Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[Love Mountain]

Often, the similar types of shootings of white by cops simply don't get the same press coverage. The shooting of a white paraplegic who was armed only with a pen is not much less eregious than the shooting of a kid armed with a toy pistol. The shooting of a woman in her pajamas by a cop in a patrol car simply because he thought he heard a loud noise simply doesn't get the same press coverage. Just as many whites are shot and killed by police as blacks, and while that means as a percentage blacks were more likely to be killed, blacks were also by roughly the same proportion more likely to commit murder - slightly half the murders in the US are committed by African Americans. When dealing with African Americans police are statistically more likely to be dealing with a dangerous situation that with whites, and the police respond accordingly. You hear about African Americans killed by white cops, but you don't hear about blacks being killed by black cops, not because it doesn't happen, but because the media simply doesn't report it to the same degree. The fact is, there is no evidence that black are killed by white cops at a higher rate than black cops. Do I think there is a problem with how the police are trained, and that many cops panic and use unnecessary deadly force? Yes, but it is not confined to just blacks, it is just blacks are just more likely to be found in deadly situation than their white counterparts.

Nothing shows the media bias than in the Martin shooting. Contrary to popular claims, years before the Martin shooting, the roles were reverse, with a black neighborhood watchman shooting an unarmed white student, and the black neighborhood watchmn was aquitted. And unlike Zimmerman, Roderick Scott was not even touched by the white student he shot, Scott shot multiple times, and deliberately armed himself before he left the safety of his house to confront the white student, and several eyewitnesses contradicted Scott's version of events. Yet Scott was aquitted nonetheless. By making everything about race, you are likely to actually delay addressing the root cause and addressing the real issues.

This would be relevant if we were talking about media bias, but we are pointing out institutional bias inherent in the justice system on the basis of race. Nobody is dismissing the egregiousness of shootings perpetrated by Blacks, or the abundance of black-on-black violence, but that's really not the point.

Yes, there is still racism around, but concentrating on the handful of wrongful cop shootings while ignoring the other 99% of the shootings is not going to solve the main problem or promote good relationship between the races, just the opposite. The vast majority of African Americans are killed by other African Americans, and same is true for whites - most whites are killed by other whites.

It's not exactly a handful. There is a very real problem of unfair treatment of people of color by the justice system.

Regarding the issue of "female privilege", no doubt it exists. I find that "female privilege" and "men's rights" are more of a counter-movement or terms used to disparage feminism rather than a serious area of academic study. I am not saying that there aren't legitimate grievances mind you, there are. In fact, there are some very serious areas of institutional sexism in favor of women. Funnily enough, feminism is concerned with that area as well, not that you're likely to hear about that if you hang out in circles that take "men's rights" seriously.

[PointOfViewGun]

That's correct, it does not. How would one quantify the attitude of the offender in court in order to control for it? I'd say that knowing that they did not tells us next to nothing. Maybe black males on average had a worse attitude in court than white males. Maybe females of all races had on average a better attitude in court than white males. It's possible it could skew the data, but that gap to make up is several times greater between females of all races and white males than it is between white males and black males.
From the report:
Female privilege:
As soon as you use an absolute like "any black man" you are certainly wrong. An absolute can be disproven with a single counter example. Whereas, you're using anecdotes (from a statistical perspective) to support claims regarding overarching demographic trends. That would be two logical flaws back to back.
I'm agnostic regarding the cause(s) of the moderate statistical difference in sentences between white males and black males, but I do note the hypocrisy in anyone who who would simultaneously dismiss the disparity between females and males which is several times greater. For example, the gap between black females and white males is several times greater than between white males and black males, so certainly it's not all about race. I got the impression it was being suggested that there may be valid reasons females receive such lower sentences, maybe so, but then why act as if it's unthinkable that the same could be true for different categories of males on a statistical level?
Regarding fatal shootings:
Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings
Do White Law Enforcement Officers Target Minority Suspects?

I wouldn't really label your approach as agnostic, more like pedantic that is geared to create confusion. Instead of making clear arguments you point at passages that vaguely touch upon the subject. Of course, you seem to be picking from openly biased articles. One for example, starts from making the point that the perception of African Americans being lethally targeted by white cops is a result of recent shootings, which is laughable at best. It's a study that weeps bias, not one of evil nature though, just one of incompetence or lack of interest. Whats interesting though is that in your attempt to create question marks on my statements you seem to have posted contradicting quotes. In any case, you take a statement and try to frame it in a particular parameter that you'd feel comfortable. This topic is just one that is very hard to create statistics on since reliable data itself is not common. The sheer amount of examples, however, show us that something is clearly not right.

Quantifying court behavior is not really impossible. They could look at court recordings to figure that out. They seem to be quantifying a lot of qualitative factors anyways. For criminal history, if you read the rest of those pages you quoted you realize that they were looking at a very small time frame with a very simplistic take on their criminal history.

[mongrel]

The main reason your attempt failed is that I have zero interest in defending Nazis. Mostly because they did unspeakable damage to Europe..

You do realise these were people who murdered millions to keep Greater Germany white? Any other movements that kill for a similar objective?

[sumskilz]

I wouldn't really label your approach as agnostic, more like pedantic that is geared to create confusion. Instead of making clear arguments you point at passages that vaguely touch upon the subject.

I'm not sure you understand the word "agnostic" if you think I should be making a clear argument from an agnostic position.

Of course, you seem to be picking from openly biased articles.

Peer-reviewed studies published in academic journals are too biased for you, eh?

PNAS is the second most cited scientific journal of all time, and Public Administration Review is the highest ranked journal in its category, so we're talking pretty mainstream here.

They seem to be quantifying a lot of qualitative factors anyways.

Such as?

For criminal history, if you read the rest of those pages you quoted you realize that they were looking at a very small time frame with a very simplistic take on their criminal history.

I don't consider the criminal history of everyone sentenced nationwide during 2016 to be an insignificant data point, but I'm curious as why you're so intent on discrediting the study irontaino posted as evidence of alleged judicial bias against blacks.

Are you really arguing that we can trust the moderate disparities in sentencing it identified between white males and black males while we should be suspicious of the much more significant disparities in sentencing it identified between females of any race and white males? Both were arrived at using the same data set and the same methodology by the same researchers.

Either the data and the methodology are reliable or they aren't. If one wants to take the middle ground, and assume the data and methodology are at least partially accurate, then the support for the proposition that males are discriminated against relative to females is much more robust than the conclusion that black males are discriminated against relative to white males. One can believe both propositions are true and be logically consistent. One can believe neither proposition is true and be logically consistent. One can believe that males are discriminated against but blacks are not discriminated against, and be logically consistent. But one cannot argue that blacks are discriminated against but males are not discriminated against and still be logically consistent.

[The spartan]

Female privilege.

Women definitely have social privilege as well, not having to submit to the military draft is another one I can think of. Thing is, these privileges are different and not always equatable. It could be argued, for example, that over 100 years ago women had social privilege in the sense that society put greater emphasis on protecting them ('women and children first' and such) especially in public. It was just that, they also had little chance at becoming a political leader or picking a desired career choice or any number of things that society strongly discouraged them from doing. Which privilege would you rather have?

[Common Soldier]

This would be relevant if we were talking about media bias, but we are pointing out institutional bias inherent in the justice system on the basis of race. Nobody is dismissing the egregiousness of shootings perpetrated by Blacks, or the abundance of black-on-black violence, but that's really not the point.

But is there the institutional bias in the system as claimed? The fact that there are more black murders in prison does not prove institutional bias, but reflects the reality that blacks simply commit more murders, which is supported by the fact the murder rates in predominately black communities are equally higher in comparison to predominately white communities. There made be racial bias, but not necessarily in the judicial system.

Yes, the poor in general can't afford to higher the high class lawyers to get them off, but that applies to the white poor and the black rich. Rich African Americans, like OJ Simpson, can afford to higher better lawyers, just like rich whites, and are more likely to get off. That is not racial, even though because the average African American is poorer it is likely to affect them more. And there is definitely a bias when applying prosecution for hate crimes. Blacks are very seldom prosecuted for hate crimes, no matter how savage the attack, as in the case of Cannon Christian and Christopher Newson. The same was true for murder like that of Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudlab.

The fact is that statistically, blacks kill more whites than whites killed blacks, yet the murders by blacks are very seldom called hate crimes. That is a definite bias in the system, but opposite of what you think. In 2011, Blacks killed 648 whiltes, but whites killed only 193 blacks. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...e-data-table-6. If anything, it indicates that blacks are far more likely to be guilty of hate crimes, not less.

And while the President of the United States did not become involved in the killing by a black neighborhood watchman Roderick Scott of a white student, the President did become involved in the killing by a white Hispanic neighborhood watchman of a black student, which indicates a bias the other way around, possibly. If we are using anecdotal accounts to justify of a claim of bias in the justice system, an argument could be made the other way. And if you are using statistical data, they you need to include all the factors, not just those that support your view.

I agree, 50 years ago, there was definitely a bias, but that was 50 years ago. it is like comparing the US of 1850 to that of 1900, there were are a lot of changes. Black juries are just as likely to acquit black defendants of crimes against whites as white juries are to acquit white defendants of crimes against blacks.

PS - I was mistaken about a white paraplegic man being shot by the police, the man was an amputee armed with a pen. https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/23/us/te...ing/index.html.

[Love Mountain]

But is there the institutional bias in the system as claimed? The fact that there are more black murders in prison does not prove institutional bias, but reflects the reality that blacks simply commit more murders, which is supported by the fact the murder rates in predominately black communities are equally higher in comparison to predominately white communities. There made be racial bias, but not necessarily in the judicial system.

You would be correct if we only focused on raw outcomes. For example, why do African Americans get arrested for marijuana rates at far higher rates despite similar levels of use? Why are black jurors removed at much higher rates than white jurors? There are countless examples of institutional racism against African Americans that go beyond social context.

Yes, the poor in general can't afford to higher the high class lawyers to get them off, but that applies to the white poor and the black rich. Rich African Americans, like OJ Simpson, can afford to higher better lawyers, just like rich whites, and are more likely to get off. That is not racial, even though because the average African American is poorer it is likely to affect them more.

Why are you bringing up anecdotal evidence? I am not implying that the justice system is unable to produce different outcomes regardless of race, i.e. it may favor Blacks over Whites in some cases, but as a rule, statistically, it is prejudiced against minorities. We can also control for income disparities when analyzing the data.

And there is definitely a bias when applying prosecution for hate crimes. Blacks are very seldom prosecuted for hate crimes, no matter how savage the attack, as in the case of Cannon Christian and Christopher Newson. The same was true for murder like that of Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudlab. The fact is that statistically, blacks kill more whites than whites killed blacks, yet the murders by blacks are very seldom called hate crimes. That is a definite bias in the system, but opposite of what you think. In 2011, Blacks killed 648 whiltes, but whites killed only 193 blacks. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...e-data-table-6. If anything, it indicates that blacks are far more likely to be guilty of hate crimes, not less.

That's not a table of hate crimes, that's a table of homicide in general. Blacks have far higher poverty rates than Whites, which helps explain why the homicide numbers are similar. The rates are higher for Blacks, but they also suffer from, as mentioned, institutional racism, gangs, etc. The data shows that Blacks suffer more from hate crimes and that whites are more likely to be the offenders of hate crimes. And we can go on, 48.6 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Black or African American bias,

And while the President of the United States did not become involved in the killing by a black neighborhood watchman Roderick Scott of a white student, the President did become involved in the killing by a white Hispanic neighborhood watchman of a black student, which indicates a bias the other way around, possibly. If we are using anecdotal accounts to justify of a claim of bias in the justice system, an argument could be made the other way. And if you are using statistical data, they you need to include all the factors, not just those that support your view.

Studies and analyses that show a bias, typically eliminate other factors to the best of their ability. I'm also not sure why you keep bringing up anecdotal evidence. I'm arguing the opposite, careful examination of statistics should be used to make a conclusion. I'm also not obligated to show evidence to the contrary, I do my best to give an honest picture, but your earlier evidence isn't really evidence to the contrary.

I agree, 50 years ago, there was definitely a bias, but that was 50 years ago. it is like comparing the US of 1850 to that of 1900, there were are a lot of changes. Black juries are just as likely to acquit black defendants of crimes against whites as white juries are to acquit white defendants of crimes against blacks.

Jim Crow laws were in effect until 1965, where do you think a lot of the justice system was formed and written? You think we did a systematic purge of everything racist when the Voting Rights Act was passed? Don't be silly.

[Common Soldier]

You would be correct if we only focused on raw outcomes. For example, why do African Americans get arrested for marijuana rates at far higher rates despite similar levels of use? Why are black jurors removed at much higher rates than white jurors? There are countless examples of institutional racism against African Americans that go beyond social context.

You.keep making the same claims without any real facts to back them up. What real evidence do we have the shows that there are comparable drug use of marijuana amnog blacks and whites? The same studies that try to show racism, and so could be less than objective? In any case, marijuana has been legalized in many cases. When people complained about cop profiling drivers and pulling blacks over, what was never mentioned is the percentage of times the cops found something when they pulled over the drivers. Also, I have already pointed higher income people ofnall races are less likely to get convicted due to being able to afford better lawyers.

And maybe black jurers are more likely to have potential bias, they are more likely to have a relative in jail, or a criminal record themselves, or somethingsomething thing else that might legitimately disqualify them. More blacks do have a police record, or have a close relative that has one, so statistically that alone would lead to more black jurers being rejected. Tell me why, on the OJ Simpson trial was there only one white jurer at the end? And tell me, did whites riot when OJ Simpson was acquitted for murdering 2 whites? The blacks certainly did when the cops were acquitted for merely beating Rodney King, which did not even leave permanent injuries. Unlike the poor white t uck driver who just happened to be in the the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe whites can be counted on to be more even handed and judge the case on its merits rather than on racial rhetoric. It was not whites doing the rioting in LA when the verdict didn't go the way they wanted, it was blacks.

And name a major case where the black offender was charged with hate crimes, no matter how horrific the crime?

hey is it only the alleged white offenders get charged with hate crimes, and seldom the black offenders, no matter how horrific the crime. You dismiss the the fact that blacks murder whites as twice the rate whites murder black. Why is it when a white murders a black it is proof of racism, but not the reverse? e.
.

Why are you bringing up anecdotal evidence? I am not implying that the justice system is unable to produce different outcomes regardless of race, i.e. it may favor Blacks over Whites in some cases, but as a rule, statistically, it is prejudiced against minorities. We can also control for income disparities when analyzing the data.

The FBI crime statics for 2011 is not anecdotal, and is more data than you ever provided so far. Based on the murder rate of whites by blacks, to high is twice the rate of blacks by whites, we should be more concerned about the killings by blacks than whites, so why are you interested in the reverse? Instead making assertions provide some actual facts, which you are not doing.

And I clearly explained the use anecdotal evidence, which was the counter the anecdotal evidence is that is constantly brought up when the case is the reverse, for example the Trayvon Martin shooting. If anecdotal evidence counts tlfor the black shootings, then it should equally count for the reverse case. IYou are willing to use anecdotal evidence when it suits your purpose, and then complain when I bring counter examples you don't like.

That's not a table of hate crimes, that's a table of homicide in general. Blacks have far higher poverty rates than Whites, which helps explain why the homicide numbers are similar. The rates are higher for Blacks, but they also suffer from, as mentioned, institutional racism, gangs, etc. The data shows that Blacks suffer more from hate crimes and that whites are more likely to be the offenders of hate crimes. And we can go on, 48.6 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Black or African American bias,

That is because of bias, and political correctness, the police refuse to call crimes committed by blacks as hate crimes. And your argument is typicsl bias. There are e more poor white people than blacks, so if the argument you made was valid, then white should still commit more murders than blacks, even if their rates were lower. But they don't. Blacks kill more in absolute numbers than whites, which means poverty cannot be the reason for the difference, otherwise whites would have killed significantly more than blacks, since their are more poor white persons in absolute numbers. Once again, the facts don't support your claims, and you haven't provided any actual facts to support your assertions. I am sure if you search hard enough you wi find some paper that will try to manipulate the data and make the claim, the but the real data doesn't support you.

Studies and analyses that show a bias, typically eliminate other factors to the best of their ability. I'm also not sure why you keep bringing up anecdotal evidence. I'm arguing the opposite, careful examination of statistics should be used to make a conclusion. I'm also not obligated to show evidence to the contrary, I do my best to give an honest picture, but your earlier evidence isn't really evidence to the contrary.

Once again, no actual studiss. I am sure that you can find some liberal scientist who will have a study that makes that claim, but that doesn't mean they are right. The FBI data contrary to your repeated is not anecdotal, and the evidence shows, that even factoring in poverty, blacks commit more murders at a much higher rate. Firther, the crime and murder rates are highest in black cities, where the majority of the population and the government is black, the areas where blacks would be least likely exposed to racism. In black cities with black mayor and city government, and a larger percentage blacks police force with a black police chief. You would expect lower violence rate, but that is not the case. In New York City, where the city is not predominately black, and the mayor and head of that police white (mostly), you would expect blacks to be more exposed to racism and have a higher rate of murder among blacks, but that is not the case. The facts don't support your claim

Jim Crow laws were in effect until 1965, where do you think a lot of the justice system was formed and written? You think we did a systematic purge of everything racist when the Voting Rights Act was passed? Don't be silly.

And the Jim Crow laws were never in effect in places like Detroit, which has one of the highest murder rates in the country. Most people in the US were not alive in 1965. The Justice system in Chicago and Detroit were not formed in the South and under the Jim Crow laws. Once again, the actual facts don't support you, but you don't actually have any facts. Just assertions. Sing saying something does not make it so.

[Common Soldier]

While it institutional racism has been repeatedly claimed and there are scientific studied to back that up, I have yet tonsee those studies presented on this thread.

And given the highly political nature of science when it comes to racial claims, even when those studies are presented it does not mean they are correct. Scientist are often wrong, especially in a subject as highly piticized as this.

The facts are these:

1. If poverty were the primary cause of the black higher murder rate, then in absolute numbers of murders.we should see whites commiting significantly more, but at a lower rate, but is not what we see. Both in absolute numbers and per capita, blacks commit far more murder.

2. If the Jim Crow laws were a primary factor, then we should see a significantly lower murder rate in places where the Jim Crow laws never existed. Places like Chicago and Detroit. But that is not the case

3. If racism was the primary cause, then we would expect lower murder rates in places that had black mayors, black police chiefs, and black judges, but that is not the case. Detroit had black mayors, black police chiefs, black judges yet one of the nation's highest murder rates.

[Aexodus]

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...-POTF-15-Vote!

POTF 15 is up for voting

[Love Mountain]

You.keep making the same claims without any real facts to back them up. What real evidence do we have the shows that there are comparable drug use of marijuana amnog blacks and whites? The same studies that try to show racism, and so could be less than objective? In any case, marijuana has been legalized in many cases. When people complained about cop profiling drivers and pulling blacks over, what was never mentioned is the percentage of times the cops found something when they pulled over the drivers. Also, I have already pointed higher income people ofnall races are less likely to get convicted due to being able to afford better lawyers.

How does being able to afford a better lawyer doesn't have much to do with them being pulled over in the first place? You're accusing me of not posting any "real facts" to back my claims up, but may I ask what constitutes a "real fact" to you? To backtrack, here are the things I've already posted, which address the things you say, by the way; A U.S. Department of Justice report on Police Behavior during Traffic and Street Stops (dated 2011), A Vox article showing that African Americans are still arrested at higher rates than White people for marijuana even after legalization of marijuana. The article cites a Drug Policy, an pro-legalization organization, [URhttp://www.drugpolicy.org/legalization-status-report]report[/URL] on marijuana arrests after marijuana legalization. I also cited a report by University of Michigan's College of Law on jury selection which found that race was a significant factor in challenges to jury selection. In particular, there was a massive disparity for Black jurors. Does this not "real facts?"

We know that Blacks and Whites use marijuana at similar rates thanks to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Table 1.32B. The agency is in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. You were also asking about how often cops "found something" when they pulled drivers over. First of all, conviction rates do not prove that there is no racism. If a system is racist, it will convict more Black people, that's kind of the point. Second, the rates of being ticketed are actually similar, yet minorities are pulled over at a higher rate. The implication is obvious, but fairly weak in either direction. The main point of the DoJ report, is that minorities are pulled over at a higher rate.

And maybe black jurers are more likely to have potential bias, they are more likely to have a relative in jail, or a criminal record themselves, or somethingsomething thing else that might legitimately disqualify them. More blacks do have a police record, or have a close relative that has one, so statistically that alone would lead to more black jurers being rejected. Tell me why, on the OJ Simpson trial was there only one white jurer at the end? And tell me, did whites riot when OJ Simpson was acquitted for murdering 2 whites? The blacks certainly did when the cops were acquitted for merely beating Rodney King, which did not even leave permanent injuries. Unlike the poor white t uck driver who just happened to be in the the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe whites can be counted on to be more even handed and judge the case on its merits rather than on racial rhetoric. It was not whites doing the rioting in LA when the verdict didn't go the way they wanted, it was blacks.

And name a major case where the black offender was charged with hate crimes, no matter how horrific the crime?

hey is it only the alleged white offenders get charged with hate crimes, and seldom the black offenders, no matter how horrific the crime. You dismiss the the fact that blacks murder whites as twice the rate whites murder black. Why is it when a white murders a black it is proof of racism, but not the reverse? e.

Why would the juror's experience with the justice system, make them unfit for jury duty? The main goal of a jury is to be unbiased towards the defendant or the accuser. Their own criminal record, or experience with the justice system is fairly irrelevant. So if a Black juror has a relative in jail, he is suddenly predisposed against a defendant in a property damage case? Here's an NYT article describing some of the reasons for why a Black juror was striked out,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here are some reasons courts have found sufficient: the prospective juror had bad posture, was sullen or talkative, was religious or not, lived in a poor part of town or wore a beard.

It takes some work, then, for a prosecutor to lose a Batson challenge. Mr. Evans may be up to the task.

At Mr. Flowers’s first trial, in 1997, Mr. Evans struck all five black prospective jurors. The resulting all-white jury convicted Mr. Flowers and sentenced him to death, but the Mississippi Supreme Court overturned the conviction, citing “numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct” unrelated to jury selection.

At the second trial, in 1999, Mr. Evans again tried to strike all five black prospective jurors. But the trial judge found that the reasons Mr. Evans had offered for striking one of them were demonstrably false, violating Batson.

It's not easy to see a problem here. Moreover, the report I referenced earlier, had this to say about your "something somethings that might might legitimately disqualify them".

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"We were able to collect individual-level descriptive information for a significant portion (1,753/7,421) of all the venire members in the study.35 The demographic profile of this random sample strongly resembled that of the complete study population. Even after controlling for other factors potentially relevant to jury selection, a black venire member had 2.48 times the odds of being struck by the state as did a venire member of another race. In other words, while many factors one might expect to bear on the likelihood of being struck did matter, none–either alone or in combination—accounts for the disproportionately high strike rates against qualified black venire members."

I don't know why OJ Simpson's jury ended up having the racial profile that it did, but what did I tell you about anecdotal evidence? This article references Wisconsin vs Mitchell, which convicted a Black man for beating up a White teenager. I dismissed the statistic you brought up because they are not categorized as hate crime. I also didn't say that Whites murdering Blacks is proof of racism. In fact, I can't recall when I ever said such a thing.

The FBI crime statics for 2011 is not anecdotal, and is more data than you ever provided so far. Based on the murder rate of whites by blacks, to high is twice the rate of blacks by whites, we should be more concerned about the killings by blacks than whites, so why are you interested in the reverse? Instead making assertions provide some actual facts, which you are not doing.

And I clearly explained the use anecdotal evidence, which was the counter the anecdotal evidence is that is constantly brought up when the case is the reverse, for example the Trayvon Martin shooting. If anecdotal evidence counts tlfor the black shootings, then it should equally count for the reverse case. IYou are willing to use anecdotal evidence when it suits your purpose, and then complain when I bring counter examples you don't like.

I brought up the same FBI crime statistics... specifically, hate crime statistics. I also brought up reports on arrest disparities (despite similar occurrence of marijuana use), the inconsistencies in the justice system, and traffic enforcement. I'm also not accusing Whites of murdering Blacks. I'm pointing out the inconsistencies in the justice system that provide strong evidence of institutional racism.

I also didn't bring up Trayvon Martin, you did, in this post. Why don't you show me where I brought up anecdotal evidence? Please, show me the exact post number in this conversation where I brought up an isolated incident as evidence of a wider trend.

That is because of bias, and political correctness, the police refuse to call crimes committed by blacks as hate crimes. And your argument is typicsl bias. There are e more poor white people than blacks, so if the argument you made was valid, then white should still commit more murders than blacks, even if their rates were lower. But they don't. Blacks kill more in absolute numbers than whites, which means poverty cannot be the reason for the difference, otherwise whites would have killed significantly more than blacks, since their are more poor white persons in absolute numbers. Once again, the facts don't support your claims, and you haven't provided any actual facts to support your assertions. I am sure if you search hard enough you wi find some paper that will try to manipulate the data and make the claim, the but the real data doesn't support you.

To echo your next paragraph, where is the evidence? Where is a report or field work that shows bias, political correctness, or other similar circumstances of ignoring Black hate crimes? I'm also unsure how to tackle your next sentence. I already said that Black on Black crime (the majority of murders for Blacks) are a problem. But you do realize that you can have institutional racism in the justice system as well as very high murder rates by Blacks? The two are not mutually exclusive.

Once again, no actual studiss. I am sure that you can find some liberal scientist who will have a study that makes that claim, but that doesn't mean they are right. The FBI data contrary to your repeated is not anecdotal, and the evidence shows, that even factoring in poverty, blacks commit more murders at a much higher rate. Firther, the crime and murder rates are highest in black cities, where the majority of the population and the government is black, the areas where blacks would be least likely exposed to racism. In black cities with black mayor and city government, and a larger percentage blacks police force with a black police chief. You would expect lower violence rate, but that is not the case. In New York City, where the city is not predominately black, and the mayor and head of that police white (mostly), you would expect blacks to be more exposed to racism and have a higher rate of murder among blacks, but that is not the case. The facts don't support your claim

What about the studies and reports I already brought up? There are also more factors than poverty, like gang affiliation. Nor did I claim that Blacks don't commit more murders in general. Why don't you show me these statistics that you are referencing? And please, do avoid using anecdotes.

And the Jim Crow laws were never in effect in places like Detroit, which has one of the highest murder rates in the country. Most people in the US were not alive in 1965. The Justice system in Chicago and Detroit were not formed in the South and under the Jim Crow laws. Once again, the actual facts don't support you, but you don't actually have any facts. Just assertions. Sing saying something does not make it so.

Michigan's Bar Association says this,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Under the 1885 Michigan Civil Rights Statute, racial discrimination in public places was unlawful. The statute was not enforced, however, until African-American dentist Emmett Bolden in 1925 asked for seating on the main floor of Keith's Theatre, then standing on this site. The theatre's refusal led to a landmark 1927 decision of the Michigan Supreme Court.

A small but prominent middle class African-American community made its presence felt in Grand Rapids after World War I, but was denied equal rights of access to and use of many public places. Such discriminatory practices were known nationally as "Jim Crow."

Emmett Bolden's attorney was Oliver Meakins Green, the first African American elected to the Grand Rapids Bar Association. Green, working with the NAACP, targeted as his challenge to "Jim Crow" Keith's Theatre's practice of allowing black citizens to sit only in the balcony.

In 1927 the Michigan Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision in favor of Keith's Theatre, with Chief Justice Nelson Sharpe writing that "the public safety and general welfare of our people demand that, when the public are invited to attend places of public accommodation, amusement, and recreation, there shall be no discrimination among those permitted to enter because of race, creed, or color. (The Civil Rights Statute) is bottomed upon the broad ground of the equality of all (persons) before the law."

Placed by the State Bar of Michigan and the Grand Rapids Bar Association, 1995.

[Love Mountain]

While it institutional racism has been repeatedly claimed and there are scientific studied to back that up, I have yet tonsee those studies presented on this thread.

And given the highly political nature of science when it comes to racial claims, even when those studies are presented it does not mean they are correct. Scientist are often wrong, especially in a subject as highly piticized as this.

The facts are these:

So you'd rather claim that there is no racism despite evidence to the contrary because "Scientists can be wrong?"

1. If poverty were the primary cause of the black higher murder rate, then in absolute numbers of murders.we should see whites commiting significantly more, but at a lower rate, but is not what we see. Both in absolute numbers and per capita, blacks commit far more murder.

I'd say poverty is one of the main factors, and Whites do commit plenty of crime, so I'm not sure what your point here is. Referencing poverty does not mean that there aren't any other factors.

2. If the Jim Crow laws were a primary factor, then we should see a significantly lower murder rate in places where the Jim Crow laws never existed. Places like Chicago and Detroit. But that is not the case

We don't know what the primary factors are, we can only cite that Jim Crow legacy is a factor, rather than the factor. In addition to that, institutional racism and Jim Crow practices existed in place like Chicago and Detroit.

Jim Crow in the North, "The North was not immune to Jim Crow-like laws. Some states required blacks to own property to vote, schools and neighborhoods were segregated, and businesses displayed “whites only” signs. After World War II, suburban developments were created that did not allow black families, and blacks often found it difficult or impossible to obtain mortgages for homes in certain “red-lined” neighborhoods."

3. If racism was the primary cause, then we would expect lower murder rates in places that had black mayors, black police chiefs, and black judges, but that is not the case. Detroit had black mayors, black police chiefs, black judges yet one of the nation's highest murder rates.

Source?

[TheLeft]

It's a damn shame Basil's been perma-banned. Although he was as mad as a box of frogs, I always had a good laugh at his threads. I'll miss his weird rants...

[mongrel]

It's a damn shame Basil's been perma-banned. Although he was as mad as a box of frogs, I always had a good laugh at his threads. I'll miss his weird rants...

Simon Cashmere was funnier. He seems to have vanished mysteriously, just as Eurabia became unfashionable and Islamophobes switched to hostility to migrants in general.

Here is arguably his greatest work...............



https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...onquering-Rome

[Love Mountain]

Truly, Ive seen some wild on the Mudpit over the years. How do you even manage to remember this stuff mongrel? What’s the stupidest thing Ive ever said?

[95thrifleman]

He used Jihadwatch as his citation?

[mongrel]

Truly, Ive seen some wild on the Mudpit over the years. How do you even manage to remember this stuff mongrel? What’s the stupidest thing Ive ever said?

Most Islamophobic material is just copy and paste guff, utterly forgettable , but Simon was different, at his best he was truly the Comical Ali of the counter-Islam movement.

You may be pleased to know that I don't recall you saying anything I could describe as 'stupid'. I think that goes for most people.


Каие officially designated the thread 'an abomination'. Still cracks me up.

[irontaino]

Man, that's a throwback. Spamming paranoid Eurabia threads is out, spamming paranoid white genocide threads is in.

[Aexodus]

At least with basil gone it isn’t.

[95thrifleman]

Basil was the David Irving of our time to be sure.

The problem is Basil was just an extreme symptom of a wider problem. The rise of extremist thought and action on both sides of the political spectrum is worrying.