With all the media attention surrounding the dragging death of James Byrd, I was wondering what you thought of this article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_williams/19990818_xcwwi_an_ugly_co.shtml
My opinion is crime is crime. It does not matter what the race or sex of either the victim or the perpetrator is.
All crime should be punished equally under the law.
Jeffery
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
And, the media are not the courts.
I remember you!!!
You posted the “I hate niggers” thread in GQ yesterday. (It was locked and deleted, thank you!)
All together now:
<font size=“7”>TROLL!!!</font>
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
But was it locked and deleted within two hours of posting the topic. Dang, I had some money riding on that . . . now I’ll never find out.
Jeffery said it well. The statistics in that report are not surprising, given that blacks constitute about 12% of Americans today. (Anybody got a better statistic? I use this because “historically about 10% and growing the last few decades at a higher rate than whites” translates to about 12% in my mind.)
Some key points to keep in mind:
[ul][li]A black is substantially more likely than a white to be the victim of a crime.[]A black youth is statistically more likely to be arrested during his youth (16-25) than is a white youth. (Not asserting any reason for this, just the blanket statistic.)[]A higher proportion of blacks than of whites are below the poverty standard.[*]The question of sub-culture standards cannot be disregarded. And that is not a racial slur: consider the probabilities of a fight at a “redneck bar” vs. a country club. If violence is promoted as a solution in a subculture, it will be adopted by more members of that subculture than in one where it isn’t.[/ul][/li]
If I had any solutions to America’s racial problems, I’d be out pushing for them, not posting here. But I think there are good people working for decency on all sides. And demagogues pointing at scapegoats on all sides too. 
klanman is not just saving his wonderful intellect and well-thought out ideas with that first topic, Sterling.
Check out the joy and sunshine this wasted pile of genetic material is sloshing on the wall.
(Not counting his already deleted post from yesterday)
Egyptair Flight 990
Jesse Jackson
I almost opened up a thread just about this fella, but then decided that I wouldn’t be able to do his idiocy any justice.
Well, shut my mouth. It’s also illegal to put squirrels down your pants for the purposes of gambling.
What I’m wondering is, has anyone noticed his name? klanman.
Anyway, the article offers seemingly surprising conclusions, if you ignore the fact that blacks represent a smaller, poorer portion of a population (statiscally speaking, I don’t mean that as an aspersion, but as a general statement, and polycarp is right, they’re about 13% of the population).
All in all, there are so many things to consider in this (Does poverty lead to crime? If so, then the statistics aren’t surprising. If not, then maybe blacks are, in general, more racist).
I’d say that it’s not surprising that a black criminal’s victim is often white. Whites are, in general, more than half the population, aren’t they? Even if the criminal chose randomly, half their victims would be white, maybe more (depending on where they commited the crime).
I would call for a MUCH more comprehensive study than this.
Klanman has been banned from the board.
Yesterday he made a truly offensive post to the board . . . which we removed.
And he sent me email apologizing . . . apparently meaningless, as he made another offensive posting elsewhere here in Great Debates.
I’ll send anybody that really wants to see them the posts in question, just write me. But I’m removing the really awful ones, banning this clown, AND reporting him to his email provider. BTW, his email is “killnggers,” which I’m sure will give the folks at Yahoo much joy.
your humble TubaDiva/SDStaffDiv
for the Straight Dope
You see, I differ with the majority opinion on this board on this one.
Yeah, his views were stupid, barbaric, and flat-out wrong.
But why not let him express them? Especially on a board devoted to stamping out ignorance?
It’s easier to stamp out ignorance if we get to see the ignorant at work. Know thy enemy and all that hoopla…
What is sad is that while so many people here came to the defense of others who claimed to have their freedom of speech affected, the fact that klansman was kicked out will cause many of these same people to shout with glee.
Yer pal,
Satan
Administrator’s discretion, Satan. “Being a jerk.”
The other option is to let him post until he gets bored and goes away. Which might be hours, or might be months.
But I guess you’re right–he was no more foul (IMO) than some of the misogynistic or anti-fat posts in the Pit.
-andros-
Dear Satan:
Freedom of speech is not an issue here. This message board has one basic rule, and I would say the Klanman violated it faster than the usual cretins.
The First Amendment may give you the right to say what you want, but it does not obligate me to listen to your bullshit in my own home.
If he cannot abide by the moderator’s one simple rule, out the door he goes.
I, for one, think it’s little loss.
Armed, dangerous…
and off my medication.
Well, I was kind of worried. I sort of view the SDMB as my little sanctuary. I come here and argue things with people in a fairly well thought out way, with little venom, and with a lot of courtesy. However, I kind of think klanman should have been allowed to stay, provided he toned himself down, stayed away from mere insults, and actually tried to argue. In the end, he would have either been educated away from a factually incorrect view, or he would have gotten fed up and left the message board.
By the way, just out of curiosity, what does FWIW mean? I’ve figured out most or all of the rest, but that one’s stumped me.
Surgoshan, if I’m not mistaken, it means For What It’s Worth.
Armed, dangerous…
and off my medication.
Hey! That makes sense! Are you sure this is the Great Debates SDMB?
I agree with Satan that Klansman should have been able to speak. Klansman telegraphed where he was coming from by his name, let alone his statements, so it should not have been a surprise that he held different views. But I also agree that if you think blacks are “niggers” you leave very little room for intelligent discussion.
“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon
Brille
Well I for one won’t miss our friend klanman. I read the “I hate niggers” post (in GQ) and it was foul.
It’s not like that person is banned in perpetuity. They can register another username and come back with more civil posts.
La franchise ne consiste pas à dire tout ce que l’on pense, mais à penser tout ce que l’on dit.
H. de Livry
If he’s been banned why does it still say registered under his screen name?
Good old C#3’s said “unregistered,” after he was banned.
Sterling, have you snapped up that one, too?
Dopeler effect:
The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
There are different ways of banning people. By leaving the name “active” that means people like Sterling (or even worse! 
) can’t come in and reuse them. But trust me, he’s gone.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
SterlingNorth posted 11-18-1999 11:23 AM
Well, that definitely lowered my opinion of you. Does the content of klanman's other posts have any relevance to the issue addressed by the article? Even if klanman is a despicable human being (seeing as how his most offensive posts have been deleted, this will remain a conditional statement in my mind), that doesn't justify ad hominen attacks. klanman has brought a good point, and I believe that understanding interracial relationships to be immensensely more important than dwelling on the civility, or lack of civility, of one individual. If you really have criticism to make about klanman's post in this thread, go ahead and make it. But if all you have to contribute is a character study of klanman, I'm not interested. Providing information on where a poster is coming from, and his probable motivations is one thing, but simply throwing temper tantrums (an impression that using 60-point font generally creates) whenever a psoter you don't like makes a post is another.
Surgoshan posted 11-18-1999 12:47 PM
There does seem to a correlation. Also, the poor tend to commit violent crimes, while the rich commit non-violent crime such as fraud.
Well, crime isn’t random. Criminals tend to commit crime close to where they live, a factor which (given the abscence of complete racial homogeneity) would decrease the expected level of interracial crime. Also, the article gives the number of 90%, which is quite a bit more than 50%.
Also, either you have done the math wrong or I have. Given zero correlation between the races of victim and perpertrator, we should expect the number of black on white crimes to be (RB)(PW)(PB) where RB is the rate of crime among blacks, PW is the percentage of whites in the population, and PB is the percentage of blacks in the population. For white on black crime, the formula would be (RW)(PW)(PB). The ratio between these two should depend only on the rate of crime among the respective races. Blacks would have more white victims than blacks victims, but there would also be fewer blacks to commit the crimes.
Definitely. For instance, do whites, who tend to be richer, provide more profitable targets than blacks? Are blacks better at protecting themselves from black criminals t han whites are? Are whites more comfortable with police, and therefore more likely to report crime?
Absolutely.