whhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeooooooooooooosssh!
Since it was the other way around, we had Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin in the Sharpton role.
True, up to a point. We then need to ask: do blacks proportionately target whites more than they target white? Does the proportion of victims-of-black-violence that are white significantly exceed the proportion of the *population *that is white? Then we might have something to talk about.
Personally, I’m quite prepared to believe that white violent criminals target blacks to a disproportionate extent, too: I would imagine that violent criminals of any kind are more disposed to be racist bigots than their law-abiding brethren. But perhaps that just makes me a racist fuck, too. And of course, if violent robbers of either colour go after whites disproportionately, it could just be that they’re doing some simple racial profiling that has nothing to do with race hatred and everything to do with who’s more likely to have something worth stealing. You don’t have to be Robin Hood to want to rob the rich, after all.
- I don’t think so, although if you want to trot out some numbers, go ahead. I’d have thought the propensity to be a multiple perp would be evenly distributed on racial lines so wouldn’t distort the ratio. 2. Again, I don’t think so, for similar reasons - but that fact would be good grounds for saying there are bigger fish to fry than interracial murders.
I think we’re more or less saying the same thing - although I have no idea and no real preconceptions as to whether blacks are grossly over-represented among violent criminals.
I’ve previously proposed Hentor’s Law of Post Composition, which says that the amount of time you spend composing a message board post is inversely related to the impact that post will have on a thread.
I’m thinking of a second law. Well, probably not a law, but I do think it’s related to the first. That is, the last thing people involved in a discussion on a message board want is actual data.
I appreciated your post and the work that went into it.
Thanks!
I don’t. Too much data.
“The fewer the facts, the better the argument.”
That explains the cheerful distinguished voice in the background saying “Yes we can… yes we can… Sasha, you get the next punch”.
Do Rush and Beck and their ilk even fucking pretend to be rational anymore? They’re not going to be happy until there’s an assassination attempt, one to which they’ll then completely disavow any connection.
It’s fascinating how cross-referencing mixed with occasional statistic cooking can equal truth. The “blacks are 250 times more likely to violently attack white people than vice versa” claim on several websites is an absolute masterpiece of cross-referencing and statistic cooking and the occasional deadlink or a link to a book whose text is not available or an abstract of an article (which is very different from the article itself), etc… People who aren’t accustomed to actual in-depth primary source researching are easily confused and taken in by such verisimilitudinous citings. Cyril Burtand Paul Cameronmade careers on similar citations. You could actually write a good college paper on it.
[deleted]
It’s my contention that these statistics show blacks are considerably more likely to murder whites than whites are to murder blacks in the US.
I am aware of the various efforts to explain why this might be so.
By watching Mike Tyson bite off Evander Holyfield’s ear live on television. (*** warning- links in this sentence contain graphic photographs of human mutilation and may not be safe for work** )
By seeing the results of Chris Brown’s having beat the fuck out of his girlfriend and not do jail time.
Where do you think he learned it?
Emulation of role models.
Cartooniverse
The stats can get tricky.
2005:
Black on black: 32.3%
Black on white: 17.7%.
So a black perp is a little less than twice as likely to kill another black than another white, assuming the victim is a stranger. If black perps were picking victims at random, you would expect black on white to be five times greater than black on black.
Admittedly, blacks are more likely to be either perps or victims than whites. But we knew that.
While we’re at it:
White on white: 43.7%
White on black: 4.5%
So white perps are a little under 10x as likely to kill another white as another black. If they were picking vics at random it would be about 5x.
Obviously there are a lot of geographic, income and class issues I’m evading here. But I see there is no evidence of a super-proportionate amount of cross-racial crime, quite the contrary.
Admittedly, blacks are more likely to be either perps or victims than whites. But we knew that.
What statistics show that?
And your own explanation would be what?
I don’t think those kids had even been born yet when Tyson ate Holyfield’s ear.
I have already given you the cite. Did I misquote them?
As a general rule, impulsive stranger violent crime tends to take place in situations where the perp and the victim are already proximate by virtue of living in the same neighborhoods or homes. For this reason, black on black and white on white crimes are the commonest. We tend to associate with our own cohorts, and race is a common cohort for many people. It seems highly improbable to me that any racial cohort impulsively murders–on average–because of racial motivation. We impulsively murder whoever is proximate at the time the impulse overtakes us. I’d guess most impulsive stranger murderers are fairly low on any cognitive scale and that their behaviour is seldom shaped by a world view which includes some sort of objective philosophic analysis of race, and which races need killing. “Guy had a wallet/cash register/nice jacket. I shot him and took it.”
My posting of the crime statistics by race site was in response to a request from Guinastasia for a believable site for statistical information. It is not my intention to waste time here in the pit debating why those behaviours exist and it is highly unlikely that any such debate would change any minds.
Given that this thread was about an assault by an acquaintance, and that the assertion that Guinastasia was responding to was violent crime victimization, why did you selectively choose statistics on stranger homicide? The specific instance involves neither strangers nor a homicide, and the general statement Guin objected to similarly did not specify the qualifications you imposed.
Stranger homicides are much more likely than homicides in general to be interracial. On the other hand, the odds ratio for violent crime in general that I calculated above appears to suggest a slightly lower likelihood of black on white violent victimization than vice versa, and seems more germane to this incident and the assertions made up thread.
So what led you to be so peculiarly selective?
I appreciate your excellent posture and great hair.
Thanks!
All I want is a little appreciation and a blow job for my efforts.