clarify your definition of hate. If something is true, is it still considered hate?
[quote=“EyeDentist, post:1707, topic:223365, full:true”]
If an organization is indeed a ‘hate group,’ is there something wrong with shaming them?[/quote]
In place of counteracting their arguments and shutting down discussion instead? YES.
No and that’s where you’re missing the point. The Color of Crime is derived from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and National Crime Victimization survey.
What about their numbers or source for their numbers do you find objectionable?
^^ not doing this is where the problem lies
Really? So for example: If someone were to ‘shame’ the KKK, you would admonish them for it?
The key being “derived from.” Anyone can twist statistics to suit their agenda.
I will neither read nor countenance anything coming from an openly, overtly racist organization such as theirs.
You forgot one important point. It’s people of color who live in poor neighborhoods who are calling police to save them from other people of color. And regardless of whether the Police Officer is black, white or Hispanic if the cop is not perfect in demeanor and action charges are pressed against the cop. It’s disgusting!
Here is FBI data
Tables 43,49,55,61,67
Here is a spreadsheet showing extrapolation (~78% breakout ethnicity of Hispanic) of these arrest tables based on 32,000 agencies collected by FBI
At one point things like Women’s suffrage was an unpopular opinion seen as overtly wrong.
Keep that in mind next time you’re going to let an organization filter your sources for you.
Why do you think the disparity exists and how do we fix it?
Blacks committed 52 percent of homicides between 1980 and 2008, despite composing just 13 percent of the population
Unfortunately their source is the WSJ and requires a subscription
Why are those numbers so different from these as well?
If you cannot see the fundamental differences between the suffrage movement and white separatism…
1 Like
Ah turning the table on me with some Socratic method eh?
Will answer in a bit…
I’m sure the people back then had a similar frame of mind.
That suggests to me that poor people are more likely to be involved in homicides. What does it suggest to you?
Lol… Well, I don’t disagree with you (This time 
) The numbers might vary depending on who is reporting them, but the story is the same. I’d rather try and fix it.
Short answer guess is one is all crime, the other is violent crime.
Agreed.
I want to address “American” also, but don’t have the steam for a 3000 word essay like he posted in hacking thread… haha He is quite verbose.
1 Like
It clearly says violent victimizations…
Just a quick glance and you can see the totals are different. His is 905k and yours is 6,485k. That’s obviously a factor.
The two separate sources could very easily define violent crime differently. We had a long discussion year about violence in the UK v. Violence in America and the main sticking point was how the UK and the US defined violent crimes. The UN actually provided a consensus report that controlled for this, but that wasn’t good enough for some posters.
We need to commit more crimes and get caught for the ones that are currently being gotten away with. By not getting caught it is creating the false narrative that we commit less crimes than certain minorities, when we actually commit more.
White law abiding citizens are actually doing more harm to minorities than criminals.
3 Likes
Lol, well… If we do find a way to reduce the crime rate among blacks and Hispanic’s to be more inline with their population then proportionally white crime will go up.