Ferguson

I am not calling anybody Hitler except Hitler. Nowhere did I ever suggest anyone was Hitler. What I -did- suggest is that one does not need a trial to have been guilty of something.

Not sure how you guys thought I was calling anyone Hitler.

So since you have not been put on trial, are we to assume you have committed atrocities?
 
Take each case individually, Jolly. Do you have any evidence that I have committed any, or was responsible for inciting any, or that I tried to kill a cop, or shoot a black kid?
 
21 times as many black males are killed by the police as white males. Are they all "playing gangster?"

Does "playing gangster" really justify extra-judicial execution?

Of course not.

Beating a police officer does though.
Coming at the police with a knife does though.
Not following a police officers (who knows you have a violent history, including shooting at police) instruction when you have a gun a half foot from you does though.
 
CH, that's... look, really, that's down to income, not race. While the statistics may be true, it isn't because of some "crime gene" or something.
 
General rule of thumb, when somebody uses the term "blacks" exclusively, not as a shorthand for "black people" or "the black community" but just as the default collective noun for black Americans, it's because they understand it's no longer acceptable to say ""n---s" but don't understand why.
 
I like CH's sticking to the facts. Posting his interpretation of it only gives others fodder to debate over and obfuscate the facts. If you can't refute them, hide them.
 
I like CH's sticking to the facts. Posting his interpretation of it only gives others fodder to debate over and obfuscate the facts. If you can't refute them, hide them.

"Facts" are pretty meaningless if not examined for accuracy or lack an explanation for why they are the way they are. C_H has also neglected to say what recommended actions or policies he suggests pursuing based on these "facts".
 
Why isn't CH talking about white-on-white violence? 83% of white people are victimized by their own kind, why is he choosing to ignore this statistic that is rampant in his community?
 
The graphic essentially "corrects for population" the opposite way that it should. A fuller corrective later, perhaps.
 
I can’t find the stats for all forms of violent crime broken out by race in the source cited on the graphic. I can only find homicide broken out by race.

Total Homicide Victims for 2010: 6294

of those, 3227 victims were white (51%), 2720 victims were black (43%)

of the whites killed, 2777 (86%) were killed by other whites; 447 (13%) were killed by blacks
of the blacks killed, 2459 (90%) were killed by other blacks; 218 (8%) were killed by whites

So by far the vast majority of homicides are intraracial, but, yes, if you want to compare rates of interracial homicide, a larger percentage of whites who were killed in 2010 were killed by blacks (13%) than the percentage of black homicide victims who were killed by whites (8%). And you can, if you wish, make this a rate and say that blacks kill whites at a rate 1.65x the rate that whites kill blacks. (This is less than the 5x that the chart gives for the various forms of violent crime. Again, the only form of violent crime I can find broken out by race is homicide.)

But regardless, what you cannot do (as the graphic goes on to do) is then introduce the population differences as though it multiplies this rate. The graphic indicates there are 5 times as many whites as blacks in America. That does not mean one multiplies the rate that one derived from earlier the numbers by 5 to get some even larger number as the rate “adjusted for population.” The original figures were not given in per capita format, so they don't call for being "adjusted" in any way by population percentages.

What you could do with the population statistic is say that, although blacks make up only 12.6% of the population, they represent 43% of the homicide victims.
 
Awfully deceptive, that is.
 
Back
Top Bottom