|
Post by betrand on Dec 16, 2005 10:10:35 GMT -5
Some stats I think are noteworthy. First, white nationalists like Jared Taylor, Don Black and david Duke frequently talk about race and crime with the emphasis on nonwhites being the worst perpetrators and whites being the victims. But lets look at these stats: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/aic.pdfAccording to this stats, most crime as far as blacks and whites are concerned is intraracial, as is expected based on numerous FBI reports. 81% of black is against other blacks and 12% of black crime is against whites. 69% of white crime is against other whites while 20% of white crime is against blacks. This is violent crime we're talking about here. Crimes against blacks make up a higher percentage of white crime(20%) than does black on white crime for black crimes(12%). based on these stats, isn't correct to say that white nationalists arousing fear on the blacks man against whites goes against all logic? Is it smarter to fear someone who victimizes you 69% of the time with violent crime ot someone who victimizes you 12% of the time, if fear is to be used as a tool? Dukesofpain and anondyne where are you, please respond to this data.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 16, 2005 10:49:34 GMT -5
Is it smarter to fear someone who victimizes you 69% of the time with violent crime ot someone who victimizes you 12% of the time, if fear is to be used as a tool? Dukesofpain and anondyne where are you, please respond to this data. It is smarter to fear the man who is most likely to attak you. The numbers above do not factor that Blacks are a minority, so obviously in absolute numbers it's more likely to be attaked by a Black than by a White. I bet also in Switzerland is more likely to be robbed by a Swiss than by a Gypsy, as there are very few gypsyes, but each gyspsy would be many times more likely to rob you than a Swiss. If such numbers are compared to the relative size of the Black and White groups, it comes out the obvious truth that a Black man is more likely to attak you than a White man. Thus you are smarter if you fear Blacks. Not that smart also, as what I'm saying should be plain 101 logic, not rocket science.
|
|
|
Post by aroundtheworld on Dec 16, 2005 11:28:00 GMT -5
Well considering the fact that my last employer was a black man, I would not have been smart to fear him for I would have lost a decent job with a source of income to provide for myself. He still has white and Asian employees which he has not yet murdered. I will notify them at once to be very afraid for he may soon kill them all.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 16, 2005 12:05:07 GMT -5
Well considering the fact that my last employer was a black man, I would not have been smart to fear him for I would have lost a decent job with a source of income to provide for myself. He still has white and Asian employees which he has not yet murdered. I will notify them at once to be very afraid for he may soon kill them all. Considering this post of yours I'm surprised you have a job.
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Dec 16, 2005 12:10:04 GMT -5
Is it smarter to fear someone who victimizes you 69% of the time with violent crime ot someone who victimizes you 12% of the time, if fear is to be used as a tool? Dukesofpain and anondyne where are you, please respond to this data. It is smarter to fear the man who is most likely to attak you. The numbers above do not factor that Blacks are a minority, so obviously in absolute numbers it's more likely to be attaked by a Black than by a White. I bet also in Switzerland is more likely to be robbed by a Swiss than by a Gypsy, as there are very few gypsyes, but each gyspsy would be many times more likely to rob you than a Swiss. If such numbers are compared to the relative size of the Black and White groups, it comes out the obvious truth that a Black man is more likely to attak you than a White man. Thus you are smarter if you fear Blacks. Not that smart also, as what I'm saying should be plain 101 logic, not rocket science. These stats are about percentages not absolute numbers.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 16, 2005 12:48:56 GMT -5
These stats are about percentages not absolute numbers. Thank you, I didn't see the % now its all clear. OMG what's about you all? The numbers do not factor the different size of population groups and relevant interactions which are the discriminating factor here. They are percentages of absolute numbers of aggressions. Who cares a white dude has 69% of being attaked by another white dude and 20% by a black one if you don't know how many interactions he has with white dudes and how many with blacks in a day? Do you realise that even if all blacks were 100% sure to attack all white men any time they see them, still you could have a higher percentage of "white" in the race of offender against white due only to the relative scarcity of blacks and segregation of the two communities? The numbers above are completely meaningless to the point that homo erectus wants to prove.
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Dec 16, 2005 13:12:22 GMT -5
Do you realise that even if all blacks were 100% sure to attack all white men any time they see them, still you could have a higher percentage of "white" in the race of offender against white due only to the relative scarcity of blacks and segregation of the two communities? But they don't and that's the whole point. That black people are more prone to attack their own than white people(81-20), therefore crimes are usually intraracial, and that's not related to the quantity of the population
|
|
|
Post by betrand on Dec 16, 2005 13:24:25 GMT -5
Do you realise that even if all blacks were 100% sure to attack all white men any time they see them, still you could have a higher percentage of "white" in the race of offender against white due only to the relative scarcity of blacks and segregation of the two communities? But they don't and that's the whole point. That black people are more prone to attack their own than white people(81-20), therefore crimes are usually intraracial, and that's not related to the quantity of the population Based on those stats I posted I see no reason for whites to have some preconceived fear of blacks. As for murders: Although slightly less true now than before, most murders are intraracial From 1976 to 2002 -- 86% of white victims were killed by whites 94% of black victims were killed by blacks www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htmTaking into consideration those stats over a 30 years period, should whites be more afraid of a black killing them over their own kind?
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 16, 2005 13:47:29 GMT -5
People most likely to kill/harm you is your spouse, then people you know, then people you often get in touch with, or at least happen to be near you often. So usually people of your race.
The fact that blacks are more prone than any other to attack any other (this in reference to their absolute numbers) justifies that ceteribus paribus they are the most feared.
It's not like someone fears that black people will come in the night in his home and slaughter him, but that if he sees someone in a lonley street at night he will reasonably prefer the men not to be black.
The percentages are an effect of segregation and fear. How many whites go walking in harlem?
|
|
|
Post by betrand on Dec 16, 2005 13:52:36 GMT -5
People most likely to kill/harm you is your spouse, then people you know, then people you often get in touch with, or at least happen to be near you often. So usually people of your race. The fact that blacks are more prone than any other to attack any other (this in reference to their absolute numbers) justifies that ceteribus paribus they are the most feared. It's not like someone fears that black people will come in the night in his home and slaughter him, but that if he sees someone in a lonley street at night he will reasonably prefer the men not to be black. The percentages are an effect of segregation and fear. How many whites go walking in harlem? Ok mr strawman, lol, welcome. I guess you know who I am now. Back to business. Going by those stats, if there were 1,000,000 murders over that 30 year period, 860,000 of them would be done by whites against whites and blacks are more likely to murder and victimized themselves, not all other races. The fear is unjustified.
|
|
|
Post by aroundtheworld on Dec 16, 2005 14:54:58 GMT -5
Well considering the fact that my last employer was a black man, I would not have been smart to fear him for I would have lost a decent job with a source of income to provide for myself. He still has white and Asian employees which he has not yet murdered. I will notify them at once to be very afraid for he may soon kill them all. Considering this post of yours I'm surprised you have a job. Why? Because I don't run from decent black people and fear them at every corner. Life is too short. I don't have time for that sort of nonsense. I don't think the blacks in places I choose to go are violent. I have a couple of female black friends and they are very decent people whom I trust. I don't think I am likely to be attacked in their homes. They are regular american women who work and take care of their families. We shop, go to dinners, movies, etc and I don't denote a higher chance that my life is endangered. I am not going to spend my life running away from and being afraid of blacks that don't deserve to be treated like that.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 16, 2005 19:31:55 GMT -5
@charlie: hi Charlie, nice to see you. I think this board misses you. You know what I mean: we all know AA here and now have a higher criminal record than any onther ethnic group in the USA, so if you have relationship with AA (eg, you have to live or work in a AA populated area) you are more likely to be receiving end of violence. I never said nor think this is due to the nature of SSA, that is something they do because violence is wired in them or anything of the kind. Things change immensely in time and space. Maybe the Romans thought that the Germans were inherently violent. It's easy to mistake what is happening here and now with what is necessary and will be forever and everywhere. The world is not what is USA now, is much more. E.g.. Recent Slavs and NA immigrants here in Western Europe are often considered more violent than SSA. I think African American are an ethnicity and a situation quite exceptional for the historic reasons of their existence. However, I think the way to reject racism and to affirm the right of any individual to be judged as an individual is to defend facts and logic, because facts and logic tell us racism is baseless. Thus I think that playing with numbers to demonstrate what is plainly against facts and logic is of no use for anyone. aroundtheworld: mine was meant as a punchline aimed at the irrelevance of your post. When did I or anyone argue that you shold be wary of all Blacks?
|
|
|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Dec 16, 2005 19:53:41 GMT -5
Remember many years ago when Jesse Jackson said he was relieved that the guy walking behind him at night in some dark corner wasn't Black.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Dec 16, 2005 20:10:21 GMT -5
Charlie, this is silly.. first of all.. latinos, whether they be actually white or not, are lumped in among whites and have a higher rate of violent crimes committed, as well as commiiting other violent crimes, so that 69% should be lower. Also, what's the population of blacks in America? around 12%? now look your chart again... 20% of violent crimes on whites are by blacks. That's almost double their percentage of the population. Also, as Nock points out, whites and blacks are generally isolated from each other so you can imagine how much higher that percenatge would be if the two races weren't segregated as much as it is.
Only 12% of offenders of crimes committed against blacks are white. That's very low considering the how large the white population is and we don't know how many of those "whites" are latinos. Why post soemthing that proves that blacks do tend to be more violent than whites? why shoot yourself in the foot?
|
|
|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Dec 16, 2005 20:47:10 GMT -5
Yeah back in the old RAS forum Tony Morello who is Abdul's sidekick would always post pic of Hispanic criminals who were arrested who oviously didn't look anything like the original Spanish conquistadors who were labeled as White under their race even though many of these Hispanics would not look out of place at Indian reservation.
|
|