[quote]Grimlorn wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Well, my positions are against the status quo. Personally, the fact that most people are tumultously against me is evidence that I am correct as far as I’m concerned. [/quote]
You’re a fucking idiot. That’s why everyone is against you. It has nothing to do with the status quo, but you keep on using it to justify your idiocy.[/quote]
^x2
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Can I get in on this?
I’m 1/8 Crowe!
[/quote]
Note that my race was injected by the bigoted Professor X, who (wrongly) assumed I am white and thus “defensive” of white people.[/quote]
I honestly don’t care what you are. I think we have covered the fact that this man’s race is not important about a few hundred times in this thread before your post.
You came in late and thought you were giving us fresh data.
It wasn’t fresh.
Expiration Date: 3/1986[/quote]
Funny, many of your posts in this thread hinge on the races of the people involved.
My mom’s side is dark haired and olive skinned, that should get me something right?
Actually, I did recently find out that I am now a protected minority in several states. Appalachian people are protected here in Tennessee. Terms like hillbilly are now illegal discriminatory terms in the work place. Same as the N-word, or negative terms for females, est.
After all, rednecks as a group have been systematically discriminated against for some time. Many people refuse to hire them because of negative genetic stereotypes. HAH!
Eventually, everyone can be a protected minority that is legally guaranteed freedom from offense. YAY!
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
TigerTime you said you are not a bigot. So what would you classify yourself as? Your views are teetering on bigotry…IMO. Are you trying to tell me that all of these “Facts” you got going on doesn’t color your view of minorites as a whole and how you would treat them? Especially Blacks?[/quote]
I suppose so. I don’t expect anyone here to believe me, but knowing these statistics hasn’t coloured my view (see what I did there? XD) of anyone I know.
Like I’ve said, where I am, whites are a minority. Occasionally I’ll be hanging out with some friends, the topic of race or culture will come up and it will hit me that I’m the only white person in the room. The last job I had, I was literally the only person working there born in this country and I was also the only white person. I helped a friend of mine get a job there with me and he wasn’t white either, but when I look at him, I just see him.
I think the reason these statistics don’t alter my behaviour is because, as I’ve said before, I don’t consciously think of myself as a white man, so when I look at someone else, I can’t make the comparison.
That’s not entirely true, I’ve noticed a few times where I’m in a place where I am the majority that I feel this underlying discomfort. Though, that doesn’t seem to happen much any more.
It may also be because the first 5 years I spent in grade school, my two best friends where black, but at the time I think I was too young to comprehend “race”, so maybe that’s nothing.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
? I’m talking about why all non-African societies continued advancing while Africa stayed relatively stagnant. In the case of Europe, this is why. [/quote]
So Africans are far behind the rest of the world due to their low IQ? Damn, KKKboy, you can’t stop making me laugh. As it’d been told to you by others, IQ means diddly squat.
AFRICA is not stagnant, you ignorant fool. Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria are doing fucking great.
Wait…Whaaaaat? You meant the ‘‘other’’ Africa? The one filled with black people? Of course!
Unfortunately for you, that part of the continent has also fine examples of developing nations; Nigeria, Angola(one of the biggest oil producers), South Africa, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Mauritius, Namibia, Botswana are amongst the most advanced and richest African countries. They may not be the level of, say, the Europeans, Asian, Indian and American powerhouses yet, but they’re slowly getting there. I give them a few decades.
Africa is a fucking treasure island. In some countries, corruption and wars are big causes in the halting of growth and economical development. Not the fucking IQ. Not the fucking ‘‘black’’ genes. Some African Heads of State keep their pocket full instead of pouring the money back into the economy,(building better infrastructures, schools, hospitals, roads, fair wage distribution). Don’t get me started on the IMF and the World Bank’s fucking regulations.
Oh and please don’t use the warring in Africa as proving your point that Blacks are barbaric. Wars happen anywhere. And the wars in Africa are residue of colonialism’s regimented tactics, ie: placing members of warring tribes in the same piece of land; giving more land or power to one tribe instead of a fair repartition between tribes etc…) No wonder there was a fucking genocide in Rwanda.
And by the way, Even in Burma, they’re going through the same shit (war) and their economy isn’t getting any better. But hey, you’ll surely tell me that’s due to their genetics and low IQ too.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Can I get in on this?
I’m 1/8 Crowe!
[/quote]
Note that my race was injected by the bigoted Professor X, who (wrongly) assumed I am white and thus “defensive” of white people.[/quote]
I honestly don’t care what you are. I think we have covered the fact that this man’s race is not important about a few hundred times in this thread before your post.
You came in late and thought you were giving us fresh data.
It wasn’t fresh.
Expiration Date: 3/1986[/quote]
Funny, many of your posts in this thread hinge on the races of the people involved.
My mom’s side is dark haired and olive skinned, that should get me something right?
Actually, I did recently find out that I am now a protected minority in several states. Appalachian people are protected here in Tennessee. Terms like hillbilly are now illegal discriminatory terms in the work place. Same as the N-word, or negative terms for females, est.
After all, rednecks as a group have been systematically discriminated against for some time. Many people refuse to hire them because of negative genetic stereotypes. HAH!
Eventually, everyone can be a protected minority that is legally guaranteed freedom from offense. YAY![/quote]
Weeeellll…
Is there a test?
It seems to me Hillibilly is more nurture than nature, would you not have to prove it?
Have a mullet, make moonshine, have sex with a close female relative?
2 out of 3 maybe?
Oh, an extra digit somewhere would not hurt either?
Do you Sir, play the banjo?
[quote]Grimlorn wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Well, my positions are against the status quo. Personally, the fact that most people are tumultously against me is evidence that I am correct as far as I’m concerned. [/quote]
You’re a fucking idiot. That’s why everyone is against you. It has nothing to do with the status quo, but you keep on using it to justify your idiocy.[/quote]
I like this post. To any lurkers, take note of which side so easily loses their temper. Take note of which side is quick to throw out insults. Take note of which side is deliberately brushing off relevant studies and their conclusions instead of countering them.
It’s almost as though this anti-racism fuelled hatred I’m receiving is the result of years of indoctrination in racial egalitarianism; But what sort of facility could possibly have the prolonged access to these people’s minds necessary to instil such emotionally charged positions? Hmm…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
Note that my race was injected by the bigoted Professor X, who (wrongly) assumed I am white and thus “defensive” of white people.[/quote]
…
I honestly don’t care what you are. [/quote]
So you say. But you assumed I was white and thus “defensive” of whites.
In short, you made racial assumptions just like this bigoted Hispanic guy did with this innocent black kid.
What people are not talking about (and I saw first hand in the Army) is brown vs. black bigotry (and vice versa) is way worse than white/black black/white.
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
? I’m talking about why all non-African societies continued advancing while Africa stayed relatively stagnant. In the case of Europe, this is why. [/quote]
So Africans are far behind the rest of the world due to their low IQ? Damn, KKKboy, you can’t stop making me laugh. As it’d been told to you by others, IQ means diddly squat.
AFRICA is not stagnant, you ignorant fool. Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria are doing fucking great.
Wait…Whaaaaat? You meant the ‘‘other’’ Africa? The one filled with black people? Of course!
Unfortunately for you, that part of the continent has also fine examples of developing nations; Nigeria, Angola(one of the biggest oil producers), South Africa, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Mauritius, Namibia, Botswana are amongst the most advanced and richest African countries. They may not be the level of, say, the Europeans, Asian, Indian and American powerhouses yet, but they’re slowly getting there. I give them a few decades.
Africa is a fucking treasure island. In some countries, corruption and wars are big causes in the halting of growth and economical development. Not the fucking IQ. Not the fucking ‘‘black’’ genes. Some African Heads of State keep their pocket full instead of pouring the money back into the economy,(building better infrastructures, schools, hospitals, roads, fair wage distribution). Don’t get me started on the IMF and the World Bank’s fucking regulations.
Oh and please don’t use the warring in Africa as proving your point that Blacks are barbaric. Wars happen anywhere. And the wars in Africa are residue of colonialism’s regimented tactics, ie: placing members of warring tribes in the same piece of land; giving more land or power to one tribe instead of a fair repartition between tribes etc…) No wonder there was a fucking genocide in Rwanda.
And by the way, Even in Burma, they’re going through the same shit (war) and their economy isn’t getting any better. But hey, you’ll surely tell me that’s due to their genetics and low IQ too.[/quote]
There are also shitty, poor as dirt, majority white countries that nothing good comes out of.
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
Yes, it is true that statistics can be misleading. that’s why it’s important to go over each statistic to verify it’s relevancy and accuracy and not just deny them because that’s the status quo and no one will question you for doing so. Not saying you’re doing this, but that’s the vibe I’m getting from most people here.
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
So Africans are far behind the rest of the world due to their low IQ? Damn, KKKboy, you can’t stop making me laugh. As it’d been told to you by others, IQ means diddly squat.
AFRICA is not stagnant, you ignorant fool. Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria are doing fucking great.
Wait…Whaaaaat? You meant the ‘‘other’’ Africa? The one filled with black people? Of course!
[/quote]
I FUCKEN LAUGHED SO HARD LOL.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
…and he wasn’t arrested? After chasing down a kid on his phone who clearly asked who He was.
The real problem is the fact that people felt the need to defend whether he was a racist for no reason when all signs pointed to YES. Whether he claims he is one or not, he hunted and killed a kid for his skin color.
You don’t get much more racist than that.[/quote]
I was merely making decisions based on the evidence at hand. At the time there wasn’t enough to go on for me to make a call on that and that was the only point I was trying to make.I tend to require a pretty large amount of real evidence before coming to conclusions, that comes with my job. Now enough evidence exists to support that conclusion. [/quote]
Well, my point is, it seems to be that whenever this topic comes up, the level of “evidence” needed for someone who is not a minority to agree on racism is almost fantasy. This case will get attention because it is clear we still have some issues in this country and the “let it go, racism is dead” crowd needs to speak softer or perhaps not at all.[/quote]
X, can you honestly say the opposite isn’t true of the “he’s definitely racist” crowd? Given limited knowledge of what happened and jump to the conclusion about race?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I get the feeling that since I refuted the idea that it was definitely due to race that I’m being lumped in with your “racism is dead” made-up group. If you review my posts, not only did I say that racism still exists, but I went further and said that it will NEVER go away. It is human nature to hate based on differences. As long as humans are around, there will be hate based on stupid bullshit and color of skin is perhaps the easiest of the long list of potential differences.
The main thing that I and most of everyone else in this “group” that I’ve most likely been lumped into was trying to say was that it’s wrong to jump to conclusions in general and specifically, it’s wrong to jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman’s actions were purely racially driven. That’s it. Noone is trying to say that the kid dying wasn’t tragic and fucked up. Noone was trying to say that Zimmerman is a good man, whether it was racially driven or not, he’s still a piece of shit in my book.
I just don’t like how so many people are so damn quick to pull the race card every chance they get. That’s really all it boils down to for me. I’ve had to deal with it my entire life and I’m getting tired of it (actually got tired of it many many years ago). There can be other motives besides racism when something happens between 2 people of a differing race. I know this statement is hard to believe for some here, but it’s true whether you agree or not.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s just as likely that the kid was simply walking down the wrong neighborhood street, at the wrong time, while the wrong mentally unstable neighborhood watch captain was on patrol.
[quote]optheta wrote:
2:21-2:23 you can hear him say “Fucken Coons”.[/quote]
If this is true, then I wouldn’t say it wasn’t racially driven any more. I listened to the tapes when they were first released and I didn’t hear that, but I missed a lot since the audio wasn’t very clear.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Can I get in on this?
I’m 1/8 Crowe!
[/quote]
Note that my race was injected by the bigoted Professor X, who (wrongly) assumed I am white and thus “defensive” of white people.[/quote]
I honestly don’t care what you are. I think we have covered the fact that this man’s race is not important about a few hundred times in this thread before your post.
You came in late and thought you were giving us fresh data.
It wasn’t fresh.
Expiration Date: 3/1986[/quote]
Funny, many of your posts in this thread hinge on the races of the people involved.
My mom’s side is dark haired and olive skinned, that should get me something right?
Actually, I did recently find out that I am now a protected minority in several states. Appalachian people are protected here in Tennessee. Terms like hillbilly are now illegal discriminatory terms in the work place. Same as the N-word, or negative terms for females, est.
After all, rednecks as a group have been systematically discriminated against for some time. Many people refuse to hire them because of negative genetic stereotypes. HAH!
Eventually, everyone can be a protected minority that is legally guaranteed freedom from offense. YAY![/quote]
Weeeellll…
Is there a test?
It seems to me Hillibilly is more nurture than nature, would you not have to prove it?
Have a mullet, make moonshine, have sex with a close female relative?
2 out of 3 maybe?
Oh, an extra digit somewhere would not hurt either?
Do you Sir, play the banjo?
[/quote]
Exactly, the stereo types I was talking about. Speech is generally the characteristic be identify you by, much the way Hispanics are.
But there is actually a skin color too in some cases. Blue. Seriously. There are also physical characteristics that “mountain people” tend to have, but much of that depends on specific sects and areas. 6 fingers is an Amish trait (and a dominant one) by the way.
And I actually can play a little banjo.
But in the whole most discrimination is nurture vs nature. A black guy in a nice suit is going to be treated differently than the guy on the street with baggy, low riding pants an lots of gold chains. That doesn’t mean that looking at the guy on the street and assuming he is a thug criminal isn’t racism, does it?
Edit: for the record I find this law silly.
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
So Africans are far behind the rest of the world due to their low IQ? Damn, KKKboy, you can’t stop making me laugh. As it’d been told to you by others, IQ means diddly squat.
AFRICA is not stagnant, you ignorant fool. Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria are doing fucking great.
Wait…Whaaaaat? You meant the ‘‘other’’ Africa? The one filled with black people? Of course!
[/quote]
I FUCKEN LAUGHED SO HARD LOL.[/quote]
That is pretty amusing.
I had an oilfied job in Nigeria. The word “shit hole” does not even begin to describe it, and I grew up on a reservation where people waited for their gubmint checks so they could go to Wal-Mart and buy whiskey.
[quote]TDub301 wrote:
X, can you honestly say the opposite isn’t true of the “he’s definitely racist” crowd? Given limited knowledge of what happened and jump to the conclusion about race?[/quote]
As with all things, the truth is likely in the middle. if you need witnesses, video and tape recordings all for someone to understand racism is still a significant problem, you are no more right than the black guy who blames his dead end job on “whitey”.
The truth is, there is a problem with blacks still being profiled and this does affect many of us. Many have said so right here. That isn’t something minor…so when cases do come to light where the question is answered blatantly, there is no doubt many will rally behind it…if for no other reason than the few hundred other times it was pointed out only to be explained away.
[quote]
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I get the feeling that since I refuted the idea that it was definitely due to race that I’m being lumped in with your “racism is dead” made-up group. If you review my posts, not only did I say that racism still exists, but I went further and said that it will NEVER go away. It is human nature to hate based on differences. As long as humans are around, there will be hate based on stupid bullshit and color of skin is perhaps the easiest of the long list of potential differences.[/quote]
Acknowledging that racism exists “somewhere” is not the same as acknowledging it as a force we still deal with daily. That difference is important.
[quote]
The main thing that I and most of everyone else in this “group” that I’ve most likely been lumped into was trying to say was that it’s wrong to jump to conclusions in general and specifically, it’s wrong to jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman’s actions were purely racially driven. That’s it. Noone is trying to say that the kid dying wasn’t tragic and fucked up. Noone was trying to say that Zimmerman is a good man, whether it was racially driven or not, he’s still a piece of shit in my book.[/quote]
Why would it be so wrong to jump to that conclusion? It is the most likely even given the limited info we had before. The kid’s father lived there. He had every right to be there.
[quote]
I just don’t like how so many people are so damn quick to pull the race card every chance they get. That’s really all it boils down to for me. I’ve had to deal with it my entire life and I’m getting tired of it (actually got tired of it many many years ago). There can be other motives besides racism when something happens between 2 people of a differing race. I know this statement is hard to believe for some here, but it’s true whether you agree or not.[/quote]
Guy, I’m a professional. I do not go looking for racism everywhere. Some of my comments are more to spark debate than anything else on these topics. Why? because without discussing it, you can’t get rid of it. You can’t sweep it under the rug hoping it will go away…because kids get shot when you do.
[quote]
As far as I’m concerned, it’s just as likely that the kid was simply walking down the wrong neighborhood street, at the wrong time, while the wrong mentally unstable neighborhood watch captain was on patrol.[/quote]
Wrong street? LOL
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
Yes, it is true that statistics can be misleading. that’s why it’s important to go over each statistic to verify it’s relevancy and accuracy and not just deny them because that’s the status quo and no one will question you for doing so. Not saying you’re doing this, but that’s the vibe I’m getting from most people here. [/quote]
IQ test are also complete shit. They are design to diagnose mental retardation, not evaluate intelligence. They are extreeeeeeeemly culturally dependent and very hard to compare across cultural lines. For example guy smart guy from 1800 would fail a modern IQ test and a smart guy today would fail one designed in the culture of the 1800s.
I find it very hard to see the validity in comparing IQ tests in Africa with ones in Europe.
Edit: or for that matter, inner city black populations with more well to do white ones.
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
? I’m talking about why all non-African societies continued advancing while Africa stayed relatively stagnant. In the case of Europe, this is why. [/quote]
So Africans are far behind the rest of the world due to their low IQ? Damn, KKKboy, you can’t stop making me laugh. As it’d been told to you by others, IQ means diddly squat.
AFRICA is not stagnant, you ignorant fool. Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria are doing fucking great.
Wait…Whaaaaat? You meant the ‘‘other’’ Africa? The one filled with black people? Of course!
Unfortunately for you, that part of the continent has also fine examples of developing nations; Nigeria, Angola(one of the biggest oil producers), South Africa, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Mauritius, Namibia, Botswana are amongst the most advanced and richest African countries. They may not be the level of, say, the Europeans, Asian, Indian and American powerhouses yet, but they’re slowly getting there. I give them a few decades.
Africa is a fucking treasure island. In some countries, corruption and wars are big causes in the halting of growth and economical development. Not the fucking IQ. Not the fucking ‘‘black’’ genes. Some African Heads of State keep their pocket full instead of pouring the money back into the economy,(building better infrastructures, schools, hospitals, roads, fair wage distribution). Don’t get me started on the IMF and the World Bank’s fucking regulations.
Oh and please don’t use the warring in Africa as proving your point that Blacks are barbaric. Wars happen anywhere. And the wars in Africa are residue of colonialism’s regimented tactics, ie: placing members of warring tribes in the same piece of land; giving more land or power to one tribe instead of a fair repartition between tribes etc…) No wonder there was a fucking genocide in Rwanda.
And by the way, Even in Burma, they’re going through the same shit (war) and their economy isn’t getting any better. But hey, you’ll surely tell me that’s due to their genetics and low IQ too.[/quote]
Every argument you’re making here I’ve already gone over in other posts in this very thread. I’m absolutely willing to hear out your positions and reasoning for them, but I get the feeling you aren’t willing to do the same, so I’m not going to re-tread this ground. If you want your answers, go back a couple pages.
You give Africa a few decades? Had Africa been left alone, I don’t think they would ever reach even where they are now. Given where they are, I would assume several hundreds of years at least. A big part of a nations progress is dependant on the inter-subjective “state” of conciousness. Socially speaking, Africa is still behind medieval Europe.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Funny, many of your posts in this thread hinge on the races of the people involved.[/quote]
? the kid was killed because of the race of the people involved.
[quote]
My mom’s side is dark haired and olive skinned, that should get me something right?[/quote]
What are you talking about?
[quote]
Actually, I did recently find out that I am now a protected minority in several states. Appalachian people are protected here in Tennessee. Terms like hillbilly are now illegal discriminatory terms in the work place. Same as the N-word, or negative terms for females, est.
After all, rednecks as a group have been systematically discriminated against for some time. Many people refuse to hire them because of negative genetic stereotypes. HAH!
Eventually, everyone can be a protected minority that is legally guaranteed freedom from offense. YAY![/quote]
Wait…blacks are “free from offense”? When did this happen? Today? Damn it…I miss everything.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m very skeptical of the idea that blacks are genetically predisposed to commit more crimes than other races. I would like to look at how the data was collected. At the same time it would be wrong to rule out a possibility because it makes us feel uncomfortable. We want the RIGHT answer, not the one that makes us feel the most comfortable.
One thing I have noticed though is that there are a lot of parallels you can draw between the Aboriginal community of Canada and the black community in the US. They both are more likely to commit violent crimes disproportionate to their representation in the population, both more likely to be imprisoned and both more likely to be raised in single parent households. A long list of other stuff, but you guys get the idea.
The reason I have connected them is that they both have a long history of mistreatment in society by the social majority. Would it be possible that this mistreatment has effected their culture and values that still play a role today?
Not claiming to be an expert on this topic, just a thought.
[/quote]
What aboriginal tribes recently discovered and still living in the stone age?
I do find it interesting that through out history, certain regions grew, prospered, developed technology and then of course dominated regions still throwing stones and using sticks for self defense.
Take the middle east for example, obviously a pioneer in science, math, culture et cetera and bordering Asia, Europe and Africa.
Look at the technological advances of European and Asian countries at any point in history compared to Africa.
I realize I’ll probably get crucified for this musing, but it’s interesting when viewed objectively.
Societal support is helpful of course, take a tribesman and throw him in modern society and he will adapt to the best of his abilities but, as a whole, why did one region lag so far behind?[/quote]
The most common theory is that moving out of Africa meant food would be harder to find and it would take more intelligence in order to cultivate a sustainable tribe. As it happens, the gap necessary to survive in the frigid climate of ancient Europe also gave rise to the intelligence levels necessary to build western civilization to what it is today.
Something along those lines. [/quote]
???Unless you are talking about the Middle East I’m not sure what part of Ancient Western Europe was any more advanced than any place else.
Wow.
Ok on this note I am out. hahahaha wow.[/quote]
? I’m talking about why all non-African societies continued advancing while Africa stayed relatively stagnant. In the case of Europe, this is why. [/quote]
In the case of Europe you had a culture that viewed the world in a very unique way, meaning, the world had fixed rules that could be understood by the human mind. The belief in the power of reason, that is neither intuitively true nor the norm (well, now it is, kind off) was propagated by the Greeks, carried on by the Romans and reinforced by a Judeo Christian tradition that had the idea that the Lord has set up a world of fixed rules from the get go.
Add to that that Europe is relatively small and all the crops and animals that were domesticated in the Middle East could relatively easily adapted to European conditions due to its East West axis and the general shape that forced relentless competition on the European people and you had quite a few advantages that added up.
Now you could propose that longer exposure to culture leads to higher IQs, but that still would not mean that lower IQa necessarily lead to more crime.
[/quote]
This is true, and again, I don’t know what the exact mechanism is that is causing this radical difference in crime rates, but my best guess would be to look at the factors that make blacks distinct from all the other races as the most probable culprit. In this case, the most outstanding features are an incredibly steep IQ gap and significantly higher T levels, both of which have been shown to be accurate predictors of increased criminal behaviour amongst all races. [/quote]
Or that they are shit poor, drug dealing seems like a good career choice which comes with a certain innate chance of a rather sudden and violent death.
Becaaaaauuuuusssse, most of that crime is black on black crime.
[/quote]
Gang activity is actually higher amongst mestizo Americans (50% vs. 35% for blacks I think it is). If poverty and drug dealing was the reason, you would expect the poorer and more gang prone Mexican immigrants (both legal and not) to have at least a higher homicide rate as a percent of their population. This is not the case.
Besides, poor blacks still have higher homicide rates than all other races combined in that income bracket.
Someone please define “wrong street” to me in the context of a kid walking down one as a minority.
I am confused on this topic.