[quote]Professor X wrote:
Mind you, racism is so hard to find now-a-days, isn’t it?
[/quote]
Sexism too.
[quote]Miserere wrote:
First: IQ scores are generally bullshit. It is extremely difficult to design a test that measures natural intelligence, a test that is not socially or educationally biased.
In view of this, I’m not sure how legitimate it is to compare IQs and say that whites are smarter than blacks.
[/quote]
MISERERE . . . not an expert on IQ but I’ll share some thoughts.
First . . . IQ tests are not bullshit . . . they are legitimate tools and “properly administered IQ tests are not demonstrably biased against social, economic, ethnic, or racial groups.” (Herrnstein and Murray)
Second, as has been often said, IQ doesn’t measure intelligence the way a ruler measures distance. No test can. But IQ does measure intelligence the way a race measures speed. So it can be very useful in comparing large sample groups.
Reynolds & Chastain conducted a landmark study in 1987 and found that Asians scored highest, then whites, then Hispanics and then blacks. You can find parts of the study on line. It was called “Demographic characteristics and IQ among adults: Analysis of the WAIS-R standardization sample as a function of the stratification variables”
Perhaps the most controversial work in the field is THE BELL CURVE written by Hernstein & Murray.
As the authors said in their conclusion:
“Inequality of endowments, including intelligence, is a reality. Trying to pretend that inequality does not really exist has led to disaster. Trying to eradicate inequality with artificially manufactured outcomes has led to disaster. It is time for America once again to try living with inequality, as life is lived: understanding that each human being has strengths and weaknesses, qualities we admire and qualities we do not admire, competencies and incompetencies, assets and debits; that the success of each human life is not measured externally but internally; that all of the rewards we can confer on each other, the most precious is a place as a valued fellow citizen.” (pp 551-552)
They found that blacks score lower (in fact, one standard deviation lower) than whites and these differences held REGARDLESS OF SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS. In other words, rich blacks scored lower than rich whites and poor blacks scored lower than poor whites.
As said above, they also concluded that properly administered IQ tests ARE NOT DEMONSTRABLY BIASED against social, economic, ethnic, or racial groups.
Naturally, they were attacked in much the same way I’m getting trashed . . . they were called racists, bigots, etc.
You can go here to read some of the criticisms of their work. Indiana University Bloomington
Most of the criticisms agree with your opening comments!
Alright, let’s blow up JJJJ’s little world of statistics, shall we?
This is the crap that he’s been using as the underpinning for his whole argument. His so-called irrefutable statistics, hahahahahahaha. Read carefully everyone. This just blows his FBI statistics out of the water. Enjoy. Please respond JJJJ, I would love to see you explain this away. P.S. isn’t google divine???
http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_hate.jsp?id=353
TOLERANCE WATCH: Discounting Hate
November 29, 2001 – In a report released today, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is calling for an overhaul of the nation’s hate crime reporting system.
Ten years after the FBI began compiling hate crime statistics, an SPLC investigation – conducted in all 50 states and the District of Columbia – has found a system riddled with errors, omissions and even outright falsification of data.
The FBI’s 1999 analysis of hate crimes nationwide listed fewer than 10,000 bias incidents. SPLC says the true number may be as high as 50,000.
“The overall hate crimes statistics are virtually useless,” said Mark Potok, editor of SPLC’s Intelligence Report. “And these numbers are critically important. Only when we know the true level and nature of hate crime in the U.S. will we be able to allocate resources in an effective way to combat it.”
And another one…
Participation, however, is a somewhat misleading term, as the vast majority (83%, in 1998) of agencies
participate by submitting that their
jurisdiction had zero hate crimes during
the year. In the most recent Hate Crime Report issued by the FBI (1998), 15 states had 10 or fewer agencies submitting incidents of bias crime; one other state did not participate entirely…In addition to those departments which submit zeros, a significant percentage (about a third) do not participate in the UCR Hate Crime Reporting Program (zero or otherwise).
And more smoking guns on the legitimacy of the FBI stats data. hahahahahaha!!!
Would you believe that a black in the US is about 20 times more likely to be a victim of hate crime than a white? This is not the claim of a left-wing crazy. It comes from data in the 1998 hate-crime report of the FBI. Data from the two previous reports yield about the same odds. We will try to put the facts in perspective.
Anyone who has pored over Government documents, knows first-hand how agencies can manipulate data to make a point. Crime statistics are a good example, the treatment of hate-crime data being especially egregious. The Justice department has wide latitude in how they comply with the Hate Crime Statistics Act. Accordingly, it has bent the data toward its own ends by omitting categories for ethnic offenders. Thus, Hispanics cannot be hate criminals, only hate victims. When a Hispanic commits a hate crime, he is counted as white. When he is a victim, he becomes Hispanic. In this way the FBI pads the number of white offenders. Despite this baggage we can learn much from the FBI data. By focusing on victims, we can sidestep Justice Department attempts at obfuscation.
I think we’ve just about blown JJJJ’s credibility out of the water at this point…what do you guys think?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I think - and I am speaking for myself - that the lack of response isn’t some sort of tacit approval, it is a desire to not bother responding to fringe chatterboxes in hopes that they will go away. It becomes a waste of energy to go after every single troll or wild-eyed theorist…It shouldn’t. Some posts just aren’t worth the time…Giant waste of time.
[/quote]
I understand where your coming from. Unfortunately on an issue such as this, if he goes unchallenged, you unfortunately have impressionable young males buying his racist bullshit. I think it’s important enough to respond because he has obviously influenced some others (i.e. see AC1’s post above)
any of you guys (and gals, gojira 
can find resources to back your statements. racism, sexism, and similarly associated social hot potatoes are WAAAY too complex of issues to expect reaching a consensus in a T-Nation forum. apparently, a reasonable discussion is almost out of hand too. the sensitivity … you either view the other side as racist red-necks or liberal douchebags. as for me, an equal opportunist, i hate all of you f*ckers equally. i do, however, hold a special place for RJ ;|
Bastard
[quote]randman wrote:
…
I think we’ve just about blown JJJJ’s credibility out of the water at this point…what do you guys think?[/quote]
I don’t agree. All the references you gave were in reference to hate crime only. My understanding of JJJJ’s thesis is that the level of crime in general is higher among blacks, for whatever reason.
[quote]randman wrote:
Alright, let’s blow up JJJJ’s little world of statistics, shall we?
This is the crap that he’s been using as the underpinning for his whole argument. His so-called irrefutable statistics, hahahahahahaha. [/quote]
RANDMAN . . . “hate crime” data is notoriously unreliable . . . as acknowledged by experts . . . and most of the cops who fill out the pain-in-the-ass reports.
First, of all, do you understand that a “hate crime” includes damage to property? For example, if someone spray paints the word n***** on a wall, then that is vandalism (a crime) and since it has racial overtones . . . it’s a hate-crime.
Do you understand how “hate-crimes” are reported? Where they come from? Someone broke your window? Don’t know who threw the rock? Oh, you THINK it was a white guy? OK . . . “hate-crime.”
Hate-crimes are a budgetary hot-button. Big numbers are a good way secure Federal funding.
It’s also a great way for organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center to justify their own existence. Let’s face it . . . they have bills to pay, too.
And it’s a GREAT way for the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to show just how BAD whites are.
Yes . . . blacks in America are subject to an overwhelming number of hate-crimes . . . uh-huh . . . but somehow blacks kill double the number of whites, they’re responsible for half the murders, they make up 65% of jail populations, etc.
Interesting disparity in statistics, isn’t it? Doesn’t it make you want to go look up the history and uses of hate-crime programs?
(It should.)
Shit, man, DO SOME RESEARCH . . .
. . . then come back and challenge my numbers. Don’t use some half-assed program like “hate crimes.”
Instead of wasting time trying to find new numbers (you act like you’re desparate for ANY numbers!) why not take a look at the stats I already used?
I claim that the black population is MORE VIOLENT because (for example) they’re responsible for half the murders.
OK . . . you disagree . . . fine . . . now, what’s your explanation for that amazing statistic? Don’t just go look up shit . . . exercise your brain and explain that statistic to us in a different way that I did.
I took the available evidence and used it to develop a thesis explaining the criminal behavior in New Orleas. You disagree . . . you’re outaged at my conclusions . . . you think I’m a “bigoted piece of shit” . . . fine.
YOU take the available evidence of black social violence (or whatever you want) and use it to develop a thesis about what’s happening in New Orleans.
But remember, before you say I’m wrong, you have to review my conclusions and discover where I went wrong. So far, you haven’t even come close.
All you’ve done so far is engage in a tactic know as Character Assassination. Let me define it for you:
The general character assassination
attack can take two modes: direct and indirect. In the direct
attack, the attacker draws directly from the surrounding debate
context in order to build material — relevant or not — which is
positioned to undermine the defendant’s credibility, and therefore
weaken their position. In the indirect attack, the attacker uses
context outside of the debate itself.
[quote]JJJJ wrote:
randman wrote:
Alright, let’s blow up JJJJ’s little world of statistics, shall we?
This is the crap that he’s been using as the underpinning for his whole argument. His so-called irrefutable statistics, hahahahahahaha.
RANDMAN . . . “hate crime” data is notoriously unreliable . . . as acknowledged by experts . . . and most of the cops who fill out the pain-in-the-ass reports.
First, of all, do you understand that a “hate crime” includes damage to property? For example, if someone spray paints the word n***** on a wall, then that is vandalism (a crime) and since it has racial overtones . . . it’s a hate-crime.
Do you understand how “hate-crimes” are reported? Where they come from? Someone broke your window? Don’t know who threw the rock? Oh, you THINK it was a white guy? OK . . . “hate-crime.”
Hate-crimes are a budgetary hot-button. Big numbers are a good way secure Federal funding.
It’s also a great way for organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center to justify their own existence. Let’s face it . . . they have bills to pay, too.
And it’s a GREAT way for the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to show just how BAD whites are.
Yes . . . blacks in America are subject to an overwhelming number of hate-crimes . . . uh-huh . . . but somehow blacks kill double the number of whites, they’re responsible for half the murders, they make up 65% of jail populations, etc.
Interesting disparity in statistics, isn’t it? Doesn’t it make you want to go look up the history and uses of hate-crime programs?
(It should.)
Shit, man, DO SOME RESEARCH . . .
. . . then come back and challenge my numbers. Don’t use some half-assed program like “hate crimes.”
Instead of wasting time trying to find new numbers (you act like you’re desparate for ANY numbers!) why not take a look at the stats I already used?
I claim that the black population is MORE VIOLENT because (for example) they’re responsible for half the murders.
OK . . . you disagree . . . fine . . . now, what’s your explanation for that amazing statistic? Don’t just go look up shit . . . exercise your brain and explain that statistic to us in a different way that I did.
I took the available evidence and used it to develop a thesis explaining the criminal behavior in New Orleas. You disagree . . . you’re outaged at my conclusions . . . you think I’m a “bigoted piece of shit” . . . fine.
YOU take the available evidence of black social violence (or whatever you want) and use it to develop a thesis about what’s happening in New Orleans.
But remember, before you say I’m wrong, you have to review my conclusions and discover where I went wrong. So far, you haven’t even come close.
All you’ve done so far is engage in a tactic know as Character Assassination. Let me define it for you:
The general character assassination
attack can take two modes: direct and indirect. In the direct
attack, the attacker draws directly from the surrounding debate
context in order to build material — relevant or not — which is
positioned to undermine the defendant’s credibility, and therefore
weaken their position. In the indirect attack, the attacker uses
context outside of the debate itself.
[/quote]
I used your fucking statistics, your link. And now your backpedaling…which I knew you would.
It’s hilarious to watch.
[quote]randman wrote:
I think we’ve just about blown JJJJ’s credibility out of the water at this point…what do you guys think?[/quote]
RANDMAN . . . by the way . . . did you even READ the reports you quoted ?
I seriously doubt it. Again . . . it just looks like you’re out there searching desperately for ANYTHING . . . .
For example, care to explain to us the meaning of this quote from the report you cited above:
“In this way the FBI pads the number of white offenders.”
Analysis of Hate Crime
[quote]randman wrote:
I used your fucking statistics, your link. And now your ackpedaling…which I knew you would.
It’s hilarious to watch.[/quote]
RANDMAN . . . no . . . you used the LINK that I provided but NOT the statistics.
I used criminal statistics.
You used “hate-crime” statistics.
Do you even know the difference?
Look, Randman . . . I don’t know you . . . you seem like an honest guy . . . I don’t want to insult you or embarass you in public. I’m sorry if any of my past comments did.
But frankly, you’re out of your league.
I do respect the fact that you’re fighting for what you believe. If I were in your shoes and thought someone was way out of line, I would fight like you’re fighting.
As a soldier, I respect courage.
[quote]JJJJ wrote:
randman wrote:
I used your fucking statistics, your link. And now your ackpedaling…which I knew you would.
It’s hilarious to watch.
RANDMAN . . . no . . . you used the LINK that I provided but NOT the statistics.
I used criminal statistics.
You used “hate-crime” statistics.
Do you even know the difference?
Look, Randman . . . I don’t know you . . . you seem like an honest guy . . . I don’t want to insult you or embarass you in public. I’m sorry if any of my past comments did.
But frankly, you’re out of your league.
I do respect the fact that you’re fighting for what you believe. If I were in your shoes and thought someone was way out of line, I would fight like you’re fighting.
As a soldier, I respect courage.[/quote]
Again, your so full of your own shit…it’s pretty funny. Out of my league…with who? You? Don’t flatter yourself. Although I know everything you say is irrefutable however (smirk). I just showed how credible how your precious data was and now your on a back-pedaling post frenzy. Nice try.
[quote]JJJJ wrote:
randman wrote:
I think we’ve just about blown JJJJ’s credibility out of the water at this point…what do you guys think?
RANDMAN . . . by the way . . . did you even READ the reports you quoted ?
I seriously doubt it. Again . . . it just looks like you’re out there searching desperately for ANYTHING . . . .
For example, care to explain to us the meaning of this quote from the report you cited above:
“In this way the FBI pads the number of white offenders.”
Analysis of Hate Crime
[/quote]
Oh, trust me. I didn’t miss that piece. I’m not really trying to prove whites are more violent. I’m just showing how your loose your data is, how loose your logic is, and how loose your marbles are. I know I haven’t done 4-5 hours of research like you. I mean 4-5 hours of research makes you like an expert in…oh that’s right; nothing!
Keep it up soldier. 15 more posts and you should be able to redeem yourself. Hahahahaha!!!
[quote]sharetrader wrote:
randman wrote:
…
I think we’ve just about blown JJJJ’s credibility out of the water at this point…what do you guys think?
I don’t agree. All the references you gave were in reference to hate crime only. My understanding of JJJJ’s thesis is that the level of crime in general is higher among blacks, for whatever reason.[/quote]
Oh now we’re splitting hairs. I just blew the credibility of his report out of the water. The same report he used for his conclusions. His precious statistics are flawed. Oh, he used page 64 instead of page 32 like I referenced. Well, that explains everything. Only the part I focused on is flawed but his part of the report is spot on. Puuhhleease!!!
I just had to post again.
JJJJ:
Blacks are more violent. Shit, I was just proven wrong and my statistics don’t hold water. I was too broad in my statement. Wait, blacks commit more murders. Ok, that’s it. I’ve got this debate thing down now. Every time someone refutes my points, I’ll slightly change my position to save face and continue on with my racially-motivated biases on T-Nation. Phew! I can go on like this forever.
I rest my case. JJJJ, just admit it. Your out of your league. I admire the tenacity however. You seriously are focused on proving blacks violent, oops I mean more murdering-bastards than whites, oops I mean…crap.
[quote]gojira wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Mind you, racism is so hard to find now-a-days, isn’t it?
Sexism too.[/quote]
Yeah…keep posting those avatars to help the cause!
[quote]Oogie wrote:
gojira wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Mind you, racism is so hard to find now-a-days, isn’t it?
Sexism too.
Yeah…keep posting those avatars to help the cause![/quote]
Someone has to counteract what your avatar is doing for birth control.
Randman, I’m just wondering if you read the whole article that you posted regarding your last source, or just the first paragraph. Here are some interesting excerpts:
"We began by noting that a black in the US is about 20 times more likely to be a victim of hate crime than a white. The actual figure from the 1998 FBI data is 21.8. We can now correctly interpret this observation. Because the Justice department skews the data by excluding Hispanics from offender status, we cannot achieve the level of accuracy we would like. However, we can come pretty close by considering only victims and excluding Hispanics from the analysis. The FBI includes hate crime against property in their tabulation, and counts “offended” properties as victims. We consider here only crimes against persons.
If you were one of the 195.4 million non-Hispanic whites in the U.S. in 1998, there were 32.7 million non-Hispanic blacks potentially ready to abuse you in some way and vice versa. For the moment assume that racial and ethnic groups share equal tendencies to abuse members of other groups. That is, if one in every thousand whites has this proclivity, then also one in every thousand blacks or Native Americans or Asians has it as well. We call this the equal hate-proclivity hypothesis. Under it, we seek the relative hate-crime risk to groups of various sizes. According to (3), under the equal hate proclivity hypothesis, a black should have been (195.4/32.7)2 or 35.7 times more likely than a white to be a victim of hate crime in 1998. Put in this light, we see that in reality the relative risk of blacks (21.8 times that of whites) was less than expected assuming no differential group bias. In fact, the black risk was only 61 percent of that expected from group size considerations alone. We need to ask, therefore, not why the per capita risk ratio of blacks to whites is so high, but rather why is it so low? The answer is simple: The equal hate proclivity hypothesis is false.
Differential hate proclivities
We can calculate the hate-proclivity ratio from the FBI data. In 1998, excluding Hispanics, we find an observed per capita risk ratio of 21.8, and from the census, a population ratio square, (NW /NB )2, of 35.7. Then from (3), the ratio of hate proclivities, kB /kW is 35.7/21.8 = 1.6. That is, if blacks were 1.6 times more likely to commit hate crimes than whites, the FBI data are explained.
"Both FBI press releases and the media omit the singularly compelling fact that hate crime is a minute fraction of total crime. Selective exaggeration is not restricted to hate crime. An analogous pattern emerges in the reporting of AIDS. AIDS accounts for under 1 percent of deaths in the US, less than from the respiratory diseases, bronchitis, emphysema and asthma. When did you last see a bronchitis headline?
In its last complete National Criminal Victimization Survey (1994), the Justice Department revealed blacks to have committed 1,600,951 violent crimes against whites. Only 15 percent of these had robbery as a motive. We can safely infer that most of the rest had race as at least a partial motive. Eighty-five percent of the attacks were assaults and rapes. While blacks were committing these 1.6 million crimes against whites, whites were reciprocating with 165,345 violent offenses against blacks. Blacks, representing thirteen percent of the nation, committed more than 90 percent of the violent interracial crime. Fifty-seven percent of the violent crime committed by blacks had white victims. Less than 3 percent of violence committed by whites had black victims. In 1994, a black was 64 times more likely to attack a white than vice versa. This is the real story of hate in America. It is the media’s well-kept secret."
OK jjjj I’ll play your game…oh by the way I have more respect for a man who comes out openly accepts who he is and isn’t afraid that the world knows who he truly whether it be good or in your case…
Reading your thread, It seems its biologically driven than culturally. The point being Blacks are more violent than whites. Now since you are going stats. This tells me you are looking back more importantly you are looking at history. And since you are argument/point is mainly biologically driven. It would only be fair to look at not just african-american blacks but every black on the face of this planet and their (our) history. For that matter lets look at every white on this planet and their history. Now just going off the history books (you can use stats too). Could you tell me based on just history alone who has more propensity for violence???
lets not forget all the wars and discovery of new land that’s has been made by massacring entire races…Basically start from day one and work your way up to present day Planet Earth do the research and let me know which race is more violent
on a lighter note…i love this forum you guys always talk about something interesting…
[quote]JJJJ wrote:
I recently started a thread stating my conclusion that blacks were more violent than whites and that this helped explain the violence in New Orleans.[/quote]
Just a hint: any time you say “this race is X”, you are being racist. All those guys that called you a racist (including me) are right. Sorry. What makes you a bigot is when you use your racism to promote negativity. If I said “Chinese people are better at math” that would be me repeating a racist stereotype.
This is more racism. But is it wrong? Let’s see, in order to refute your hypothesis up above, all I would have to do is supply data which shows that the white community is just as violent, or I would have to show that your data is wrong somehow.
White communities are violent:
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Dec2002/rachleff1202.htm
There is no such thing as a black lynch mob. The only lynch mob has always ever been white. Ritualistic torture and execution. No black community has ever supported the lynching of a white man, and yet we have had, and still have to this day, politically protected organizations like the KKK who have traditionally garnered support from their respective communities.
And the white communities in the UK:
http://www.carf.demon.co.uk/feat38.html
After the dust cleared, over a hundred arrests, thirty charged with racial offenses. Yeah, we whites are so much more level-headed and nice.
And some Ivy-league analysis:
http://www.yale.edu/ypq/articles/oct99/oct99b.html
The article above from Yale explains why people like you think the way you do. You are 50 years old and still don’t understand what real racism is. You are the product of what you have seen, what you have read, and the friends you have. If you bother to read the Yale link, and since you like statistics so much, then I invite you to peruse the section “Some Selected Statistics”. The obvious conclusion is that the black population is actually improving faster than whites in this country. If you define what is an American by who is achieving the “American Dream”, then the blacks are the real Americans here. We whites are just holding on to what we have. That’s called complacency.
Here’s a quick look at FBI stats:
As anyone can plainly see, crime in general is plummeting. But what about your aspersions as to the profile of the common violent offender?
Interestingly, only 14% of murders are confirmed to be committed by strangers. 43% of murders are committed by a relative or acquaintance.
Conclusion: It’s quite dangerous to have family and friends.
A quote from the stats:
“About one in four violent crimes occurred in or near the victim’s home. Including these, about half occurred within a mile from home and 76% within five miles. Only 4% of victims of violent crime reported that the crime took place more than fifty miles from their home.”
Conclusion: It’s dangerous to have a home.
When we look at where violence happens per capita, we see it comes mostly from cities, but only barely. From the report:
“Five urban residents, four suburban residents and four rural residents per 1,000 were victims of an aggravated assault.”
Wow. Five urban residents per 1000 versus four rural residents per 1000. Let’s look at your original assertion:
[quote]KKKK wrote:
I recently started a thread stating my conclusion that blacks were more violent than whites and that this helped explain the violence in New Orleans.[/quote]
But if the numbers for violent crime are essentially the same for urban vs. rural residents, then we can’t say that it’s ONLY the black communities because most “black communities” are urban… especially the ones which you are stereotyping.
You ARE a racist, and furthermore, you ARE a bigot. Hey, I don’t make the definitions, I just call them as I see them. I don’t see why you are complaining. It’s not like somebody else posted under your username.
Whatever. Of course we are different, a quick look at our skin tones will tell you that. Your problem is that you use the skin color to determine somebody’s heart. If that’s too poetic for you, then I will just remind you that for all of our differences, people of all races want the same things. We all want health, prosperity, love… And that is a better determinant for someone’s disposition than a testosterone level or a violent crime statistic.
You will always run into trouble with a blanket statement, especially if it is a negative one. Of course we rose up to condemn you, KKKK. Your careless statement represents the smallness and the meanness which all of us good people strive to overcome. There are enough lines drawn between us without some tiny-soulled person like you popping up on here and saying “blacks are riotous and violent.” That is weak. Very weak.
The rest of your post is stereotype drivel – as if we needed to rehash just what exactly is the stereotypical black thug mentality. What I’m curious about is how you plan on maintaining your illusions after you have had them blown away by a quick perusal of history and a proper analysis of the Department of Justice statistics.
Are we going to get an apology from you? My bet is on no, and that’s fine… because we have wasted entirely too much time on you already.
I’m not trying to take sides here, but it was pretty clear to me that JJJJ was referencing FBI stats on violent crimes, and Randman’s links were referring to hate crimes specifically. Therefore, I don’t see anything as having been refuted yet. But I can’t vouch for the veracity of those stats either.
To be honest, I didn’t even think it was disputed that blacks commit the majority of violent crimes in the U.S. Is it? The argument you can have is with what that fact implies. Some people take that to mean that blacks are inherently, genetically predisposed to violence. Others feel that it’s merely a reflection of the fact that blacks are predominately poor, and poor people traditionally commit the most violent crimes. And I’m sure there are a million more reasons posited for why that is the case.
But just asking the question, “why are blacks responsible for so much of this country’s violent crime when they make up such a small amount of the population?” is not, in itself, racist in any way. Has political correctness gotten that out of control that you can’t even ask WHY that situation exists? Isn’t that the first step toward SOLVING the problem? The most bleeding heart of liberals should want to know the answer to that question as much as any grand wizard of the KKK. Don’t you agree?