our mixed bag, and we divided race hatred uniformly across all populations at say, 2%, we would have
 10 yellow peanutbutter MMs
 6 brown peantbutter MMs
 4 blue peanut butter MMs
 1 red one
and less than a whole green one

That's total in our mixed bag.  We then mix them all up randomly.  Our bag has 160 MMs in it. 25 are peanut butter. Just from random sampling, yellow ones will appear more likely to be peanut butter, because they represent nearly half the total population.

To get statistics like the FBI is reporting, a far higher baseline of racism has to be present.

[BoredVirulence]

The group being? And I don't count "Man Circle Gangsters" or other inner city gangs as quite the same thing.

Then you're counting wrong. Any gang that considers race important is racially motivated. Many "inner city" gangs are large organizations.
Many white supremacist groups are essentially gangs. They worry about "territory" and drug money just as much as their political agenda.

You are saying that black people, for some mysterious reason that you wont disclose, simply are not as racially violent, or prone to forming assiciations based around racial violence.

I say they're less likely because:

a) They've formed fewer groups historically.
b) Their groups have not waged organized campaigns of intimidation and violence in their areas. (Unless you're saying street crime is now a organized, racially and politically motivated group, which is moving the goal posts quite far.)
c) Their groups have not lasted nearly as long as the longest running white hate groups.
d) They've got less of a vested stake in America as is versus white people, because they economically disadvantaged, less educated and socially marginalized. Protecting the status quo is not a motivation for them. There's nothing mysterious about it.

A) You're cherry picking your groups. Historically, whites could get away with it and not blacks. Thats not the case anymore. It doesn't help that you're ignoring a lot of other sources because you deem them a lesser class of criminal.
B) No, it really isn't moving the goal posts. You really should consider what most gangs are, organized criminal organizations. And those often fall along racial lines, and target others of an opposing race. Irish and Italian mobs are a good example.
C) Because white groups had the ability to exist before black groups. You're choosing history over the modern trends. Things change.
D) Lets assume you're analysis is right, whites control the world and the blacks are disadvantaged in every way. Thats motivation. The average white person in this instance doesn't need to maintain anything, they have the advantage. They gain nothing with violence.

Even if your analysis was sound, which I don't consider it, you haven't provided any proof. You're using some vague definition you concocted, you aren't arguing with data. Wierd is. Even if his math was wrong, which I would like to see the math and sources for this:

On the face of it, it looks like there is more race hatred from whites than from blacks, by about double. However, when you factor in the racial majority of whites over blacks (Lets provide numbers here, so we can actually write out the formula.), the statistical prevalence actually swings the other way. It means black people are more than twice as likely to engage in a violent hate crime as white people are.

At least he's at least using data.