Finally! And notice I’m not leaving out the last sentence, which is fair.
Hahahahaha, no.
Ha ha.
OK, I’ll do that:
I’ve seen you misunderstand the written word before. In fact, I see it basically every time you try to post a cite. But you misinterpreting your own words is a new one. How do you manage that?
Keep digging, EE. I’ll pop some popcorn.
Let me be clear–my numbers and my interpretation are correct, and you are wrong. If you don’t understand why you are wrong I will try to explain it to you (though the fact that you are wrong about something so simple means that explaining it to you will likely be difficult).
So…what is it that you don’t understand?
Let’s do this: we’ll turn this into a bet.
We pick a couple of smart, unbiased posters, who will examine your claim, examine the calculation I provided, and determine which of us is correct. Loser leaves the board. Do you accept?
I personally know an Obama to Trump voter. When I pressed him on why he disliked Hillary, he could only give me two reasons: Her email scandal, and that he disliked Hillary’s voice and thought her laugh sounded like a “witch’s cackle.” When I pointed out that the FBI found that Hillary didn’t commit any crimes, he scoffed at me. When I tried to talk about the policy implications of a Trump Presidency, and how millions of people could lose their health insurance (including me) he just stared silently at me, giving me no answer. When I pressed him further, he got irritated and changed the subject. :smack:
Well, at least it wasn’t because he was a racist. 
Man, you were responding so quickly to my previous posts, and then you went silent. What happened?
Here, I’ll reduce the stakes for you: we’ll post your initial claim and my initial response to GQ, and ask the SDMB community which of us is correct.
If the general consensus is that you are wrong all you have to do is make a post admitting that you were wrong and that I was right, and that this is the general pattern every time we argue.
If I’m wrong I’ll leave the board.
Do you accept the bet?
Absolutely not–you’re too entertaining! But go ahead and ask the smart folks.
So sure, let’s use these more updated 2016 numbers. No rounding, we’ll get precise.
.001414324% of black people killed a white person in 2016. Just shy of 1/700th of one percent.
.000123464% of white people killed a black person in 2016. Just over an order of magnitude smaller a percentage, and just shy of 1/8,000th of one percent.
I checked these pretty carefully. Any math-heads here see an error?
One thing I did just notice is that I said “at some point in their life” when I should have said “in a given year”, or better yet “in 2013” (later amended to 2016). That was a little sloppy. So since white people live longer than black people, that might reduce the difference to under an order of magnitude. “Much more likely” still stands though, unless we try to argue that future years are going to be vastly different from 2016. Is that how you want to weasel out of this, EE? Go for it if that’s how desperate you are.
Nah, let’s do a bet.
Here, I’ll lower the stakes even further–all the loser has to do is make a post saying “I was wrong”. Nothing else. Do you accept?
At a certain point, whether or not liberals are attacking white men, or whether white men have privilege or not, or whether white men are more likely to be killed by black men or vice versa, is irrelevant.
The issue is whether a substantial number of white men *feel *attacked or not. If they *feel *that way, they will vote for Trump. Whether it is a valid feeling or not is irrelevant.
So what? What does this add to the conversation?
You are starting to sound like Bricker.
I don’t need a bet to admit when I’m wrong.
But I saw some weasel words in your framing of the “bet”. Were your original numbers “wrong” in their calculation? I didn’t check them, but let’s assume the arithmetic was sound. What was wrong was your citing them as a refutation of what you quoted, because you were talking about probability of victimhood and I was talking about probability of perpetration, just as CarnalK tried to explain to you.
Your post #659, OTOH, is just a hot innumerate mess.
Resposting this since Slacker seemed to ignore it. We’re probably way past this, but you never did tell me what specifically I said that you disagree with. From what I can tell, you agree with my assertions about relative levels of fear based on per capita numbers, you just think these numbers can be dismissed due to differences in population sizes (which doesn’t make sense to me at all – population sizes might indeed be part of the explanation, but that doesn’t invalidate any of the numbers).
Well, I’m glad you didn’t take the bet, I just realized I was wrong. I did misunderstand your claim–I apologize to you and to **BPC **and to CarnalK.
Arrogant, verbose and wrong is a horrible combination. So, I’ll honor my part of the bet even if it wasn’t accepted:
I was wrong and **SlackerInc **was right.
Good on ya. You deserve credit for not slinking away.
Maybe in the future we can debate without all the smack talk?