He has a point. We need to separate the races to protect people of color from white violence. There's also more whites on welfare so I propose that races should be taxed to pay their own races welfare so that whites will stop their freeloading.
I’m all for voluntary segregation. Not allowing that is stupid, but I also think forcing people apart who want to associate is dumb too. So if it’s ok for other races to only want to associate with each other then whites should be able to as well but like I said people who wantto associate (i have friends of different races) should be able to
I do as well. I just think people should be able to associate with their own race if they want or associate with different races. Goldwater didn’t vote for it due to the private association issue and he predicted there would be issues in the future. Boy was he right
Smith: you usually write so clearly, so I know this is just a typo, but 'wonky want' is hilarious!!! I can't even imagine what you were trying to say!!!
So Hispanics, at 22% of the population, commit only 5% of the violent crime?
If they correctly broke out Hispanic offenders, we’d see that European whites probably commit less than 25% of the crime despite being 55% of the population. Whites are the least violent and least criminal major demographic in America.
Despite making up 2% of the population, pakistani men make up 90% of the child rape gangs.
So the UK government combined “online offences” - (eg downloading CP from reddit) with “real live gang rape” and concluded : “whites commit 51% of child sex offenses”
Anybody who took 2 minutes to examine what they did could see it didn’t really help their cause.
But the UK government is staffed with people who say : “rape victims should keep quiet for the sake of diversity”
This is such a lazy stat and so easy to debunk. I also find it so strange that so many black people become upset of you point out the disparity or the black on black violence (to say nothing of the black on other race’s violence). I would think a pastor would find that concerning. Instead they massively overinflated incidents of police violence. I remember Larry Elder was going over black on black and black on White/Asian crime and said that is a major issue to work in. He had some angry black people calling him to ask why he always is attacking black ppl
I just watched two clips of this guy's "smackdown of the week" show and in both he said that he was lucky he wasn't in the room with the subject because he would have "caught a case", ie violently assaulted them.
The one thing I will give him is that the absolute % of criminals among the black population is still pretty small.
If progressives actually cared about helping black people, they'd lock up the black repeat offenders and throw away the keys. Black crime stats would drop like a rock if we as a society actually kept the worst of the worst in prison where they belong.
People excuse or ignore crime commited by a person when said person belongs to a group that's been stereotyped as doing that crime. Then more people of that group get away with committing the crime and the stereotype intensifies.
The best example is the Pakistani rape gangs in the UK, where police were instructed to ignore the matter.
Anti-racism does not reduce racism; it allows, or even promotes, people to engage on negative stereotypes, reinforcing those stereotypes.
but nooooooo. you wanna go full retard and say black people commit the majority of crimes...
Who said that?
which is why you have to use the per capita angle instead of the overall stats!
Per capita does nothing to change "majority." As I've said, you're either trolling, or honestly don't even know what per capita means. Hilarious.
women kill themselves more than men, oh! you say it's actually men! who commit more! suicides? well that can't be! because per capita, more women in these areas, kill themselves more than men! i won't use the overall data, so i'll just selectively use the data i complied.
Once again, that's not what per capita means, and I'd love a definition from you.
Also, go ahead and flesh out your pretend example, and provide an actual example where you could say women kill themselves more than men, "per capita" or otherwise.
Essentially, yes. Per capita literally means 'per head,' aka 'per person.'
So, basically, for this specific example, total is 6.8 million, whites are 4.7m, blacks are 1.8m. Blacks are committing crimes at roughly twice their 'per capita' representation. 1.8 is ~25% of 6.8, blacks are only ~13% (roughly half 25%) of the population. Blacks are committing twice as much crime on average as they should be. That's why 'per capita' is important.
Whites are around 60% of the population, blacks are around 13%. Blacks commit more murder (raw numbers), despite there being almost five times as many whites as blacks. Whites by population are underrepresented in crime, blacks are massively overrepresented in crime. Another example of why per capita is important. If you just look at the numbers, it looks fairly close. But taking population into account, you're looking at that 5X+ number, and it gets pretty crazy.
And, not to rub salt in the wound, but I am curious...what did you think per capita meant?
Don't forget that the statistics in the OP are also just plain wrong, since it's clear that multiple different groups were combined to get those numbers for "White". Probably a large number of them were hispanics, but were included there because it was convenient.
Yup, I mentioned that elsewhere, but wanted to keep it simple for this one. But, yeah, "white" doesn't mean what you're generally going to think "white" should logically mean. "White" crime stats are a jumble of a bunch of different things to the point of making it meaningless.
there's 65 white people in a hypothetical situation. Out of those, 5 commit violent
crime.
There's 13 black people in the same group. Out of those, 4 commit murder.
Which group is more violent? To have an equal comparison, whites would have to murder 20 people. Can you see that?
This example is not perfectly representative of reality, the math would have to be harder to do that. But the total number in this group is pretty close to real life, and represents the idea of per capita. 65 is 5x more than 13, so the group of 65 would have to commit 5x more murder to be equal. (per person / per capita)
His example was kind of confusing, since you'd want the money, but not to get shot. So it's kind of reversed.
So take his example, but imagine it's a bad outcome. Perhaps you have to pay the amount of money under the cup. The majority (98 red cups) have more overall money penalties, but spread out among more cups. A tiny minority (2 green cups) have less overall penalties, but it's a lot more concentrated. Assuming you averaged everything out, picking a green minority cup you'd have to pay $50, picking a red majority cup you'd have to pay $2...despite the red majority having twice as much penalties overall.
Not sure if you're a troll, a retard, or both, but let's do this shit!
hate to be a debby downer. but per captia means shit.
Compelling argument, I'm sold! Math is stupid and stuff.
who cares if their's places where blacks commit more crimes than white people?
Per capita has nothing to do with location. Blacks commit significantly more crime than whites, on average. Regardless of location. Yes, a lot of that is from the cities, but if that's your argument, that's still got nothing to do with per capita.
if you had an actual case to be made about this issue. why hide behind per capita?
Because that's what really makes the issue so glaring? Per capita just means equalized for population. If blacks were 50% of the population, they'd commit like 140% of the murder. Hyperbole aside, the point stands. Also, do you afford the same logicless defense of other groups, such as Islam? Muslim Americans don't do a whole lot of terrorism. But they're still vastly overrepresented.
if you're claims are true, that black people indeed! do more crimes than white people.
As this very own idiot's stats seems to show, blacks do more specific crimes (murder and robbery) than whites, despite being a much smaller population.
Also, now's a good time to point out that "white" also includes "Hispanic" - because screw white people - and Hispanics also commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
why are you not simply saying overall?
I mean, it's both? 13/50 (again, the numbers have actually risen), but the 50% (murders) is not per capita, and the 13% is pointing out that blacks are a relatively small minority. So, yeah, people point out black criminality both per capita and overall.
I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to address this, honestly. If you're being serious, and can't grasp per capita, you're legitimately retarded.
why individually, in certain sectors of america?
Where are you getting this "sectors" bullshit from?
Do you even know what per capita is?
Do you even basic math?
you can hide behind this to justify your own ignorance.
...I don't even.
but once you show me stats that clearly show black people overall committing more crimes than white people, instead of select areas, we'll talk
Again with the 'select areas' nonsense. Please tell me what 'per capita' means. Honestly, tell me. Because you seem to not know.
Here's a hypothetical: So, imagine you hadn't had breakfast yesterday...nah, just kidding. Here's the real hypothetical (you know what a hypothetical is, right?): Imagine a country where you have two races, white and black. It's a small country, only 100 people. There are 10 whites, and 90 blacks. There's, conveniently, also exactly 100 murders per year. Whites are responsible for 45 murders per year.
In this hypothetical, whites are clearly not committing more crime "overall." Is there a problem with these fictional white people? Should we call out these ten white people, even though they "overall" commit less crime than these ninety fictional black people?
TL;DR: You're either trolling, or legitimately don't know what 'per capita' means. You're a meme.
He has a point. We need to separate the races to protect people of color from white violence. There's also more whites on welfare so I propose that races should be taxed to pay their own races welfare so that whites will stop their freeloading.
They will never allow Whites to self-segregate thanks to the Civil Rights Act.
What you are yearning for is impossible.
Laws so good they had to point rifles at high school students to get people to follow it.
I’m all for voluntary segregation. Not allowing that is stupid, but I also think forcing people apart who want to associate is dumb too. So if it’s ok for other races to only want to associate with each other then whites should be able to as well but like I said people who wantto associate (i have friends of different races) should be able to
Sure, but how does several generations worth of propaganda efforts factor into that? Does brainwashing count as coercion?
That's illegal according to the jewish civil rights act. You must have black friends!
I do as well. I just think people should be able to associate with their own race if they want or associate with different races. Goldwater didn’t vote for it due to the private association issue and he predicted there would be issues in the future. Boy was he right
Smith: you usually write so clearly, so I know this is just a typo, but 'wonky want' is hilarious!!! I can't even imagine what you were trying to say!!!
Lol. I fixed it. Should’ve been “only”. Thanks
FBI combines European, hispanic and “west Asian” to get “white” numbers. Blacks still completely btfo with their crime stats.
So Hispanics, at 22% of the population, commit only 5% of the violent crime?
If they correctly broke out Hispanic offenders, we’d see that European whites probably commit less than 25% of the crime despite being 55% of the population. Whites are the least violent and least criminal major demographic in America.
The UK recently published similar research.
Despite making up 2% of the population, pakistani men make up 90% of the child rape gangs.
So the UK government combined “online offences” - (eg downloading CP from reddit) with “real live gang rape” and concluded : “whites commit 51% of child sex offenses”
Anybody who took 2 minutes to examine what they did could see it didn’t really help their cause.
But the UK government is staffed with people who say : “rape victims should keep quiet for the sake of diversity”
Despite London's efforts, pretty sure the UK is more than 51% white, anyways, so even with their overt lying it's still out of whack.
Per capita is a simple concept. How is this clown not able to grasp this?
This pastor is a Trump advisor?
Now we know why Trump pushed the pandering to Blacks Platinum Plan and jailbreak First Step Act.
I've literally heard it argued that 'per capita' was invented by white people to hide what violent monsters they are...
You just can't with these idiots.
These idiots are in positions of influence not only on the left but on the right.
The worst part is that this guy Dr. Darrell Scott is a senior advisor to Trump 2024.
This guy doesn't even understand basic math.
What a fucking clown parade.
But...blacks still committed more murders than whites, total. It's...the first one...
That's "All", unless I'm misunderstanding you.
"But, I did have breakfast!"
I hope this guy merely uses the title "Dr." to sound important. Like "The Reverend Al Sharpton". Would hate to think somebody gave him a degree.
This idiot is a Trump 2024 advisor. And a doctor. 🤡🌍
D E S P I T E
This is such a lazy stat and so easy to debunk. I also find it so strange that so many black people become upset of you point out the disparity or the black on black violence (to say nothing of the black on other race’s violence). I would think a pastor would find that concerning. Instead they massively overinflated incidents of police violence. I remember Larry Elder was going over black on black and black on White/Asian crime and said that is a major issue to work in. He had some angry black people calling him to ask why he always is attacking black ppl
I just watched two clips of this guy's "smackdown of the week" show and in both he said that he was lucky he wasn't in the room with the subject because he would have "caught a case", ie violently assaulted them.
https://twitter.com/NanLee1124/status/1665107166389256194
and
https://americasvoice.news/video/38RNEnVNFYTQYq8/ @5:50
These might be from the same episode, I'm too fatigued to confirm.
LMAO :
https://twitter.com/1RUA11/status/1664809196330663937?s=20
If progressives actually cared about helping black people, they'd lock up the black repeat offenders and throw away the keys. Black crime stats would drop like a rock if we as a society actually kept the worst of the worst in prison where they belong.
This is "Anti-racism".
People excuse or ignore crime commited by a person when said person belongs to a group that's been stereotyped as doing that crime. Then more people of that group get away with committing the crime and the stereotype intensifies.
The best example is the Pakistani rape gangs in the UK, where police were instructed to ignore the matter.
Anti-racism does not reduce racism; it allows, or even promotes, people to engage on negative stereotypes, reinforcing those stereotypes.
Even the "good ones" are retards.
How does this fall in line with the 13/56 statistics previously?
Dr. Darrell, is that you?
Despite being only 13 percent of the population...
It's funny seeing someone who says
and can't make a comprehensible post say
Go home boomer, you are drunk.
Actually, stick around. There is always room for a few schizo posters. Gives the place flavor.
He’s a mentally retarded gay israeli furry
Not even kidding
Who said that?
Per capita does nothing to change "majority." As I've said, you're either trolling, or honestly don't even know what per capita means. Hilarious.
Once again, that's not what per capita means, and I'd love a definition from you.
Also, go ahead and flesh out your pretend example, and provide an actual example where you could say women kill themselves more than men, "per capita" or otherwise.
You absolute walnut.
While you're introspecting, how would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning?
Essentially, yes. Per capita literally means 'per head,' aka 'per person.'
So, basically, for this specific example, total is 6.8 million, whites are 4.7m, blacks are 1.8m. Blacks are committing crimes at roughly twice their 'per capita' representation. 1.8 is ~25% of 6.8, blacks are only ~13% (roughly half 25%) of the population. Blacks are committing twice as much crime on average as they should be. That's why 'per capita' is important.
Whites are around 60% of the population, blacks are around 13%. Blacks commit more murder (raw numbers), despite there being almost five times as many whites as blacks. Whites by population are underrepresented in crime, blacks are massively overrepresented in crime. Another example of why per capita is important. If you just look at the numbers, it looks fairly close. But taking population into account, you're looking at that 5X+ number, and it gets pretty crazy.
And, not to rub salt in the wound, but I am curious...what did you think per capita meant?
Don't forget that the statistics in the OP are also just plain wrong, since it's clear that multiple different groups were combined to get those numbers for "White". Probably a large number of them were hispanics, but were included there because it was convenient.
Yup, I mentioned that elsewhere, but wanted to keep it simple for this one. But, yeah, "white" doesn't mean what you're generally going to think "white" should logically mean. "White" crime stats are a jumble of a bunch of different things to the point of making it meaningless.
Look at it this way:.
there's 65 white people in a hypothetical situation. Out of those, 5 commit violent crime.
There's 13 black people in the same group. Out of those, 4 commit murder.
Which group is more violent? To have an equal comparison, whites would have to murder 20 people. Can you see that?
This example is not perfectly representative of reality, the math would have to be harder to do that. But the total number in this group is pretty close to real life, and represents the idea of per capita. 65 is 5x more than 13, so the group of 65 would have to commit 5x more murder to be equal. (per person / per capita)
His example was kind of confusing, since you'd want the money, but not to get shot. So it's kind of reversed.
So take his example, but imagine it's a bad outcome. Perhaps you have to pay the amount of money under the cup. The majority (98 red cups) have more overall money penalties, but spread out among more cups. A tiny minority (2 green cups) have less overall penalties, but it's a lot more concentrated. Assuming you averaged everything out, picking a green minority cup you'd have to pay $50, picking a red majority cup you'd have to pay $2...despite the red majority having twice as much penalties overall.
Over 400 more murders by blacks, straight comparison. Whatever this data's drawn from.
While white are far more than 4x the population.
Holy shit the memes are real lol
Not sure if you're a troll, a retard, or both, but let's do this shit!
Compelling argument, I'm sold! Math is stupid and stuff.
Per capita has nothing to do with location. Blacks commit significantly more crime than whites, on average. Regardless of location. Yes, a lot of that is from the cities, but if that's your argument, that's still got nothing to do with per capita.
Because that's what really makes the issue so glaring? Per capita just means equalized for population. If blacks were 50% of the population, they'd commit like 140% of the murder. Hyperbole aside, the point stands. Also, do you afford the same logicless defense of other groups, such as Islam? Muslim Americans don't do a whole lot of terrorism. But they're still vastly overrepresented.
As this very own idiot's stats seems to show, blacks do more specific crimes (murder and robbery) than whites, despite being a much smaller population.
Also, now's a good time to point out that "white" also includes "Hispanic" - because screw white people - and Hispanics also commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
I mean, it's both? 13/50 (again, the numbers have actually risen), but the 50% (murders) is not per capita, and the 13% is pointing out that blacks are a relatively small minority. So, yeah, people point out black criminality both per capita and overall.
I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to address this, honestly. If you're being serious, and can't grasp per capita, you're legitimately retarded.
Where are you getting this "sectors" bullshit from?
Do you even know what per capita is?
Do you even basic math?
...I don't even.
Again with the 'select areas' nonsense. Please tell me what 'per capita' means. Honestly, tell me. Because you seem to not know.
Here's a hypothetical: So, imagine you hadn't had breakfast yesterday...nah, just kidding. Here's the real hypothetical (you know what a hypothetical is, right?): Imagine a country where you have two races, white and black. It's a small country, only 100 people. There are 10 whites, and 90 blacks. There's, conveniently, also exactly 100 murders per year. Whites are responsible for 45 murders per year.
In this hypothetical, whites are clearly not committing more crime "overall." Is there a problem with these fictional white people? Should we call out these ten white people, even though they "overall" commit less crime than these ninety fictional black people?
TL;DR: You're either trolling, or legitimately don't know what 'per capita' means. You're a meme.
This is a joke, right?
It...it wasn't...
I really, really hope so...but could go either way.
At least you admitted it.
Even without per capita, blacks commit more murders and robberies. Like, total.