Some interesting stats on black crime that might be useful considering the incressed attention on police shootings of black's
| http://www.dailywire.com/news/7441/7-statistics-you-need-know-about-black-black-crime-aaron-bandler# You can blame racism and whatnot all you want but it seems that the breakdown in the black household is the main factor as to why black youths lower themselves to committing crime. You'll never hear Obama talk about this because it will cost him votes/get him called an uncle Tom. |
| Literally, the whole data explored in that article is neglecting the followup research that show correlating, and causal factors. Really a subjective, and biased source. Some of the followup research helps to put that data into perspective, which the article neglected to include. Not saying the data is incorrect--it's just out of it's overall context. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
| A black man shot by another black man in protest of a black cop shooting a black man. My white privilege is obviously the cause. |
Kalley said: A black man shot by another black man in protest of a black cop shooting a black man. My white privilege is obviously the cause. Yes it is, now give the blacks all your money and treat them like kings because of slavery (which they caused themselves but blame whites). |
 |
| In other words not much that can be done. I rather focus on police getting better training and peace and understanding between officers and the people they serve. |
 |
| Still though if I'm a police officer and I get told "95% of the time you'll get shot by a black dude", then I'm gonna be wary around black dudes. At least a lot more so than any other dudes. |
Thrashinuva said: That is why I hold the training more responsible than the whole of officers. The person telling that error should correct it to something more realistic, "95% of the time you'll get shot at, is going to be by a criminal"?--that way you can tell them the likelihood of cops ever being shot at from the public.Still though if I'm a police officer and I get told "95% of the time you'll get shot by a black dude", then I'm gonna be wary around black dudes. At least a lot more so than any other dudes. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
Kalley said: A black man shot by another black man in protest of a black cop shooting a black man. My white privilege is obviously the cause. This is the result of letting biased media set the narrative and letting them be the referees in politics for too long. Trump, however, shows how it can change very drastically by actually fighting back and dragging them into the arena instead, you can see it in CNN's further and further dropping ratings. |
 |
Silverstorm said: Thrashinuva said: That is why I hold the training more responsible than the whole of officers. The person telling that error should correct it to something more realistic, "95% of the time you'll get shot at, is going to be by a criminal"?--that way you can tell them the likelihood of cops ever being shot at from the public.Still though if I'm a police officer and I get told "95% of the time you'll get shot by a black dude", then I'm gonna be wary around black dudes. At least a lot more so than any other dudes. I'm sure you understand that if we're simply saying black man is 2% while everyone else is 1%, then that's still double the chance. No matter what the exact percentages are, an officer is probably going to look at the trends, and establish a "safety hierarchy" within his own head, with or without his intention. It doesn't even have to be taught, you just give the person the actual data, and they'll come up with their own table charts of danger, which should all generally reflect the actual data. Since actual data reflects that black on black violent crime is higher than white on white violent crime, and black on white violent crime is higher than white on black violent crime, ignoring any particular individuals concept of "morals", it's fair for a person in the position of dealing with violent crime to at least be "more" wary of blacks than of whites, whether you established that as "doubly worried" or "1% more worried". |
Thrashinuva said: Notice I said training over the "whole-of-officers". On an individual basis that is to be expected, as you said. There is a difference between having that message, in any language similar to it being taught, and promoted vs the individual cognitively deducing that as their own judgement.Silverstorm said: That is why I hold the training more responsible than the whole of officers. The person telling that error should correct it to something more realistic, "95% of the time you'll get shot at, is going to be by a criminal"?--that way you can tell them the likelihood of cops ever being shot at from the public. I'm sure you understand that if we're simply saying black man is 2% while everyone else is 1%, then that's still double the chance. No matter what the exact percentages are, an officer is probably going to look at the trends, and establish a "safety hierarchy" within his own head, with or without his intention. It doesn't even have to be taught, you just give the person the actual data, and they'll come up with their own table charts of danger, which should all generally reflect the actual data. Since actual data reflects that black on black violent crime is higher than white on white violent crime, and black on white violent crime is higher than white on black violent crime, ignoring any particular individuals concept of "morals", it's fair for a person in the position of dealing with violent crime to at least be "more" wary of blacks than of whites, whether you established that as "doubly worried" or "1% more worried". That is why we in a civilly-equal society hold individual officers responsible when they commit crimes or unjust behaviors; due to them acting on their personal ideology. They are free to think how they like, but not free to act on all of their personal ideas. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
Nico- said: Do you really have the right to call another user racist though? Seems a bit hypocritical.What a racist thread, we need MAL's heroes to delete this thread! |
| 99% of mal threads: *adds a shitty source for their background information or to back up their argument* |
Silverstorm said: Thrashinuva said: Notice I said training over the "whole-of-officers". On an individual basis that is to be expected, as you said. There is a difference between having that message, in any language similar to it being taught, and promoted vs the individual cognitively deducing that as their own judgement.I'm sure you understand that if we're simply saying black man is 2% while everyone else is 1%, then that's still double the chance. No matter what the exact percentages are, an officer is probably going to look at the trends, and establish a "safety hierarchy" within his own head, with or without his intention. It doesn't even have to be taught, you just give the person the actual data, and they'll come up with their own table charts of danger, which should all generally reflect the actual data. Since actual data reflects that black on black violent crime is higher than white on white violent crime, and black on white violent crime is higher than white on black violent crime, ignoring any particular individuals concept of "morals", it's fair for a person in the position of dealing with violent crime to at least be "more" wary of blacks than of whites, whether you established that as "doubly worried" or "1% more worried". That is why we in a civilly-equal society hold individual officers responsible when they commit crimes or unjust behaviors; due to them acting on their personal ideology. They are free to think how they like, but not free to act on all of their personal ideas. Racial profiling is not mutually exclusive to civil equality, or racial equality. In fact, if they're taught the #'s, then they'd be profiling non-blacks for many other crimes, and fairly so, as there are plenty of types of crimes that blacks are not #1 in. No officer should be above the law, but it doesn't seem to me that's really what we're talking about here. If an officer overreacts, they should definitely be punished for it, but if they properly and fairly react and on the basis of historical data, then they shouldn't be punished for being on the side of statistics, especially when those statistics are about the safety of their own lives. Have you taken into consideration that cop overreactions and the ethnicity of violent criminals are both static numbers not relating to each other? If the ethnicity of a violent criminal statistically has a higher chance of belonging to a certain group, is it not reasonable to assume that a cop overreaction would fall into that group more often than other groups? Sometimes a cop can be a bad guy, they don't have some kind of immunity against it, but I think it happens a lot less than a lot of people think. |
Nico- said: Bowie said: Do you really have the right to call another user racist though? Seems a bit hypocritical. 1). Its the Internet 2). I am not white 3). Sarcasm, learn it I'm not sure you're really saying this... but... are you saying that racists are only racists if they're white? |
Thrashinuva said: His trying to be "funny" with the whole "lol only whites are racist!!!" bs.I'm not sure you're really saying this... but... are you saying that racists are only racists if they're white? |
Bowie said: Thrashinuva said: His trying to be "funny" with the whole "lol only whites are racist!!!" bs.I'm not sure you're really saying this... but... are you saying that racists are only racists if they're white? I don't really care what you think of it. |
Nico- said: 1) It's the Internet Bowie said: Do you really have the right to call another user racist though? Seems a bit hypocritical. 1). Its the Internet 2). I am not white 3). Sarcasm, learn it 2) I am not white either, lmao. 3) Shitposting, get better. |
Bowie said: 99% of mal threads: *adds a shitty source for their background information or to back up their argument* Oh? What are "good sources" then and why do you think you know that better than others and aren't just biased yourself? |
|
Bowie said: 99% of mal threads: *adds a shitty source for their background information or to back up their argument* The FBI's crime database is a shitty source? |
BobbyFischerGSep 22, 2016 6:08 PM
BobbyFischerG said: Yes, the FBI won't show me the alien nudes I need. Why would I believe them with this?Bowie said: 99% of mal threads: *adds a shitty source for their background information or to back up their argument* The FBI's crime database is a shitty source? |
Bowie said: Yes, the FBI won't show me the alien nudes I need. Why would I believe them with this? I'm sure you'll get those E.T. nudes some day. |
Thrashinuva said: That is the point--to not have those overreactions because or erroneous lines of thought, in their specific profession cause it is dangerous, it is a slippery slope. Just because statistically it is shown to be a higher threat doesn't mean you change standards of approach or reaction into generalizations. That is basing things, in this scenario, off ethnicity rather than merit. With them having the ability to legally kill, they are held to a higher standard than simply just reacting to what they think may occur. And yes it does happen less than people think, but it happening at all is a problem (when it is the general public). Racial profiling is not mutually exclusive to civil equality, or racial equality. In fact, if they're taught the #'s, then they'd be profiling non-blacks for many other crimes, and fairly so, as there are plenty of types of crimes that blacks are not #1 in. No officer should be above the law, but it doesn't seem to me that's really what we're talking about here. If an officer overreacts, they should definitely be punished for it, but if they properly and fairly react and on the basis of historical data, then they shouldn't be punished for being on the side of statistics, especially when those statistics are about the safety of their own lives. Have you taken into consideration that cop overreactions and the ethnicity of violent criminals are both static numbers not relating to each other? If the ethnicity of a violent criminal statistically has a higher chance of belonging to a certain group, is it not reasonable to assume that a cop overreaction would fall into that group more often than other groups? Sometimes a cop can be a bad guy, they don't have some kind of immunity against it, but I think it happens a lot less than a lot of people think. At the end of the day, both our posts have the same language, just different levels of acceptance it seems like. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
Silverstorm said: Thrashinuva said: That is the point--to not have those overreactions because or erroneous lines of thought, in their specific profession cause it is dangerous, it is a slippery slope. Just because statistically it is shown to be a higher threat doesn't mean you change standards of approach or reaction into generalizations. That is basing things, in this scenario, off ethnicity rather than merit. With them having the ability to legally kill, they are held to a higher standard than simply just reacting to what they think may occur. And yes it does happen less than people think, but it happening at all is a problem (when it is the general public). Racial profiling is not mutually exclusive to civil equality, or racial equality. In fact, if they're taught the #'s, then they'd be profiling non-blacks for many other crimes, and fairly so, as there are plenty of types of crimes that blacks are not #1 in. No officer should be above the law, but it doesn't seem to me that's really what we're talking about here. If an officer overreacts, they should definitely be punished for it, but if they properly and fairly react and on the basis of historical data, then they shouldn't be punished for being on the side of statistics, especially when those statistics are about the safety of their own lives. Have you taken into consideration that cop overreactions and the ethnicity of violent criminals are both static numbers not relating to each other? If the ethnicity of a violent criminal statistically has a higher chance of belonging to a certain group, is it not reasonable to assume that a cop overreaction would fall into that group more often than other groups? Sometimes a cop can be a bad guy, they don't have some kind of immunity against it, but I think it happens a lot less than a lot of people think. At the end of the day, both our posts have the same language, just different levels of acceptance it seems like. Well you're basically saying that bad things happening is an obvious result of their incompetence, while I'm trying to point out that the bad things you're pointing out are not always a result of incompetence. I'm also trying to point out that racial profiling is a positive thing, racial profiling is not a racist act. I'd also like to point out that cops do not have a license to kill. You have about as much license to kill as any cop does. They are simply within an organization made to police society, and as such the law supports them in asserting their will over others to a small degree. Basically they're allowed to kidnap and imprison you, under the term "detainment". They may be allowed to pull the trigger sooner than you would be, but if a random person was out shooting their gun at random people, then you and a cop would be on equal footing. The law is, more or less, fair. It's designed to be fair, whether you're black or white (except Massachusetts), a cop or a civilian. The courts however, are not always fair. Although you get a large group of people and a whole country weighing on the choices surrounding the formation of laws, you only get 1 or 12 people deciding whether you're guilty or not guilty, and sometimes those people just don't like you. |
| And people wonder why they get shot: Hey guys he's got a gun! Instead of clearing out, let's crowd his car and provoke him! No justice! No peace! |
 |
Thrashinuva said: I believe this is where we really are separate in line of thought, because racial profiling is a negative thing when it comes to law enforcement, and law in general. Well you're basically saying that bad things happening is an obvious result of their incompetence, while I'm trying to point out that the bad things you're pointing out are not always a result of incompetence. I'm also trying to point out that racial profiling is a positive thing, racial profiling is not a racist act. To base assumptions on someone due to race or ethnicity over actual their actions or merits produces hostility, distrust, and primes a mind to rely on stereotypes. You are wrong. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
Muh systematic racism is just a call from thugs to give them an excuse to treat people like shit and rob stores. |
 |
BobbyFischerG said: Bowie said: 99% of mal threads: *adds a shitty source for their background information or to back up their argument* The FBI's crime database is a shitty source? Nope, but it's shitty when people post just select parts of those stats to fear monger and demonize a group. The biggest problem isn't Black crime or interracial crime, it's intraracial crime. Here are the full statistics.  In some cities like New York, Black crime is significantly higher, but that's in part due to bad policies that have helped create a subculture of criminal entitlement. Related: You're more likely to be killed by your own clothes than by an immigrant terrorist. |
aikaflip said: Related: You're more likely to be killed by your own clothes than by an immigrant terrorist. The same argument AA used the difference is one is an accident the other is a preventable calculated mass murder. Kraut explains it to AA and I guess to you too |
|
Spooks said: aikaflip said: Related: You're more likely to be killed by your own clothes than by an immigrant terrorist. The same argument AA used the difference is one is an accident the other is a preventable calculated mass murder. Kraut explains it to AA and I guess to you too TL:DW. If you have sub-par screening procedures, of course there's a risk of letting bad people in. US screening is pretty thorough, which is why we haven't been infested with rape gangs and daily terrorist attacks. |
Silverstorm said: Thrashinuva said: I believe this is where we really are separate in line of thought, because racial profiling is a negative thing when it comes to law enforcement, and law in general. Well you're basically saying that bad things happening is an obvious result of their incompetence, while I'm trying to point out that the bad things you're pointing out are not always a result of incompetence. I'm also trying to point out that racial profiling is a positive thing, racial profiling is not a racist act. To base assumptions on someone due to race or ethnicity over actual their actions or merits produces hostility, distrust, and primes a mind to rely on stereotypes. You are wrong. Racial profiling is a tool, not a method of judgement. |
BobbyFischerG said: Yes because it doesn't pander to SJWs.Bowie said: 99% of mal threads: *adds a shitty source for their background information or to back up their argument* The FBI's crime database is a shitty source? |
| No, racial profiling is the use of stereotyping -which is itself, full of negative effects- to conduct biased enforcement. Now it just looks like you are self-justifying it to yourself. Federal authorities are instructed not to rely on such overly simplified methods such as this (though the language is vague in other organizations for specific reasons). Using such a method brings you back to where the state of things are as of now. It's a good way in other places perhaps, but not in this country. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
Silverstorm said: No, racial profiling is the use of stereotyping -which is itself, full of negative effects- to conduct biased enforcement. Stereotyping is coming to a conclusion on something for an entire group based on personal experience. Racial profiling is suspecting something for particular individuals in particular circumstances based on statistics. And Stereotyping is not always negative. What you're wary of simply isn't racial profiling. What you're wary of is racism. |
Thrashinuva said: Stereotyping is coming to a conclusion on something for an entire group based on personal experience. Racial profiling is suspecting something for particular individuals in particular circumstances based on statistics. And Stereotyping is not always negative. What you're wary of simply isn't racial profiling. What you're wary of is racism. No, those are incorrect. Stereotyping is the oversimplified generalization attributing certain traits or characteristics to any person in a group without regard to individual differences. Racial Profiling is not suspecting "something for particular individuals in particular circumstances"--Or there wouldn't be a problem with disproportionate numbers in traffic stops. And it doesn't base things on statistics, or we would see a larger impact to more kinds of crime than others. As a matter of fact, it's a practice that the Courts, and the Federal Government have said it is discriminatory by it's nature. That, and no legitimate source gives that as the definition of racial profiling. Stereotyping is both negative and "positive", But no matter which form of the two it takes, it has negative effects. Let's use "Asians are good at math"--well, that is good for the ones that live-up to the stereotype, but now what about Asians that aren't good at math. What is the implication about them? None of it helps anyone because not only does this practice instigate situations, illogical thought patterns, has a social-negative effect, but it also skews stats because of improper focus on certain groups over another--though the same crime is equivalent in both groups. Basically making their own stats; creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Like I said, it's sounding like some type of self-justification for bad, and negative habits that help produce a social climate like the one that is currently being experienced nationwide. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
aikaflip said: Nope, but it's shitty when people post just select parts of those stats to fear monger and demonize a group. The biggest problem isn't Black crime or interracial crime, it's intraracial crime. Here are the full statistics. In some cities like New York, Black crime is significantly higher, but that's in part due to bad policies that have helped create a subculture of criminal entitlement. Related: You're more likely to be killed by your own clothes than by an immigrant terrorist. So you think it's normal for a group of people that make up only 13% of the population to be responsible for not only the majority of violent crime in general but also responsible for 90% of black on black crime? White people make up 70% of the population and while still having a high rate it at least makes more sense because there are more of them to kill. |
BobbyFischerGSep 23, 2016 3:36 PM
Silverstorm said: Thrashinuva said: Stereotyping is coming to a conclusion on something for an entire group based on personal experience. Racial profiling is suspecting something for particular individuals in particular circumstances based on statistics. And Stereotyping is not always negative. What you're wary of simply isn't racial profiling. What you're wary of is racism. No, those are incorrect. Stereotyping is the oversimplified generalization attributing certain traits or characteristics to any person in a group without regard to individual differences. Racial Profiling is not suspecting "something for particular individuals in particular circumstances"--Or there wouldn't be a problem with disproportionate numbers in traffic stops. And it doesn't base things on statistics, or we would see a larger impact to more kinds of crime than others. As a matter of fact, it's a practice that the Courts, and the Federal Government have said it is discriminatory by it's nature. That, and no legitimate source gives that as the definition of racial profiling. Stereotyping is both negative and "positive", But no matter which form of the two it takes, it has negative effects. Let's use "Asians are good at math"--well, that is good for the ones that live-up to the stereotype, but now what about Asians that aren't good at math. What is the implication about them? None of it helps anyone because not only does this practice instigate situations, illogical thought patterns, has a social-negative effect, but it also skews stats because of improper focus on certain groups over another--though the same crime is equivalent in both groups. Basically making their own stats; creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Like I said, it's sounding like some type of self-justification for bad, and negative habits that help produce a social climate like the one that is currently being experienced nationwide. You're not the only one that sees things this way, but just because you're not alone doesn't mean that you are correct. Of course it is discriminatory. Discrimination isn't bad by nature, otherwise schools would legally have to hire pedophiles as teachers. Perhaps one of those situations where stereotypes get positive effects, huh? The way I see it isn't some sort of justification. When you see "racial profiling" you see "race" and think that's what it's all about. The purpose here isn't explain some bizarre fact like "blacks have murderous tendencies". You look at it as a stat. It's not something that can never change. It's updated yearly, and you would focus on trends in your own area, rather than a national average. Example: A rich white man in a rich neighborhood is murdered in his home. His neighbor is black and spoke to him every once in a while. You're not going to suspect him even with racial profiling turned up to the max, because racial profiling doesn't work that way. In fact, in a lot of cases he'd be less of a suspect because he's black. |
Thrashinuva said: What are you talking about? Objective research, scientific studies, applied-logic, Psychology, Sociology, Law academics +reviews, and "Officials" all agree on what the standard definition of Stereotypes and discrimination. You're not the only one that sees things this way, but just because you're not alone doesn't mean that you are correct. That analogy doesn't fit: pedophilia is a crime, with minors being the victims. It isn't illegal to be of a different ethnic background or "race", plus no one equates to a victim in the analogy--the cops?-- My objective in this thread has already been accomplished, and it wasn't about getting you to change you mind; But to be in this discussion any longer is similar to someone insisting the Earth is flat, and the sun circles around it contrary to all the evidence-- Evidence (They have done studies) says that the discriminatory practice helps create the "environment" we have now. Allowing officers who are supposed to be indiscriminate in enforcing laws, become prejudicial in their minds by relying on stereotypes that primes them into discriminating with how they enforce laws is what you get. Yeah, that makes perfect sense for States to allow, with it's many ethnic groups, and strong police-group mindset. Glad I don't live in your simulation--oh wait, I do live in the US.. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
BobbyFischerG said: aikaflip said: Nope, but it's shitty when people post just select parts of those stats to fear monger and demonize a group. The biggest problem isn't Black crime or interracial crime, it's intraracial crime. Here are the full statistics. In some cities like New York, Black crime is significantly higher, but that's in part due to bad policies that have helped create a subculture of criminal entitlement. Related: You're more likely to be killed by your own clothes than by an immigrant terrorist. So you think it's normal for a group of people that make up only 13% of the population to be responsible for not only the majority of violent crime in general but also responsible for 90% of black on black crime? White people make up 70% of the population and while still having a high rate it at least makes more sense because there are more of them to kill. Where did I say that it was normal? If you had read and thought about my reply instead of just reflexively regurgitating Alt-Right talking points, you might have understood what I was saying. I said that bad policies (and the media) have helped create a subculture of criminal entitlement. Rather than condemning all crime, it's being encouraged in some cases. This has made crime worse. |
Silverstorm said: Thrashinuva said: What are you talking about? Objective research, scientific studies, applied-logic, Psychology, Sociology, Law academics +reviews, and "Officials" all agree on what the standard definition of Stereotypes and discrimination. You're not the only one that sees things this way, but just because you're not alone doesn't mean that you are correct. That analogy doesn't fit: pedophilia is a crime, with minors being the victims. It isn't illegal to be of a different ethnic background or "race", plus no one equates to a victim in the analogy--the cops?-- My objective in this thread has already been accomplished, and it wasn't about getting you to change you mind; But to be in this discussion any longer is similar to someone insisting the Earth is flat, and the sun circles around it contrary to all the evidence-- Evidence (They have done studies) says that the discriminatory practice helps create the "environment" we have now. Allowing officers who are supposed to be indiscriminate in enforcing laws, become prejudicial in their minds by relying on stereotypes that primes them into discriminating with how they enforce laws is what you get. Yeah, that makes perfect sense for States to allow, with it's many ethnic groups, and strong police-group mindset. Glad I don't live in your simulation--oh wait, I do live in the US.. Pretty sure that consensus on what the definition isn't "Stereotype: Bad; Discrimination; bad". You're labelling your own opinions on things telling them like fact. It wasn't an analogy, which doesn't matter since you don't know what one seems to look like. I think you're misunderstanding the study. And it's a good thing you're not a cop. The first suspects and most likely culprits are related to the victim. If you don't like the truth, then I guess the truth just has to hurt for you. |
aikaflip said: I said that bad policies (and the media) have helped create a subculture of criminal entitlement. Rather than condemning all crime, it's being encouraged in some cases. This has made crime worse. So no share of responsibility falls on Black's? Again, all I'm saying is there is a problem within the black family/black community that doesn't get addressed in favor of blaming outside forces. So don't look at the lack of a stable family unit/increase in single mother households just corrupt policies and the media.(which black people have more control over them they realize) . The least you could do is acknowledge it. If you had read and thought about my reply instead of just reflexively regurgitating Alt-Right talking points. Oh fucking hell lol... |
BobbyFischerGSep 23, 2016 5:56 PM
BobbyFischerG said: aikaflip said: I said that bad policies (and the media) have helped create a subculture of criminal entitlement. Rather than condemning all crime, it's being encouraged in some cases. This has made crime worse. So no share of responsibility falls on Black's? Of course criminals are responsible for their actions. My point was that by not holding criminals responsible, crime worsens. I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand. just corrupt policies and the media.(which black people have more control over them they realize) Last I checked, there weren't many media companies owned by Black people. Moreover, that Ferguson: In Defense of Rioting article that I linked to was written by a blue-eyed White woman. |
aikaflip said: Last I checked, there weren't many media companies owned by Black people. Moreover, that Ferguson: In Defense of Rioting article that I linked to was written by a blue-eyed White woman. Well there's Oprah. It's not as if employees and companies come knocking at your door saying "Hey you have blue eyes and are white, would you please take these funds and own a successful business for us?". |
Thrashinuva said: You didn't list a study, and I am familiar with the ones used in the article. That's how I know it's out of context.I think you're misunderstanding the study. And it's a good thing you're not a cop. The first suspects and most likely culprits are related to the victim. If you don't like the truth, then I guess the truth just has to hurt for you. Second, what would me being a cop do with anything regarding our posts? And on that note, years with police officers, and fellow law enforcement agencies gives one a good background to work with. Go find a coloring book kid, there's more shades to things than the colors you like to draw with. Meh, I've had better one liners.. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
aikaflip said: Last I checked, there weren't many media companies owned by Black people. Moreover, that Ferguson: In Defense of Rioting article that I linked to was written by a blue-eyed White woman. Johnson Publishing, OWN, BET, More to my point black people could have huge influence over the media they consume yet they are either ignorant or willfully ignorant of ways to do it. There has to be a measure of personal responsibility within the community. If they don't want violent entertainment that glorifies crime/treat women like shit then boycott the shit out of it.) They have a growing influence over media. And you do know that writers like her were inspired by MLK right? A riot is the language of the unheard. I've had that very line repeated to me several times to justify the absolute insanity. |
BobbyFischerGSep 23, 2016 11:01 PM
| Something that I have witnessed is that the U.S is not divided upon color but by wealth. It just so happens that black people or other people of color tend to be poorer, as white people tend to be wealthier. This can be attributed to internal racism in some areas of the USA, but it mostly has to do with how the poverty cycle works. The average family in poverty takes 4 generations (100 years) to get out of it. This is due to poor areas having limited education due to less funding compared to wealthy areas, therefore getting good grades in impoverished areas are not the same as getting good grades in prestigious areas. Due to that, even if a poor person works as hard as a wealthy person, that does not give them an equal chance of succeeding in life. Getting back to how race plays into this though, white people were given a head start in life since the vast majority of black people were enslaved until the 1850s. Life at that time was rough for everybody, but most white people already had a foundation to work on from their ancestors whereas black people started from 0. If you compare a white person and a black person raised in the same neighborhood, with parents who were raised in poverty, then their attitudes would be very similar even though they are of two different races. And if you compare a white person and a black person raised in the same neighborhood, with parents who were raised with wealth and luxury, then their attitudes would also be the same although they are two different races. tldr; I think this article is a piece of shit. the USA doesn't have a race problem but a poor vs rich problem and black people just happen to be poorer than white people because they got a late start in life. |
ixaa said: You have just hit the nail on the head. tldr; I think this article is a piece of shit. the USA doesn't have a race problem but a poor vs rich problem and black people just happen to be poorer than white people because they got a late start in life. #EndThread |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |