Some interesting stats on black crime that might be useful considering the incressed attention on police shootings of black's

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.

ixaa said:

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.

Silverstorm said:
You have just hit the nail on the head.

#EndThread

BobbyFischerG said:

Johnson Publishing, OWN, BET

More to my point black people could have huge influence over the media

And you do know that writers like her were inspired by MLK right?

A riot is the language of the unheard.

Thrashinuva said:

Dude wtf this is what I've been telling you.

aikaflip said:

Three. And none of those have a fraction of the influence of CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX, etc.

So, the media takes no responsibility for sensationalizing white-cop on black-male violence, and pushing the Black victimhood narrative? Everything is Black people's fault, including misleading news reports written by White people? I think there's some blame to go around on all sides.

I wonder if you, SJWs, and Alt-Righters have actually listened to what MLK said during that speech, or just cherry picked what you wanted to hear.

MindForged said:
"Most of crime X is done by race Y. Therefore, we should focus on race Y to determine crime X."

Thrashinuva said:

This is entirely based on the hypothesis that racial profiling is the ONLY tool that you use.

In your scenario, we're not even checking the alibi's of all persons involved, or finding out the details of the victim.

BobbyFischerG said:

You could boycott media outlets that do this and hurt them where it counts. You really don't see any black people protesting against that.

Why do they allow themselves to be treated like children?

MindForged said:
Suspect descriptions.

It isn't based on anything scientific, just people'say hunches & biases.

MindForged said:
Racial profiling is done before any crime has occurred (or else applied to entire groups), so alibi's and victims are not even a thing, and it applies to entire racial & ethnic groups.

MindForged said:
Er, no. The point is that as a tool, racial profiling is already demonstrably (and theoretically) ineffective and counter-productive. If a tool was shown to be ineffective in and of itself, you have no reason to suggest that it will start becoming effective once paired with proven methods.

Thrashinuva said:

AKA profiling.

What you're describing is bias. In actuality there are statistics behind it. A "hunch" based on personal values is bias. A "hunch" based on statistics is probability.

You're suggesting that cops go out and find people based on race to suspect, without any inclination that a crime has been committed. Regardless of race, this isn't profiling at at. When you include race, then it's clearly just racism.

This is entirely on the basis that the tool can accomplish nothing on its own. On its own, Racial Profiling still produces a result, regardless if you feel it's accurate or not. A wide variety of other investigative tools are just as inaccurate, and can still produce a result. When all of these things are put together, you get a clearer picture of the reality surrounding the situation, and can better determine everyone's placement within a crime's circumstances.

As far as homeopathy is concerned, I'm no expert, but as far as investigative purposes, you may be able to use the information that results from what is essentially malpractice, in order to actually diagnose (not cure), the sick person. Of course, if the person using it isn't basing their practice at all on statistics or probability, and is instead doing random things at random, then they're not likely to glean any useful information at all. Either way, you're talking about treatment and I'm talking about investigation. Homeopathy as a form of treatment doesn't sound like it follows any form of statistics, as such it's not a science.

MindForged said:
The problem is you've yet to show any scientific evidence that profiling reduces overall crime or prevents crimes.

Thrashinuva said:

Why would it? It isn't a preventative measure, it's an investigative one.

And it's based on statistics which many on this topic have sourced, from the very own FBI. Furthermore it gets fairly specific.

Statistics are science. Statistics are probability. Probability leads to predictability. It's not experimental science, and you never get to know all the variables. Because you don't know all the variables, you sometimes get it wrong. However it isn't God's chosen will to influence likely crime rates by certain types of individuals in a given area. You may not be able to ascertain all the variables, but that doesn't mean that you can't diminish the gap with whatever variables you can ascertain.

And it's preposterous to think there aren't any statistics. When a crime happens and a perpetrator is indicted, things get process. Paperwork is left behind. Variables get reported. People collect this information. It can all be viewed online by literally anyone who has an internet connected device. These very same statistics have been cited numerous times by various users here in this very topic.

MindForged said:
I already gave you a significant example

also statistics is a branch of mathematics, not science

I said that the average person supporting racial profiling has no knowledge of the actual crime statistics.

Thrashinuva said:

An example of bad policing is not proof that all policing is bad. Why is it that you stop at the tool and not at the choices of those involved?

Math and science are very closely related. You could even say that science is a much more involved form of math, simply with more real world applications. I've stressed up till this point about probability, but people don't just look at the numbers and then end their train of thought there. When you look at causality of why it's so probable, that's science. It might not be chemicals or biology, but that doesn't make it not science.

Lot's of people don't have knowledge of lots of things. That's fairly independent of whether or not those things are true or false.

MindForged said:
I stopped at the tool because if people are going to defend racial profiling, they need to sow that it's an effective tool.

Statistics isn't a science at all. Science is about the way the world is.

They support racial profiling based on stereotypes & what makes them feel comfortable.

Thrashinuva said:

The statistics prove it to be self evident, no? You were attacking it as a preventative measure when it was never one to begin with. Yet if we're to believe that racial profiling has been in use as an investigative tool, then conviction rates serve as empirical evidence, which further shows itself in the crime stats. After all it's not as if those stats came from nothing or some kind of public study.

So "Black violence is more prevalent than White violence" is not "the way the world is"? Regardless, Math is prevalent within the world, even outside of your classroom, and it's prevalent in science. You don't get anywhere in science without measuring things, which directly calls for math.

So we should just judge the subject based on people who are misinformed? People who are irrelevant to the actual subject at hand?