Are you asking RNATB for a blowjob?
He doesn’t have to answer that.
Could you post your pics again? And I’ll need you to sign some forms and waivers and answer a few short questions before we begin the consideration.
“short questions”
snort
He’s really only “asking” as a courtesy.
No reasonable offers refused.
If you can’t figure out which of the above doesn’t belong, you’re an asshole.
Maybe it’s something in the water? Better separate those too. 
Now what makes you think that? Is that like the myth that celebrities get less jail time? I’d expect the opposite actually - White-on-black is punished more than black-on-white in a sort of “poverty of the chief” situation.
Why would you expect that? Is there any evidence whatsoever to support such an expectation? Certainly incarceration rates and death row demographics aren’t consistent with your expectations.
As I recall, my posting was in reference to a request for more reliable statistics.
I chose stranger murder because that seems to be a fair proxy for the general point of whether more physical harm is done by blacks toward whites or vice versa. It sort of seems like the most extreme harm possible.
I don’t find the same conclusion you do from your cite for other violent crimes.
It appears that you selected Table 32: “Percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender.”
Although the category for Table 32 is “Crimes of violence” the totals that you used do not reflect crimes which involve physical violence. A little over 3 million are “attempted and threatened violence”, which I assume refers to blustering and flailing the air. That category markedly skews the crimes involving actual physical violence.
Here are some of the statistics from your cite for the subcomponents involving physical violence (absolute numbers, with apologies if my arithmetic is wrong):
**Black on white ** versus **White on black**
Completed Violence : 203,121 versus 28,497
Rape/Sexual Assault : 32,443 versus None
Theft w/ Injury: 23,937 versus None
Attempted Theft w/Injury: 12,121 versus 4,030
Aggravated Assault: 63,310 versus 30,884
Those are some pretty astonishing numbers, there. 23,937 to none, that’s a really astonishing number. Not that I doubt you, or your source, or anything. But, boy, that’s really a very surprising number. Not the 23,937, thats just a number. The other one.
I am going to suggest, without any solid evidence and only a gut feeling, that this attack was more likely a gay-bashing than a racial attack. I speculate that because of the actions of the other people on the bus. The near total lack of a reaction from the other white kids suggests to me that they didn’t care that this kid was getting his ass kicked.
I grew up in Texarkana, on the Arkansas side. Anyone who is from the Ark-La-Tex can tell you that racism is alive and well in some parts of the U.S. When I rode the bus back in the mid-80s, an attack like this would escalate to a near riot if it had been viewed as racially motivated by the white kids. I’ve seen small fights at school that, because of racial tensions, escalate to more than a dozen kids and leading to large numbers of suspensions.
Like my classmates, I suspect that the reason the other kids didn’t take it as racially motivated was because this kid is often the target of, if not physical attacks, then at least intimidation and bullying. While the nerds and band geeks would be bullied, only one group is subject to such violent bullying: gay kids and kids who are perceived as gay by their classmates. It doesn’t matter whether the kid is gay or not; he is suspected of being gay and that’s enough for the homophobes.
I acknowledge this is unfounded in fact. But that’s my belief of what is going on.
The OP is racist. This is standard school age bullying that is criminal. The same sort of thing happened when I was a kid and everybody was white. If you didn’t sit where the bullies told you, you got beat up. There isn’t a case for it being racist.
Astonishing indeed, which was the point of my post.
If I quoted the data incorrectly or did the math wrong, please forgive me and correct it. I am not pressing a debate here; simply trying to clarify statistics to ensure the correct data is presented.
I am quoting statistics from Hentor’s cite.
Perhaps you meant to address this post to Hentor?
It seemed that Hentor was quite content to use the cite to support his contentions when the statistics suited his argument.
The claim in contention was “the famous” “fact” that “white people are 50% more likely to be the victim of blacks.” The appropriate statistic to address that contention is the number of violent crimes.
Now, if the claim is modified, then appropriate statistics should be used, but it’s completely inappropriate for you to suggest that the general category of violent crime is well represented by what (as you acknowledge) is the most extreme example. It’s also exceptionally disingenuous for you to suggest that these violent crimes include a meaningful proportion of people going “booga booga.” I know that I feel many conservative white people are whiny ass titty babies easily frightened by black school children, but come on. Don’t be a douche.
The table I was referring to (and my apologies for not specifying it before – I had intended to include it in the link) was Table 42. However, I do believe that you found the correct one, because Table 32 addresses something else entirely.
I think you are still missing the point that in the comparison of incidents between populations, the denominator is crucial. The only way that the numbers or percentages would have a direct meaningful comparison is if the overall populations are the same size. If you fail to remember that, you end up saying retarded things like “Soldiers in Iraq are safer than people in California because more people are dying in California.”
What I think you need to do is learn what the odds ratio is and how to calculate it. Here are links to a couple of sites that explain or provide calculators for you:
Basically, what you are doing is using the number of people in a given category with a given status (such as a disease) divided by the number of people in that category who do not have that status to get the odds for those people of having that status. You do the same for a different category of people, and then divide the two odds to get the odds ratio. It would be preferable if we had all of our figures from a consistent source, but we don’t. So, I’m using the Bureau of Justice Statistics to estimate the number of people in America who have been victimized by someone of the contrasting racial group (black or white) and the Census figures estimating the number of black and white people in America. Clearly very rough estimates, but a fair bit better than pulling “facts” out of the ass of the stormfront website.
One concern I have is with the fact that we are estimating the numbers of incidents from the percentages. If we could get the actual numbers of incidents I would feel better. This is particularly the case because we have certain of these statistics that are marked with an asterisk, indicating that they are based on 10 or fewer sample cases. This is how you end up with the very unlikely suggestion that there were 0 incidents of some types of crime by victim and offender race.
(The other caveat to keep in mind is that we are treating each of these incidents as unique. If there are individuals in these numbers who represent more than one instance of the crime occurring (e.g. have been the victim of one of these categories of crime more than once by someone of the other race) we would need to account for them differently.)
So keep in mind that these are rough estimates based on the data that is most readily available to us, with the populations of whites estimated at 239,746,254 and the population of blacks estimated at 38,342,549
Having said that, let’s look at some of the breakdown categories that concern you, setting aside the zero cell conditions due to dubiousness and calculation problems:
We agree that based on the percentages given, the number of “completed assaults” by the contrast racial group would be about 203,121 for whites and 28.497 for blacks. That would mean that among whites our odds would be 203,121 who did experience a completed assault by a black person, divided by (239,746,254 - 203,121) who did not, which equals .000848, or an odds of about 8.5 in 10,000.
For blacks, this calculation is 28,497 who did experience completed assault by a white person, divided by (38,342,549 – 28,497) who did not, which equals .000744, or an odds of about 7.5 in 10,000.
Our odds ratio for completed assaults is thus .000848/.000744, or about 1.14. This suggests that a white person is about 14% more likely than a black person to experience completed assault by the contrasting race category.
For aggravated assault, this ends up being 0.00026 / 0.000806, or an odds ratio of about 0.32, meaning that a white person is about 70% less likely than a black person to experience aggravated assault by a person of the contrasting racial category. Flipping this over, we get 0.000806 / 0.00026, or an odds ratio of 3.100856, which says that a black person is about 200% more likely, or three times more likely, to experience this than a white person.
For simple assault, the odds ratio is about 0.99, which says that the odds are about the same for white and black people to experience simple assault by the contrasting group.
Bottom line – REMEMBER YOUR DENOMINATORS! Secondarily, conservatives, stop being such scared little pussies. You can come out now – the empirical evidence has chased off the booga booga man…
Whew! That was a lot of work. I’m due for a good old sloppy appreciating!
I posted that Hentor referenced Table 32 from this cite of his:
I made a typographical error. The correct table is Table 42, near the bottom.
My apologies. It was late and the day had been long for me.
Should any of my other extrapolations or math be incorrect, please feel free to post a correction. As I mentioned, this is Hentor’s cite for statistics and not mine. I am not pressing a debate here; only presenting the data.
It remains my personal opinion that, with the exception of sexual assaults, violent crimes are overwhelmingly related to money, goods and drugs–not racial motivations on the part of the perps (with the obvious exception of specific hate crimes).
Just a quick note - looking at Chief Pedant’s concerns about attempted theft with injury, you’ll find that the odds ratio there is 0.48, or that white people are about half as likely to experience that at the hands of a black person.
Really, with the population proportions as they stand, you’ll pretty much need to find a condition that occurs at a ratio of about 10:1 for whites compared to blacks in order to find a 50% greater likelihood “favoring” whites.
In that case, thanks!
It is an interesting strategy to let the odds of being a victim be the statistics you prefer to present when the issue at hand is the odds of being the perpetrator.
I will let the statistics I quoted from your cite speak for themselves for those interested in reviewing them.
In round numbers, there are about 6 times as many whites as blacks, and there are about 7 times as many completed individual violent acts against whites by blacks. From the perspective of which group has a higher risk of being the perpetrator of a physically violent act against the opposite cohort, I calculate a risk ratio for whites perpetrating crimes against blacks to be 0.0001 and a risk ratio for blacks perpetrating violent crimes against whites to be 0.005. (28,497/239,746,254 versus 203,121/38,342,549 from your numbers)
This is approximately a 50-fold difference in relative risk that a completed individual violent crime will be committed by a black perpetrator against a white victim. Again, I may have the math completely wrong and I apologize for my incompetence at arithmetic. I do feel it’s important in any discussion to present what is being asked for as clearly as possible, and here it seems to me the salient question is not “What is my risk of being victimized?” but “What is the risk your cohort will perpetrate a crime against mine?” The OP is addressing a double standard which he apparently feels under-emphasizes which cohorts are committing crimes against the other cohorts.
I will let the categories speak for themselves as well. Neither the statistics nor the categories are mine, and the definition of what is violent may well vary from person to person; in my own experience, violence is more closely related to actual physical injury than to threat, but I realize this is not everyone’s definition.
Just a quick corrective note on this - I’ll discuss the rest later. I’m not the one who made or responded to the original claim.
The original claim was that whites are 50% more likely to be violently victimized by blacks. I’ve repeated this several times, and I’m growing frustrated at your continued refusal to acknowledge this, and now to suggest that I’ve adopted some “interesting strategy.”
It’s the basis of the original claim, and the underlying purpose of the right’s response to this video tape - white people are under attack in America!
Please acknowledge that you understand what the original claim was before we move on to considering other questions altogether.
It’s my observation that the argument around who is victimizing who is the key point–that is to say, which cohort is the most likely to be the perp in an other-race violent crime–and that however it was worded should not provide a reason for a statistical analysis which obscures that key point. I suspect whoever made the “50% more likely to be violently victimized by blacks” claim would not be mollified by the statistics in the way you presented them for precisely the reasons I have laid out.
If it is your intention to simply argue that that particular wording lends itself to a statistical observation of how likely it is for a cohort member to be a victim, I am not going to argue that. Although someone may phrase it that way, it is not what is bugging them. What is bugging them is the notion that whites somehow perpetrate violent crimes against blacks and are taken to task for it when, in fact, blacks are much more often the perps against whites, and (in the opinion of those complaining) are not taken to task for it.
The simple facts of what I posted–blacks are much more likely to be perps against whites than whites are likely to be perps against blacks in physically violent crimes–remains, unless I am reading your cite incorrectly or did the calculation incorrectly. In which case, my apologies again, and please post any actual corrections.
You know whats going to happen now don’t you?
The poor sod who received the beating will now have everyone going around saying “Of course you know he’s Gay don’t you”?
Your comments sans "This only gut feeling,unfounded in fact"Etc.etc. will do the rounds on the net aided and abetted by the perps and their friends and families and the unfortunately gullible many who see anything on the net as being written in stone will totally believe it to be true even if all other evidence to the contrary is true.
In an attempt to balance the situation its my opinion/gut feeling with out any evidence whatsoever that the lad who took the beating did so because he’d probably shagged the perps GFs and sisters several times over in the past and had actually given severe beatings to the perps in one on one fights.
Though I have no evidence whatsoever to back this up and its just my gut feeling.
Dont think it’ll work though.