Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do Black Lives Matter...... To Black People?

Runn92
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 3:21:56 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Given that black on black violence is a much more threat to "black lives" than cops being mean racists, is this not a legitimate question?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 3:51:29 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
You're right, state-stanctioned violence and violence commited by civilians are equivalent.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Runn92
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 4:04:17 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 3:51:29 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
You're right, state-stanctioned violence and violence commited by civilians are equivalent.

State sanctioned violence??
Danimal4NU
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 5:49:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Does BLM have a point when it comes to police violence? Yes. Is BLM hypocritical in not addressing what is statistically speaking the much bigger issue in black violence? Yes.

They are like most other special interests/PAC's. They have some valid arguments and some drawbacks/blindspots.
Runn92
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 6:14:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 5:49:51 AM, Danimal4NU wrote:
Does BLM have a point when it comes to police violence? Yes. Is BLM hypocritical in not addressing what is statistically speaking the much bigger issue in black violence? Yes.

They are like most other special interests/PAC's. They have some valid arguments and some drawbacks/blindspots.

I'm not convinced that BLM has a point when it comes to police violence. This is a population that commits crime a much higher rate than the rest of the population. A lot of analysis that claim police racism don't take this into account. However, it is very relevant
walker_harris3
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 12:41:29 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 3:21:56 AM, Runn92 wrote:
Given that black on black violence is a much more threat to "black lives" than cops being mean racists, is this not a legitimate question?

Yes. Bill Clinton is the only politician with the balls to stand up to them. Props to you, Bill.
https://www.youtube.com...
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 1:09:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 3:21:56 AM, Runn92 wrote:
Given that black on black violence is a much more threat to "black lives" than cops being mean racists, is this not a legitimate question?

Actually, black on black crime is largely a myth.

http://usuncut.com...

If anything, the irony of Bill and BLM going at one another, is that Bill's crime bill protected the civil rights leaders of former equality movements.

Granted, they're more upset that the persecution means more black men in jail. But the bill did in fact reduce crime. So its a bit of a trade-off.
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 2:01:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 3:21:56 AM, Runn92 wrote:
Given that black on black violence is a much more threat to "black lives" than cops being mean racists, is this not a legitimate question?

https://www.youtube.com...
Thank you for voting!
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 3:13:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 1:09:26 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:21:56 AM, Runn92 wrote:
Given that black on black violence is a much more threat to "black lives" than cops being mean racists, is this not a legitimate question?

Actually, black on black crime is largely a myth.

http://usuncut.com...

Those facts clearly have an anti-white agenda!

Seriously though, it's not that "black on black" crime is a myth; the article merely points out that "white on white" crime is also a problem. Or, just maybe, we should just call it "crime."

If anything, the irony of Bill and BLM going at one another, is that Bill's crime bill protected the civil rights leaders of former equality movements.

Granted, they're more upset that the persecution means more black men in jail. But the bill did in fact reduce crime. So its a bit of a trade-off.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
childfornicator
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 3:16:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 3:21:56 AM, Runn92 wrote:
Given that black on black violence is a much more threat to "black lives" than cops being mean racists, is this not a legitimate question?

We don't all commit violence on ourselves. I have only ever got into fights with white people.
Runn92
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 3:28:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 1:09:26 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:21:56 AM, Runn92 wrote:
Given that black on black violence is a much more threat to "black lives" than cops being mean racists, is this not a legitimate question?

Actually, black on black crime is largely a myth.

http://usuncut.com...

If anything, the irony of Bill and BLM going at one another, is that Bill's crime bill protected the civil rights leaders of former equality movements.

Granted, they're more upset that the persecution means more black men in jail. But the bill did in fact reduce crime. So its a bit of a trade-off.

That article's facts don't look nearly as impressive if you understand the concept of per capita and how the size of a population is relevant when measuring relative rates of criminality.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 3:31:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 3:51:29 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
You're right, state-stanctioned violence and violence commited by civilians are equivalent.

+1
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 3:42:04 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 3:28:11 PM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 1:09:26 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:21:56 AM, Runn92 wrote:
Given that black on black violence is a much more threat to "black lives" than cops being mean racists, is this not a legitimate question?

Actually, black on black crime is largely a myth.

http://usuncut.com...

If anything, the irony of Bill and BLM going at one another, is that Bill's crime bill protected the civil rights leaders of former equality movements.

Granted, they're more upset that the persecution means more black men in jail. But the bill did in fact reduce crime. So its a bit of a trade-off.



That article's facts don't look nearly as impressive if you understand the concept of per capita and how the size of a population is relevant when measuring relative rates of criminality.

Yet when it comes to the high rate of poverty in the black and Hispanic demographic, your ilk loves to point out how many more white people are poor in raw numbers than either of those minorities. Your ilk tends to portray stats in a way that makes minorities look inherently inferior. No mystery there...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 3:43:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 5:49:51 AM, Danimal4NU wrote:
Does BLM have a point when it comes to police violence? Yes. Is BLM hypocritical in not addressing what is statistically speaking the much bigger issue in black violence? Yes.

They are like most other special interests/PAC's. They have some valid arguments and some drawbacks/blindspots.

Seeing as the point of the movement is to stop police violence, isn't that a red herring?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 3:47:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 4:04:17 AM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:51:29 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
You're right, state-stanctioned violence and violence commited by civilians are equivalent.

State sanctioned violence??

...lol

This really says it all.

Police are agents of the state, are they not?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 3:50:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
If we go on the premise that cops do more violent harm to the Black community than prevent violence, shouldn't the logical solution be to remove all police (even if it is temporary) from the black communities?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 4:02:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 3:42:04 PM, Fly wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:28:11 PM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 1:09:26 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:21:56 AM, Runn92 wrote:
Given that black on black violence is a much more threat to "black lives" than cops being mean racists, is this not a legitimate question?

Actually, black on black crime is largely a myth.

http://usuncut.com...

If anything, the irony of Bill and BLM going at one another, is that Bill's crime bill protected the civil rights leaders of former equality movements.

Granted, they're more upset that the persecution means more black men in jail. But the bill did in fact reduce crime. So its a bit of a trade-off.



That article's facts don't look nearly as impressive if you understand the concept of per capita and how the size of a population is relevant when measuring relative rates of criminality.

Yet when it comes to the high rate of poverty in the black and Hispanic demographic, your ilk loves to point out how many more white people are poor in raw numbers than either of those minorities. Your ilk tends to portray stats in a way that makes minorities look inherently inferior. No mystery there...

'You started it!' isn't a good argument. Using shitty stats will always come back to bite you in the @ss, especially when they're so shitty that all it takes is five seconds for anyone with a background in data collection to spot the problems. People who care about actually addressing racial problems (as opposed to scoring cheap points against their political opposition on the internet) shouldn't engage in it. Anti-racist advocates have succeeded for decades by rebutting bad evidence on the other side, and eroding that aura of rationalism is highly detrimental to any cause which relies on it.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 4:19:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 4:02:10 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:42:04 PM, Fly wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:28:11 PM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 1:09:26 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:21:56 AM, Runn92 wrote:
Given that black on black violence is a much more threat to "black lives" than cops being mean racists, is this not a legitimate question?

Actually, black on black crime is largely a myth.

http://usuncut.com...

If anything, the irony of Bill and BLM going at one another, is that Bill's crime bill protected the civil rights leaders of former equality movements.

Granted, they're more upset that the persecution means more black men in jail. But the bill did in fact reduce crime. So its a bit of a trade-off.



That article's facts don't look nearly as impressive if you understand the concept of per capita and how the size of a population is relevant when measuring relative rates of criminality.

Yet when it comes to the high rate of poverty in the black and Hispanic demographic, your ilk loves to point out how many more white people are poor in raw numbers than either of those minorities. Your ilk tends to portray stats in a way that makes minorities look inherently inferior. No mystery there...

'You started it!' isn't a good argument. Using shitty stats will always come back to bite you in the @ss, especially when they're so shitty that all it takes is five seconds for anyone with a background in data collection to spot the problems. People who care about actually addressing racial problems (as opposed to scoring cheap points against their political opposition on the internet) shouldn't engage in it. Anti-racist advocates have succeeded for decades by rebutting bad evidence on the other side, and eroding that aura of rationalism is highly detrimental to any cause which relies on it.

Nothing shitty about any of the stats. It is the way they are hypocritically presented depending upon the argument to be served that I am referring to. Saying, "You cannot have it both ways" in regards to statistical analysis and presentation is a perfectly valid rebuke.

If you are on DDO to initiate sweeping social change in the USA, or you believe I am, then... good luck with that...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 4:24:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 4:19:27 PM, Fly wrote:
At 4/11/2016 4:02:10 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:42:04 PM, Fly wrote:

Yet when it comes to the high rate of poverty in the black and Hispanic demographic, your ilk loves to point out how many more white people are poor in raw numbers than either of those minorities. Your ilk tends to portray stats in a way that makes minorities look inherently inferior. No mystery there...

'You started it!' isn't a good argument. Using shitty stats will always come back to bite you in the @ss, especially when they're so shitty that all it takes is five seconds for anyone with a background in data collection to spot the problems. People who care about actually addressing racial problems (as opposed to scoring cheap points against their political opposition on the internet) shouldn't engage in it. Anti-racist advocates have succeeded for decades by rebutting bad evidence on the other side, and eroding that aura of rationalism is highly detrimental to any cause which relies on it.

Nothing shitty about any of the stats. It is the way they are hypocritically presented depending upon the argument to be served that I am referring to. Saying, "You cannot have it both ways" in regards to statistical analysis and presentation is a perfectly valid rebuke.

Hitch was the one who needed to be rebuked here, but instead you are attacking someone who leveled a personally reasonable critique of his statistics out of a sense of ideological tribalism.

If you are on DDO to initiate sweeping social change in the USA, or you believe I am, then... good luck with that...

Sweeping social change is always a amalgam of innumerable smaller interactions, and the only thing that any individual has control over are the ones which they engage in.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 4:40:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 4:24:21 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/11/2016 4:19:27 PM, Fly wrote:
At 4/11/2016 4:02:10 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:42:04 PM, Fly wrote:

Yet when it comes to the high rate of poverty in the black and Hispanic demographic, your ilk loves to point out how many more white people are poor in raw numbers than either of those minorities. Your ilk tends to portray stats in a way that makes minorities look inherently inferior. No mystery there...

'You started it!' isn't a good argument. Using shitty stats will always come back to bite you in the @ss, especially when they're so shitty that all it takes is five seconds for anyone with a background in data collection to spot the problems. People who care about actually addressing racial problems (as opposed to scoring cheap points against their political opposition on the internet) shouldn't engage in it. Anti-racist advocates have succeeded for decades by rebutting bad evidence on the other side, and eroding that aura of rationalism is highly detrimental to any cause which relies on it.

Nothing shitty about any of the stats. It is the way they are hypocritically presented depending upon the argument to be served that I am referring to. Saying, "You cannot have it both ways" in regards to statistical analysis and presentation is a perfectly valid rebuke.

Hitch was the one who needed to be rebuked here, but instead you are attacking someone who leveled a personally reasonable critique of his statistics out of a sense of ideological tribalism.

If you will read more carefully, you will notice that I did critique Hitch's contribution. As for my "attack," why do you believe others need your "defense"? And... noting hypocrisy in a certain, questionable agenda is "ideological tribalism"? You are too much.

My posts still stand, btw.

If you are on DDO to initiate sweeping social change in the USA, or you believe I am, then... good luck with that...

Sweeping social change is always a amalgam of innumerable smaller interactions, and the only thing that any individual has control over are the ones which they engage in.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are attempting to give honest, constructive criticism here, and not... whatever else it is you might be doing. *smh*
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Runn92
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 6:55:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 3:42:04 PM, Fly wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:28:11 PM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 1:09:26 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:21:56 AM, Runn92 wrote:
Given that black on black violence is a much more threat to "black lives" than cops being mean racists, is this not a legitimate question?

Actually, black on black crime is largely a myth.

http://usuncut.com...

If anything, the irony of Bill and BLM going at one another, is that Bill's crime bill protected the civil rights leaders of former equality movements.

Granted, they're more upset that the persecution means more black men in jail. But the bill did in fact reduce crime. So its a bit of a trade-off.



That article's facts don't look nearly as impressive if you understand the concept of per capita and how the size of a population is relevant when measuring relative rates of criminality.

Yet when it comes to the high rate of poverty in the black and Hispanic demographic, your ilk loves to point out how many more white people are poor in raw numbers than either of those minorities. Your ilk tends to portray stats in a way that makes minorities look inherently inferior. No mystery there...

I don't really have any obligation to defend straw men versions of arguments you perceive people of my "ilk" to make.
Runn92
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 6:56:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 3:47:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/11/2016 4:04:17 AM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:51:29 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
You're right, state-stanctioned violence and violence commited by civilians are equivalent.

State sanctioned violence??

...lol

This really says it all.

Police are agents of the state, are they not?

I'm aware that they are. But the only reason there is more "state sanctioned violence" against blacks relative to their share of the population, is because blacks commit more violent crime both against civilians and police officers relative to their share of the population
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 7:41:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 6:55:10 PM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:42:04 PM, Fly wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:28:11 PM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 1:09:26 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:21:56 AM, Runn92 wrote:
Given that black on black violence is a much more threat to "black lives" than cops being mean racists, is this not a legitimate question?

Actually, black on black crime is largely a myth.

http://usuncut.com...

If anything, the irony of Bill and BLM going at one another, is that Bill's crime bill protected the civil rights leaders of former equality movements.

Granted, they're more upset that the persecution means more black men in jail. But the bill did in fact reduce crime. So its a bit of a trade-off.



That article's facts don't look nearly as impressive if you understand the concept of per capita and how the size of a population is relevant when measuring relative rates of criminality.

Yet when it comes to the high rate of poverty in the black and Hispanic demographic, your ilk loves to point out how many more white people are poor in raw numbers than either of those minorities. Your ilk tends to portray stats in a way that makes minorities look inherently inferior. No mystery there...


I don't really have any obligation to defend straw men versions of arguments you perceive people of my "ilk" to make.

If I have inaccurately grouped you within a certain worldview on the matter, my apologies. If you would never bring up or agree with that disingenuous talking point in the matter of poverty demographics, then good! In my defense, so far you fit to a T the profile I refer to...

Make no mistake, though-- it is not a strawman on my part; I have seen people make that exact point countless times when the poverty distribution discussion arises... people who reverse themselves on that statistical analysis when it comes to crime and welfare stats by race.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Runn92
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 7:44:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 7:41:30 PM, Fly wrote:
At 4/11/2016 6:55:10 PM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:42:04 PM, Fly wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:28:11 PM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 1:09:26 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:21:56 AM, Runn92 wrote:
Given that black on black violence is a much more threat to "black lives" than cops being mean racists, is this not a legitimate question?

Actually, black on black crime is largely a myth.

http://usuncut.com...

If anything, the irony of Bill and BLM going at one another, is that Bill's crime bill protected the civil rights leaders of former equality movements.

Granted, they're more upset that the persecution means more black men in jail. But the bill did in fact reduce crime. So its a bit of a trade-off.



That article's facts don't look nearly as impressive if you understand the concept of per capita and how the size of a population is relevant when measuring relative rates of criminality.

Yet when it comes to the high rate of poverty in the black and Hispanic demographic, your ilk loves to point out how many more white people are poor in raw numbers than either of those minorities. Your ilk tends to portray stats in a way that makes minorities look inherently inferior. No mystery there...


I don't really have any obligation to defend straw men versions of arguments you perceive people of my "ilk" to make.

If I have inaccurately grouped you within a certain worldview on the matter, my apologies. If you would never bring up or agree with that disingenuous talking point in the matter of poverty demographics, then good! In my defense, so far you fit to a T the profile I refer to...

What worldview are you referring to?

Regardless, I understand the difference between total number of people in poverty by race and poverty rate by race. I've rarely, if ever, heard someone of my ilk use that argument. But, maybe you have the ilk I belong too wrong. My ilk doesn't dispute that certain minorities have higher poverty rates than whites. We just aren't so naive as to think that "white privilege" is the reason for those discrepancies.


Make no mistake, though-- it is not a strawman on my part; I have seen people make that exact point countless times when the poverty distribution discussion arises... people who reverse themselves on that statistical analysis when it comes to crime and welfare stats by race.

I don't believe i've seen that and i follow a lot of discussions on these issues. i'm sure it' been used before, but i doubt it is really that common. Regardless, I certainly don't use it. So...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 7:45:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 4:24:21 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
you are attacking someone who leveled a personally reasonable critique of his statistics out of a sense of ideological tribalism.

Isn't that a circle jerk?
Runn92
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 7:50:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 7:45:08 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/11/2016 4:24:21 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
you are attacking someone who leveled a personally reasonable critique of his statistics out of a sense of ideological tribalism.

Isn't that a circle jerk?

Y
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 7:56:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 7:50:11 PM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 7:45:08 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/11/2016 4:24:21 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
you are attacking someone who leveled a personally reasonable critique of his statistics out of a sense of ideological tribalism.

Isn't that a circle jerk?

Y

No surprise there. Fly has been known to do that often with his "ilk"
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 8:03:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 7:44:35 PM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 7:41:30 PM, Fly wrote:
At 4/11/2016 6:55:10 PM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:42:04 PM, Fly wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:28:11 PM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 1:09:26 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:21:56 AM, Runn92 wrote:
Given that black on black violence is a much more threat to "black lives" than cops being mean racists, is this not a legitimate question?

Actually, black on black crime is largely a myth.

http://usuncut.com...

If anything, the irony of Bill and BLM going at one another, is that Bill's crime bill protected the civil rights leaders of former equality movements.

Granted, they're more upset that the persecution means more black men in jail. But the bill did in fact reduce crime. So its a bit of a trade-off.



That article's facts don't look nearly as impressive if you understand the concept of per capita and how the size of a population is relevant when measuring relative rates of criminality.

Yet when it comes to the high rate of poverty in the black and Hispanic demographic, your ilk loves to point out how many more white people are poor in raw numbers than either of those minorities. Your ilk tends to portray stats in a way that makes minorities look inherently inferior. No mystery there...


I don't really have any obligation to defend straw men versions of arguments you perceive people of my "ilk" to make.

If I have inaccurately grouped you within a certain worldview on the matter, my apologies. If you would never bring up or agree with that disingenuous talking point in the matter of poverty demographics, then good! In my defense, so far you fit to a T the profile I refer to...


What worldview are you referring to?

They self identify as "race realists." There are several on this site.

Regardless, I understand the difference between total number of people in poverty by race and poverty rate by race. I've rarely, if ever, heard someone of my ilk use that argument. But, maybe you have the ilk I belong too wrong. My ilk doesn't dispute that certain minorities have higher poverty rates than whites. We just aren't so naive as to think that "white privilege" is the reason for those discrepancies.




Make no mistake, though-- it is not a strawman on my part; I have seen people make that exact point countless times when the poverty distribution discussion arises... people who reverse themselves on that statistical analysis when it comes to crime and welfare stats by race.


I don't believe i've seen that and i follow a lot of discussions on these issues. i'm sure it' been used before, but i doubt it is really that common. Regardless, I certainly don't use it. So...

Really? It usually goes like this, depending upon the issue being discussed:

Me (or one of my ilk): Poverty is a particularly large problem in black America.

Race realist (RR): if you look at the facts, there are many, many more white poor in America.

Then, when the above discussion is a distant memory:

(RR): If you look at the facts, blacks get a disproportionate amount of welfare in the US and commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime.

The race realist only appreciates raw numbers in the first claim yet only appreciates percentages in the second example. Either way they slice it, they like to point out that the facts are fully on their side. I see it all too often...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 8:04:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 6:56:30 PM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:47:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/11/2016 4:04:17 AM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 3:51:29 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
You're right, state-stanctioned violence and violence commited by civilians are equivalent.

State sanctioned violence??

...lol

This really says it all.

Police are agents of the state, are they not?


I'm aware that they are. But the only reason there is more "state sanctioned violence" against blacks relative to their share of the population, is because blacks commit more violent crime both against civilians and police officers relative to their share of the population

Um, no, that's not the "only" reason.

So, if you're aware that state violence and violence by civilians are two distinct phenomena - BLM (the organization) is about the former, not the latter - then why are you treating the matters as if they are equivalent (which is what your question implies)?

Do you criticize cancer researchers for not focusing on AIDs, btw? AIDS is pretty bad too. When terrorists murdered those people in France, do you pop up and ask "Yeah, that's bad, but what about French-on-French violence? Why don't they ever say 'Je Suis Paris' when French are murdered by other French?"
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!