I hate to sound like a broken record, buuuuuuuttttt...
There's a reason "around blacks, never relax" is such a common saying. And before anyone tries to deflect the race card, you've activated my trap card: "Yes, it's not ALL of then, but it's ALMOST ALWAYS them". That stupid fucking m&ms thing the feminists loved to trot out comes to mind; they refused to grab a handful because there might be one or two poisoned pieces, but they expect you to just scarf down the bowl knowing more than half are poison.
The m&ms analogy makes no sense for gender because you absolutely need both men and women to propagate your society, your culture, your people, your nation, your species. If the male (or female) bowl contains poisoned m&ms, then that’s a risk you have to take.
Ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation are not the same. You don’t need to interact with other races or ethnicities or religions or sexual orientations to have a society. In fact, your society is objectively worse if you do so. It’s like seeing a bunch of bowls of m&ms, all of them have labels telling you the percentage of poisoned candies, and then you choose to reach into the bowl with the highest percentage.
European men and women coexisted for centuries in high-trust, low-crime societies. Sweden used to boast of being near utopian. Then mass immigration took off. They're not just lying, they're trying to browbeat you into repeating the lie that it's "men."
Worse now is that most young White woman have been brainwashed from tv and ads showing White woman with nonWhites to be race traitor coalburning scum. Even in redstates msot young white woman are going for brown scum while demonizign White man. Its infurating.
Im talking about What i see with my own eyes in red states like florida, ohio, georgia, lousiana. Litterally any young White woman 16-24 is with joggers, wetbacks or street shitters and it infuristes me
Your own link shows 35-40% of White woman are racetraitors who racemixed between 2000-2016.
And itnonly got worse since then. At least a third of White woman are worthless and that 56% of them are open to race mix. That is devestating
I've known some dirt poor, tobacco chewing gritty country Whites and even they had some morals when it came to fighting or violence. Niggers don't, even the ones that have been hiding among White people all their lives.
"Around blacks, never relax" is a good saying that you and I know well but unfortunately, many Ukrainians came from a 95%+ White country so they're not accustomed to these safety measures. We ought to have signs posted all over the country given all the immigrants we bring in that say: "around blacks, never relax" to adequate warn the newcomers.
Until and unless you return to high trust societal norms, yes. Absolutely yes. Look at what happens to the "open minded" women, the "color blind" women, the "backpack in the middle east" women.
I certainly don't relax around women, especially younger or obvious liberal women. I've seen what can happen to men if women want to make trouble.
We can continue to play the pretend of higher moral calling, but until we live ONLY with people who will ALSO play the morality game with us, we must exercise due caution and engage with the reality that not all people are equal, and the FBI crime statistics as divided by race do, in fact, reflect reality.
Yeah women should be wary of men, that's why they shouldn't assert the right to get blackout drunk and take a random Uber back home or hook up with complete strangers. Men are always going to prey on them despite whatever utopian measures society takes.
Less a shitty view of men and more an acknowledgement that women are complete and utter shit at judging the quality of other men. Or worse; actively going for men whom act badly or exhibit bad behavior while thinking 'He'd never do it to ME' due to her delusional fantasies.
Time has slowly deformed my overall opinion on such things from 'men and women should be treated equally' to 'Repeal the fucking 19th, women should go straight from father to husband and have no authority in dictating how society is run'.
Conversely, society should allow men to take out the ones acting badly. But we don't, and everyone knows that doing so will get you lynched by society at-large. And so it goes.
The other user (a man) said that "men will always prey on [women]" which is a shitty take. Men aren't always going to act like that, and to think so is pretty misandrist
Not really? Women aren't even capable of actual violence for the most part.
Even if you were to ignore psychological drivers of violence (rooted genetically so this isnt a nurture thing) you'd STILL have men committing most of the crime, because if a woman says "give me your cash or I'll break your leg" the liklihood of that bejng a credible threat approaches zero.
Sir, one, you can't "this user" about your own posts, and two, you can't "this user" my posts in direct replies. Please at least try to remember who you're speaking with.
For three, yes, women ABSOLUTELY should be wary of men. We are sexually DIMORPHOUS as a species. Men are in almost every case going to be larger, stronger, with denser bones, and with longer limbs then women. We have absolutely the absolute power to harm them, and there is generally very little they can do to stop us. This is why I make the missus train with and carry a gun, because that's an equalizer.
Here's the thing, though. Men are wary of men all the time.
We look over other guys in the street and make judgements. Is he possibly a threat? Can I take him? Can he hurt me? Am I with anyone I need to protect? Can he hurt them? Are there others? Can I afford to fight, or should we evade and flee?
We make these split second judgements constantly, and it's perfectly normal. It's how we avoid the suspicious guy in the hoodie looking around nervously. It's why we don't walk through dark alleys alone at night.
Because we don't live in perfect world with perfect people. Because nature is red in tooth and claw. Because we are, despite everything, still part of the natural world, and we must be ready to deal with threats as they arise.
So, no, it's not illogical or strange for women to be wary of men. It's like saying it's odd for the deer to fear the wolf.
Sir, one, you can't "this user" about your own posts, and two, you can't "this user" my posts in direct replies. Please at least try to remember who you're speaking with.
Of course I can point out that I was making a reductio ad absurdum about the post by "this user". However, I will also point out that you are very polite.
For three, yes, women ABSOLUTELY should be wary of men. We are sexually DIMORPHOUS as a species. Men are in almost every case going to be larger, stronger, with denser bones, and with longer limbs then women. We have absolutely the absolute power to harm them, and there is generally very little they can do to stop us. This is why I make the missus train with and carry a gun, because that's an equalizer.
That's great. You're consistent. A lot of people here will refuse to apply their own logic whenever it's inconvenient to them. "This user" stated that one ought to be wary of a given group when "it's almost always" this group. And of course, when it comes to crime, it's almost always men.
But as you saw, pointing this out is not welcome to people, most of whom believe that men are victims by women.
We look over other guys in the street and make judgements. Is he possibly a threat? Can I take him? Can he hurt me? Am I with anyone I need to protect? Can he hurt them? Are there others? Can I afford to fight, or should we evade and flee?
In Chicago maybe. This is not the experience of anyone I know. Maybe late at night in very dodgy places.
So, no, it's not illogical or strange for women to be wary of men. It's like saying it's odd for the deer to fear the wolf.
I like that you actually have the courage of your convictions.
I already explained why this is retarded in the m&ms analogy comment. Interactions with men are mandatory in every society. Interactions with other religions, races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations are not. They aren’t comparable.
As a woman? Your boyfriend, followed by your husband, brother, father, and son.
You're far more likely to be raped and killed by them than almost anyone else. If we are operating on raw statistics alone, you're safer wandering into a crowd of immigrants alone than going on a date with your boyfriend. Don't forget that most relationships are intra-racial, so the most dangerous person a white woman can be around is her white boyfriend. Don't tell me that's ridiculous, this is literally the argument feminists are using right now to downplay Pakistani Muslim rape gangs.
if we are choosing to play this game with statistics.
This is why this pre-meditated manipulation of statistics as a replacement to actually understanding the environment around you never helps. Yes, you can weaponize statistics to prove your bigotry, that's not the fucking point for anyone looking to improve society.
This is not true. The numbers vary, but somewhere between 12%-34% of female murder victims are from family members, meaning as a woman you're overwhelmingly in more danger from strangers. And the numbers explode if your family is white or asian and the strangers are black. The total expected lifetime murder rate for black males in the united states is 4.5%. 1 in 22.
Those weren't the numbers I've seen, but I'm also talking about all violent crime, including all instances of domestic battery and robbery with force.
It's far more likely that violence is coming from your partner than it is from outside your home, which is why cops spend so much time trying to investigate spouses and ex-boyfriends in regards to violent crime.
Nope, it's still men who are closest to you, and typically the same race as you. Inter-racial violence is wildly low compared to intra-racial violence.
No, retard. You are conflating mandatory and non-mandatory interactions. The propagation of the species requires women to interact with their fathers, husbands, boyfriends, brothers, and sons. So whatever violence results from these interactions is essentially inevitable and should not be weighed against the risk profiles of certain races, ethnicities, religions, or sexual orientations.
As they say: we don’t have to live this way. In fact, the entire US housing market famously revolves around avoiding these people.
I'm not conflating them, the difference is irrelevant because I'm pointing out the abuse of statistics you are now complaining about. This is why the M&M's bowl example was always stupid. You want me to add nuance to analysis now because it gives you the answer you want, but you didn't have a problem when removing nuance gave you the answer you preferred.
So your response: go right back to having a low-nuance argument that gives you the argument you prefer. So now, I will give you that low nuance argument back.
You're right. We don't have to live this way. We need to keep men out of public spaces because they're so dangerous. Welcome to 2012 Feminism. Please enjoy the M&M.
You are though. You're basically making the argument that residential streets are the most high risk ones because you usually have an accident near your home.
In the same way, per exposure being around any black male is far far far far more dangerous than being around a family member. The stat you are butchering doesn't support your claim at all, even if it wasn't hugely dubious to begin with.
You're basically making the argument that residential streets are the most high risk ones because you usually have an accident near your home
Yes
being around any black male is far far far far more dangerous than being around a family member.
No, literally the opposite. Your family members are statistically more dangerous than strangers, let alone black people.
The stat you are butchering doesn't support your claim at all, even if it wasn't hugely dubious to begin with.
I'm not butchering the stat, I'm showing the misuse of it by making an identical argument. It's dubious, because the argument from the statistic is dubious in all of these cases.
Who said 'white man'? I said men. Just like the original guy didn't say 'slouching black man between 17 and 30 with his pants hanging under his ankle'.
They should relax, or not relax, relative to statistical assessments of risk.
Statistically speaking, men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women, so for a mathematically literate society, it is men who should not relax around other men. But from a relative risk standpoint, women can assume their generally-safer-standard as a baseline and assess proximity risk based on as many factors as possible. Race, sex, overt religious signage, clothing, wealth approximation: They're all factors that should be kept in mind.
Some factors matter much more than others. Owning a rolex doesn't imply or not imply safety as much as, say, overt terror symbols. But it all matters, and people are able to assess multiple risk factors at once, people are quite good at summarizing traits.
Statistically speaking, men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women
We both know that these are mostly men who are looking for trouble. If you're minding your own business, you are far better off being a man and being able to at least somewhat hold off anyone attacking you than being a woman.
Race, sex, overt religious signage, clothing, wealth approximation: They're all factors that should be kept in mind.
I agree. But OP seemed to suggest that the fact that it's almost always blacks is reason enough to be wary of blacks in general. Maybe it is, but that argument goes equally well for men, even for other men as you point out (just like blacks are the biggest victims of other blacks).
But it all matters, and people are able to assess multiple risk factors at once, people are quite good at summarizing traits.
People are even pretty good at knowing when generalities do not apply. When I see blacks in suits, or working in security, I'm not wary of them at all. But when they're bums, or seem to loiter, then very much so.
What is a human? That may need to be included among societal questions like 'when does life begin' or 'who should be allowed to vote'.
I turned on the sound for one of the clips posted just in time to hear a newsman say the thing shouldn't have been on that train. It didn't buy a ticket. Peak morbid comedy.
I'm not saying we need a caste system, just that anyone can't answer the breakfast question or explain "per capita" might have to have their place in society reconsidered...
I saw one retard say "she was probably texting something racist" IN THE FUCKING VIDEO you can see how the guy just pulls out a knife, didn't even look at her and stabs her. Piece of shit murderer deserves death penalty.
Blacks are stuck at a truly astounding level of ethnic and tribal nepotism.
Because a white person did something to a black person, it makes it permissible for a black person to do something to a white person.
Doesn't matter circumstance or context or whatever. 'My tribe good, your tribe bad.' They may be able to fake it or pretend otherwise when 'loosing', but it's all just magic spells to disarm you.
There are Ukrainian refugees in the UK who lived in places full of Pakistanis and other immigrants, and who decided to go back to a warzone instead. They made the right decision.
When I was forced to live in a nigger city it was like a slasher movie. When we think of niggers we always think of their chimpouts or shooting guns like retards but they can be gory like this. Body parts and severed heads were always being found whenever they cleared the woods. A corpse was sitting on top of a McDonalds on the main street for weeks and no one knew.
Niggers can be horror movie level like this groid.
Just because you seem like you need help, a useful thing to do in these circumstances, is try to find the most likely reason. You can get really far with that. It makes for a good contribution to a forum.
As opposed to what you're doing, coming in, having no opinion or imagination, being mad that other people do, and then earnestly suggesting that these people were killed for "no reason."
Now you're also surprised and defensive when the flaws in your logic and the emptiness of your contribution are pointed out to you?
Instead of defending your argument you attack the crowd. Good luck out here, buddy. I think you're going to need it.
I'm not attacking the crowd, I'm attacking you for doing the same stupid shit that is mostly designed exclusively to radicalize people into violence. You don't want to contribute anything to the forum. You want to be mad and to make others mad with you.
that is mostly designed exclusively to radicalize people into violence
You're out of your tits. Where has the "radical violence" occurred? Show me a line from any forum post here to radical violence in the real world.
You don't want to contribute anything to the forum.
No, I just disagree with you over what makes a valuable contribution, and you're so small minded you presume your way is superior to all others. Go back and read your own language carefully, your ulterior motives are barely concealed.
You want to be mad and to make others mad with you.
No, I just think you're a retard, and I didn't want you to go on with your life without having heard it from me directly.
Even given the perpetrator, you can't ignore drug use and mental illness which is rampant (related to drug use).
Shocking amounts of blacks in poverty also have shit like paranoid schizophrenia, it's undiagnosed a lot of the times because "he's just crazy" and there are no asylums.
Defend BLM terrorism? Tell me you've never been here before and never interacted with me before, without telling me you've never been here before and never interacted with me before.
I've literally been calling BLM a Black National Socialist terrorist group for nearly 10 years. I compare 2020 to Kristallnacht.
If you think you haven't seen it than you are lying to yourself. It's the fucking ghetto. It's funny to play the knock-out game with random people. Difference is in the ghetto if you miss, then the other black guy beats you within an inch of your life.
I'm just saying that it's an everyday occurrence, so it tells me you don't live in the ghetto, and don't live around large black populations. It tells me that your issue is media consumption.
I hate to sound like a broken record, buuuuuuuttttt...
There's a reason "around blacks, never relax" is such a common saying. And before anyone tries to deflect the race card, you've activated my trap card: "Yes, it's not ALL of then, but it's ALMOST ALWAYS them". That stupid fucking m&ms thing the feminists loved to trot out comes to mind; they refused to grab a handful because there might be one or two poisoned pieces, but they expect you to just scarf down the bowl knowing more than half are poison.
The m&ms analogy makes no sense for gender because you absolutely need both men and women to propagate your society, your culture, your people, your nation, your species. If the male (or female) bowl contains poisoned m&ms, then that’s a risk you have to take.
Ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation are not the same. You don’t need to interact with other races or ethnicities or religions or sexual orientations to have a society. In fact, your society is objectively worse if you do so. It’s like seeing a bunch of bowls of m&ms, all of them have labels telling you the percentage of poisoned candies, and then you choose to reach into the bowl with the highest percentage.
European men and women coexisted for centuries in high-trust, low-crime societies. Sweden used to boast of being near utopian. Then mass immigration took off. They're not just lying, they're trying to browbeat you into repeating the lie that it's "men."
Worse now is that most young White woman have been brainwashed from tv and ads showing White woman with nonWhites to be race traitor coalburning scum. Even in redstates msot young white woman are going for brown scum while demonizign White man. Its infurating.
WTF are you talking about? White women still prefer White men to an overwhelming degree based on every stat I've ever seen.
Im talking about What i see with my own eyes in red states like florida, ohio, georgia, lousiana. Litterally any young White woman 16-24 is with joggers, wetbacks or street shitters and it infuristes me
Sure thing anonymous poster with an unknown agenda! I'll believe your unsubstantiated claims no problem!
Go to tampa, cleveland and atlanta and tell me what you see. Fort myers isnt any differnet either
Are you still using that OkCupid survey data from 2014?
That's one of the years. Here's a good summary of data that gets up to 2023 and spans multiple countries even.
https://nitter.poast.org/Boochibooch/status/1864818516576043195
Your own link shows 35-40% of White woman are racetraitors who racemixed between 2000-2016. And itnonly got worse since then. At least a third of White woman are worthless and that 56% of them are open to race mix. That is devestating
Yep, that's why Lincoln was right about wanting to ship them all to Liberia.
I've known some dirt poor, tobacco chewing gritty country Whites and even they had some morals when it came to fighting or violence. Niggers don't, even the ones that have been hiding among White people all their lives.
"Around blacks, never relax" is a good saying that you and I know well but unfortunately, many Ukrainians came from a 95%+ White country so they're not accustomed to these safety measures. We ought to have signs posted all over the country given all the immigrants we bring in that say: "around blacks, never relax" to adequate warn the newcomers.
So women are also right to never relax around any man?
Until and unless you return to high trust societal norms, yes. Absolutely yes. Look at what happens to the "open minded" women, the "color blind" women, the "backpack in the middle east" women.
I certainly don't relax around women, especially younger or obvious liberal women. I've seen what can happen to men if women want to make trouble.
We can continue to play the pretend of higher moral calling, but until we live ONLY with people who will ALSO play the morality game with us, we must exercise due caution and engage with the reality that not all people are equal, and the FBI crime statistics as divided by race do, in fact, reflect reality.
Even in countries that are high trust, like Japan, nearly all crime is committed by men. So the question posed by this user:
Would mean that women should be wary of men.
But of course, it is very rare for these people to take their logic to its logical conclusion. It's supposed to apply only when it suits them.
Yeah women should be wary of men, that's why they shouldn't assert the right to get blackout drunk and take a random Uber back home or hook up with complete strangers. Men are always going to prey on them despite whatever utopian measures society takes.
Damn that's a pretty shitty view of men
9 out of 10 men can be cool and the 1 will rape. Eventually after playing Russian roulette for years women run into the 1.
I'm not even opposed to women having the freedom to take risks as long as they assume the responsibility for them, but so many of them don't.
So then why are you saying "men are always going to prey on them" if it's only 1 out of 10?
Less a shitty view of men and more an acknowledgement that women are complete and utter shit at judging the quality of other men. Or worse; actively going for men whom act badly or exhibit bad behavior while thinking 'He'd never do it to ME' due to her delusional fantasies.
Time has slowly deformed my overall opinion on such things from 'men and women should be treated equally' to 'Repeal the fucking 19th, women should go straight from father to husband and have no authority in dictating how society is run'.
Conversely, society should allow men to take out the ones acting badly. But we don't, and everyone knows that doing so will get you lynched by society at-large. And so it goes.
How is this on women?
The other user (a man) said that "men will always prey on [women]" which is a shitty take. Men aren't always going to act like that, and to think so is pretty misandrist
Not really? Women aren't even capable of actual violence for the most part.
Even if you were to ignore psychological drivers of violence (rooted genetically so this isnt a nurture thing) you'd STILL have men committing most of the crime, because if a woman says "give me your cash or I'll break your leg" the liklihood of that bejng a credible threat approaches zero.
You would agree that men are always going to prey on women?
Sir, one, you can't "this user" about your own posts, and two, you can't "this user" my posts in direct replies. Please at least try to remember who you're speaking with.
For three, yes, women ABSOLUTELY should be wary of men. We are sexually DIMORPHOUS as a species. Men are in almost every case going to be larger, stronger, with denser bones, and with longer limbs then women. We have absolutely the absolute power to harm them, and there is generally very little they can do to stop us. This is why I make the missus train with and carry a gun, because that's an equalizer.
Here's the thing, though. Men are wary of men all the time.
We look over other guys in the street and make judgements. Is he possibly a threat? Can I take him? Can he hurt me? Am I with anyone I need to protect? Can he hurt them? Are there others? Can I afford to fight, or should we evade and flee?
We make these split second judgements constantly, and it's perfectly normal. It's how we avoid the suspicious guy in the hoodie looking around nervously. It's why we don't walk through dark alleys alone at night.
Because we don't live in perfect world with perfect people. Because nature is red in tooth and claw. Because we are, despite everything, still part of the natural world, and we must be ready to deal with threats as they arise.
So, no, it's not illogical or strange for women to be wary of men. It's like saying it's odd for the deer to fear the wolf.
Of course I can point out that I was making a reductio ad absurdum about the post by "this user". However, I will also point out that you are very polite.
That's great. You're consistent. A lot of people here will refuse to apply their own logic whenever it's inconvenient to them. "This user" stated that one ought to be wary of a given group when "it's almost always" this group. And of course, when it comes to crime, it's almost always men.
But as you saw, pointing this out is not welcome to people, most of whom believe that men are victims by women.
In Chicago maybe. This is not the experience of anyone I know. Maybe late at night in very dodgy places.
I like that you actually have the courage of your convictions.
I already explained why this is retarded in the m&ms analogy comment. Interactions with men are mandatory in every society. Interactions with other religions, races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations are not. They aren’t comparable.
Which men commit most crimes?
As a woman? Your boyfriend, followed by your husband, brother, father, and son.
You're far more likely to be raped and killed by them than almost anyone else. If we are operating on raw statistics alone, you're safer wandering into a crowd of immigrants alone than going on a date with your boyfriend. Don't forget that most relationships are intra-racial, so the most dangerous person a white woman can be around is her white boyfriend. Don't tell me that's ridiculous, this is literally the argument feminists are using right now to downplay Pakistani Muslim rape gangs.
if we are choosing to play this game with statistics.
This is why this pre-meditated manipulation of statistics as a replacement to actually understanding the environment around you never helps. Yes, you can weaponize statistics to prove your bigotry, that's not the fucking point for anyone looking to improve society.
This is not true. The numbers vary, but somewhere between 12%-34% of female murder victims are from family members, meaning as a woman you're overwhelmingly in more danger from strangers. And the numbers explode if your family is white or asian and the strangers are black. The total expected lifetime murder rate for black males in the united states is 4.5%. 1 in 22.
Those weren't the numbers I've seen, but I'm also talking about all violent crime, including all instances of domestic battery and robbery with force.
It's far more likely that violence is coming from your partner than it is from outside your home, which is why cops spend so much time trying to investigate spouses and ex-boyfriends in regards to violent crime.
If youre unironically counting domestic violence in that figure, which is what moves the needle, youre lombotomized
It's as if I'm explicitly using a highly generalized and reductive approach to make a decision.
Actually it's blacks.
Nope, it's still men who are closest to you, and typically the same race as you. Inter-racial violence is wildly low compared to intra-racial violence.
Which is why this abuse of statistics is silly.
Nope. It's blacks. Blacks commit the types of intimate violence you are talking about more often.
Black men to black women, sure. Then white men to white women. Also white women to white women if they are lesbians.
Huh. Even with your bad faith arguing, I never took you to be someone who doesn't understand per capita.
So, why are you choosing not to understand that reductive arguments are reductive?
Pravda and Shareblue would love a shill like you. Not even stalin or fdr could lie to your face like that
No they wouldn't because I'm pointing out their tactics.
No, retard. You are conflating mandatory and non-mandatory interactions. The propagation of the species requires women to interact with their fathers, husbands, boyfriends, brothers, and sons. So whatever violence results from these interactions is essentially inevitable and should not be weighed against the risk profiles of certain races, ethnicities, religions, or sexual orientations.
As they say: we don’t have to live this way. In fact, the entire US housing market famously revolves around avoiding these people.
I'm not conflating them, the difference is irrelevant because I'm pointing out the abuse of statistics you are now complaining about. This is why the M&M's bowl example was always stupid. You want me to add nuance to analysis now because it gives you the answer you want, but you didn't have a problem when removing nuance gave you the answer you preferred.
So your response: go right back to having a low-nuance argument that gives you the argument you prefer. So now, I will give you that low nuance argument back.
You're right. We don't have to live this way. We need to keep men out of public spaces because they're so dangerous. Welcome to 2012 Feminism. Please enjoy the M&M.
You are though. You're basically making the argument that residential streets are the most high risk ones because you usually have an accident near your home.
In the same way, per exposure being around any black male is far far far far more dangerous than being around a family member. The stat you are butchering doesn't support your claim at all, even if it wasn't hugely dubious to begin with.
Yes
No, literally the opposite. Your family members are statistically more dangerous than strangers, let alone black people.
I'm not butchering the stat, I'm showing the misuse of it by making an identical argument. It's dubious, because the argument from the statistic is dubious in all of these cases.
If they can’t do math, then sure.
Let's say they can do math. "Yes, it's not ALL of then, but it's ALMOST ALWAYS them".
Always who? Women are more likely to have multiple abortions versus being murdered by a white man in the US.
Who said 'white man'? I said men. Just like the original guy didn't say 'slouching black man between 17 and 30 with his pants hanging under his ankle'.
Then by the flat numbers in general women should be terrified of women because they’re the most likely to kill anyone.
Where's that data come from?
They should relax, or not relax, relative to statistical assessments of risk.
Statistically speaking, men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women, so for a mathematically literate society, it is men who should not relax around other men. But from a relative risk standpoint, women can assume their generally-safer-standard as a baseline and assess proximity risk based on as many factors as possible. Race, sex, overt religious signage, clothing, wealth approximation: They're all factors that should be kept in mind.
Some factors matter much more than others. Owning a rolex doesn't imply or not imply safety as much as, say, overt terror symbols. But it all matters, and people are able to assess multiple risk factors at once, people are quite good at summarizing traits.
We both know that these are mostly men who are looking for trouble. If you're minding your own business, you are far better off being a man and being able to at least somewhat hold off anyone attacking you than being a woman.
I agree. But OP seemed to suggest that the fact that it's almost always blacks is reason enough to be wary of blacks in general. Maybe it is, but that argument goes equally well for men, even for other men as you point out (just like blacks are the biggest victims of other blacks).
People are even pretty good at knowing when generalities do not apply. When I see blacks in suits, or working in security, I'm not wary of them at all. But when they're bums, or seem to loiter, then very much so.
The coalburners and racemixing traitors are willingly playing russian roulette with a revovlor full of ammo
Randomly getting stabbed to death is "part and parcel of living in a big city" after all.
And the worst part is many young White woman will still attack White man whike being race traitor mudsharks
Survived a warzone but killed for what looked like the crime of waking up a dude.
That poor sweet girl. That fucking animal should have every single member of its family wiped from the face of the Earth.
Men die to protect them, so they run away to another country never to return. Makes sense.
What is a human? That may need to be included among societal questions like 'when does life begin' or 'who should be allowed to vote'.
I turned on the sound for one of the clips posted just in time to hear a newsman say the thing shouldn't have been on that train. It didn't buy a ticket. Peak morbid comedy.
I'm not saying we need a caste system, just that anyone can't answer the breakfast question or explain "per capita" might have to have their place in society reconsidered...
I saw one retard say "she was probably texting something racist" IN THE FUCKING VIDEO you can see how the guy just pulls out a knife, didn't even look at her and stabs her. Piece of shit murderer deserves death penalty.
It's in their nature to use words like magic spells, whether it's "SHE DID A RACISM" or "I CAN'T BREEF".
Comments like that are prima facie evidence that a certain level of "racism" is not only inevitable, but also moral
Those comments are LITERALLY making light of a murder. You can tell brown hands wrote these comments(also by the pfp, was some ghetto shit).
Blacks are stuck at a truly astounding level of ethnic and tribal nepotism.
Because a white person did something to a black person, it makes it permissible for a black person to do something to a white person.
Doesn't matter circumstance or context or whatever. 'My tribe good, your tribe bad.' They may be able to fake it or pretend otherwise when 'loosing', but it's all just magic spells to disarm you.
The left is built upon antiWhitism. They are atheists who worship browns and blacks
Blacks in both America and Europe proving those countries too dangerous to except refugees.
Ironically, they are a REASON to deport on humanitarian grounds..
Europe is quickly learning that America never had a gun problem.
"Imagine if your city was 60% gypsies" tends to get them thinking.
Past tense?
Please.
It has always been the blacks, without which "gun crime" in America would be at European levels.
There are Ukrainian refugees in the UK who lived in places full of Pakistanis and other immigrants, and who decided to go back to a warzone instead. They made the right decision.
All i hear is golddiggers wanted to kill their own man while laughing but then went back after getting enriched. I hate both
alternative video:
https://x.com/immeme0/status/1964163560986001775
https://x.com/trobinsonnewera/status/1964255065138401446
should have stayed in the warzone.
When I was forced to live in a nigger city it was like a slasher movie. When we think of niggers we always think of their chimpouts or shooting guns like retards but they can be gory like this. Body parts and severed heads were always being found whenever they cleared the woods. A corpse was sitting on top of a McDonalds on the main street for weeks and no one knew.
Niggers can be horror movie level like this groid.
X is going off about that.
The day of total forcible repatriation comes ever closer.
As far as anything shows, she was killed for no reason, not that she was killed for being white.
She was killed for no apparent reason.
There was a reason.
You just don't know it.
We are speculating, but, we're really good at it. It's not as if this is the first time we've seen this.
"I make up shit that confirms what I want to see and I never double-check that I'm right, thus I'm right 100% of the time."
Did you ever find any evidence that Austin Metcalf was racially targeted? Because you didn't and it doesn't currently exist.
You should use your mind-reading powers to find the dindu's motive, then. You're very good at it, after all
You first. Oh wait, my complaint is that you all already claimed to.
I can't read something that doesn't exist. At best I might get chimp noises or a smoke detector chirp on loop.
You don't know what "speculating" means?
Just because you seem like you need help, a useful thing to do in these circumstances, is try to find the most likely reason. You can get really far with that. It makes for a good contribution to a forum.
As opposed to what you're doing, coming in, having no opinion or imagination, being mad that other people do, and then earnestly suggesting that these people were killed for "no reason."
Now you're also surprised and defensive when the flaws in your logic and the emptiness of your contribution are pointed out to you?
Instead of defending your argument you attack the crowd. Good luck out here, buddy. I think you're going to need it.
I'm not attacking the crowd, I'm attacking you for doing the same stupid shit that is mostly designed exclusively to radicalize people into violence. You don't want to contribute anything to the forum. You want to be mad and to make others mad with you.
You're out of your tits. Where has the "radical violence" occurred? Show me a line from any forum post here to radical violence in the real world.
No, I just disagree with you over what makes a valuable contribution, and you're so small minded you presume your way is superior to all others. Go back and read your own language carefully, your ulterior motives are barely concealed.
No, I just think you're a retard, and I didn't want you to go on with your life without having heard it from me directly.
Have a nice day.
It's not an unreasonable speculation though, given the perpetrator.
Even given the perpetrator, you can't ignore drug use and mental illness which is rampant (related to drug use).
Shocking amounts of blacks in poverty also have shit like paranoid schizophrenia, it's undiagnosed a lot of the times because "he's just crazy" and there are no asylums.
Says the retard who defends blm terrorism. blm openly calls for the murder of White man and rape of White woman but you defend that.
But god forbid a White man defends himself you scream muh racism muh supremacy
Jizzortnik is a jew, that's why he hates Whites.
Defend BLM terrorism? Tell me you've never been here before and never interacted with me before, without telling me you've never been here before and never interacted with me before.
I've literally been calling BLM a Black National Socialist terrorist group for nearly 10 years. I compare 2020 to Kristallnacht.
I've never seen a random black on black killing. Only drive bys and shootouts. Don't know if they happen regularly, but I've never seen one.
Then you need to pay more attention to the news
"Nigga moments don't real"
If you think you haven't seen it than you are lying to yourself. It's the fucking ghetto. It's funny to play the knock-out game with random people. Difference is in the ghetto if you miss, then the other black guy beats you within an inch of your life.
Listen bro I know what I've seen and haven't seen. Not my fault I haven't seen it
I'm just saying that it's an everyday occurrence, so it tells me you don't live in the ghetto, and don't live around large black populations. It tells me that your issue is media consumption.
The 90% make the other 10% look bad.