Blacks Make up 13% of the American Population But Commit Half of the Murders

[The Lonious Monk]

Someone mentioned Inteligence Squared in my TED Talk topic. I checked it out and watched this debate.
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/policing-racially-biased

It's about Police Racial bias. You guys should check it out. Basically, they had two black people saying there is racial bias, and two white people saying there wasn't. At the end of the debate the whites were declared the winners. Now, all of us might look at it as bullshit, but honestly I see why they win. For some reason, our people just aren't good at refuting the BS. For those that don't watch, the white side stood solely on the fact that most violent crimes are committed in black and brown neighborhoods. They brought numbers. The black debaters did a good job of presenting historical and modern context, but they did a bad job of shooting down the numbers. They tried, but their attempts weren't strong enough and they lost the debate. I'm not saying they are dumb, but the people who take on these issues have to get smarter. Whenever numbers pop up, they falter and wither, and in this society, people won't really take your side serious if you can't provide number to support your side or at least shoot down he numbers on the other side.

racial bias is hard to prove in the context of a debate

if you were one of the blk debaters what numbers would have you presented? or what would you have done differently?

Yeah, I agree that it would have been hard to prove racial bias with number, but they could have really shredded the other side of the argument.

1) The "Against" side based their argument almost exclusively on homicide numbers. Homicides make up a very small proportion of total crime statistics. The "For" side acknowledged this, but they didn't hammer the point home. The Against side was basically introducing a bias into the debate because they essentially cherry picked the data that fit their narrative and ignored the data that didn't, even though that data is far more representative of crime as a whole. For example, drug arrests are far more common than homicide arrests, and those arrests show clearly that minorities are arrested at a higher level for those crimes despite doing them at similar rates to white people. The Against side didn't even deny it. They just said homicides are more important, but the debate isn't "Homicide investigations are racially biased." It's "Policing is racially biased" so their stance is actually very weak.

2) Their whole argument rests on the idea that black and brown neighborhoods have more crime so it makes sense those areas get more attention, and there is no bias. Well, that's problematic and I'll get to that, but the obvious counter to that is that blacks and browns are disproportionately harassed by cops even when not in black and brown neighborhoods. For instance, when it comes to shootings, data shows there is no correlation between police shootings and crime rate. Why are blacks being racially profiled or shot in low crime areas if the only reason that blacks get more attention is because they are in high crime areas? The answer is that the actions of police obviously are not dictated solely by the crime rates in the area.

3) The most damning to me is that the Against side basically conceded the entire debate from the beginning. They essentially argued from the start that "Yeah, there is some racial bias, but its justified because blacks and browns are more biased." The woman even went as far as to say that the unfair treatment blacks and browns receive is the cost of living in high crime areas. In other words, she flat out admitted that blacks and browns are treated differently than whites, so she conceded that policing is racially biased.

Anyone of those points would have completely destroyed the Against side because it would have destroyed the whole foundation of their argument.

 

[Ajackson17]

Someone mentioned Inteligence Squared in my TED Talk topic. I checked it out and watched this debate.
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/policing-racially-biased

It's about Police Racial bias. You guys should check it out. Basically, they had two black people saying there is racial bias, and two white people saying there wasn't. At the end of the debate the whites were declared the winners. Now, all of us might look at it as bullshit, but honestly I see why they win. For some reason, our people just aren't good at refuting the BS. For those that don't watch, the white side stood solely on the fact that most violent crimes are committed in black and brown neighborhoods. They brought numbers. The black debaters did a good job of presenting historical and modern context, but they did a bad job of shooting down the numbers. They tried, but their attempts weren't strong enough and they lost the debate. I'm not saying they are dumb, but the people who take on these issues have to get smarter. Whenever numbers pop up, they falter and wither, and in this society, people won't really take your side serious if you can't provide number to support your side or at least shoot down he numbers on the other side.

racial bias is hard to prove in the context of a debate

if you were one of the blk debaters what numbers would have you presented? or what would you have done differently?

Yeah, I agree that it would have been hard to prove racial bias with number, but they could have really shredded the other side of the argument.

1) The "Against" side based their argument almost exclusively on homicide numbers. Homicides make up a very small proportion of total crime statistics. The "For" side acknowledged this, but they didn't hammer the point home. The Against side was basically introducing a bias into the debate because they essentially cherry picked the data that fit their narrative and ignored the data that didn't, even though that data is far more representative of crime as a whole. For example, drug arrests are far more common than homicide arrests, and those arrests show clearly that minorities are arrested at a higher level for those crimes despite doing them at similar rates to white people. The Against side didn't even deny it. They just said homicides are more important, but the debate isn't "Homicide investigations are racially biased." It's "Policing is racially biased" so their stance is actually very weak.

2) Their whole argument rests on the idea that black and brown neighborhoods have more crime so it makes sense those areas get more attention, and there is no bias. Well, that's problematic and I'll get to that, but the obvious counter to that is that blacks and browns are disproportionately harassed by cops even when not in black and brown neighborhoods. For instance, when it comes to shootings, data shows there is no correlation between police shootings and crime rate. Why are blacks being racially profiled or shot in low crime areas if the only reason that blacks get more attention is because they are in high crime areas? The answer is that the actions of police obviously are not dictated solely by the crime rates in the area.

3) The most damning to me is that the Against side basically conceded the entire debate from the beginning. They essentially argued from the start that "Yeah, there is some racial bias, but its justified because blacks and browns are more biased." The woman even went as far as to say that the unfair treatment blacks and browns receive is the cost of living in high crime areas. In other words, she flat out admitted that blacks and browns are treated differently than whites, so she conceded that policing is racially biased.

Anyone of those points would have completely destroyed the Against side because it would have destroyed the whole foundation of their argument.

Dope

 

[5th Letter]

I'm supposed to take this article serious, when they claim BLM is "divisive"? That tells me all I need to know.

 

[Swiffness!]

I'm supposed to take this article serious, when they claim BLM is "divisive"? That tells me all I need to know.

word. you know what's also "divisive"? GOVERNMENT AGENTS EXECUTING PEOPLE'S KIDS.

 

[5th Letter]

I'm supposed to take this article serious, when they claim BLM is "divisive"? That tells me all I need to know.

word. you know what's also "divisive"? GOVERNMENT AGENTS EXECUTING PEOPLE'S KIDS.

That's not divisive. Telling them about themselves is divisive.

 

[Plutarch]

What are the stats on false accusations????

Spoiler

white women still pin false rape on black men in 2017...
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.theroot.com/texas-white-woman-jailed-after-lying-about-being-raped-1793558681&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwibytrO_8_UAhWD8YMKHUvpDqMQFggUMAM&usg=AFQjCNGkihjA4Bizs3ydPW8sbacPfQkmDQ

With all the history of false accusations of rape and black men in this country, this statistical data is immaterial.....

Good, fair point, but I wouldn't completely dismiss the stats because of this "irregularity." Of course, stats aren't indisputable and can be exploited.

Pretty much....

Another poster already pointed out the author's word choice and obvious bias.....

"Pretty much"? Not exactly sure what that means, but I respectfully disagree. That sounds fallacious.

Oh, and are you referring to the use of "liberal media," because that is the only "evidence" that I've heard of, and I would argue that I already refuted that point so far.

 

[Plutarch]

There just trying to put the blame on us.

Who, how, where, etc.? Yeah, some people are, but I don't think this author is. If you do, then feel free to explain.

 

[Plutarch]

How you goin to believe stats that aren't even demanded for every incident, and are allowed to be controlled by a racist system ?

I'm not even sure what this means. I'm not even sure whether it's really relevant. I think you're missing the point that I've been making over and over and over.

The point isn't so much about the stats themselves. It's about the cause of black crime and its alleged relationship to police brutality.

Like I first pointed out: just forget about the title; that's not what's important. That was just click-bait.

If you think the stats are false, all you have to do is provide evidence. I'm not sure if you have done this.

When Trump came in office, I seem to recall some article where he was threatening to remove funding from some statistics / census providing agency, not too sure about which one.

Do tell. I'm not exactly sure I understand the point you're making, though I have an idea.

If so, yes, stats can certainly be manipulated. I already acknowledged this obvious fact. But that doesn't mean that all stats are discredited and negligible.

Then there's the fact that police precincts are allowed to publish / not publish whatever they want.

There's a whole lot of reason why these numbers should be questioned.

Of course, they can and should be questioned. I welcome all forms of questioning. But questioning =/= disproving. You need to offer evidence. Otherwise, it's just circumstantial wishful thinking at best. But again, fuck the stats. That's not the point that's being made.

 

[Plutarch]

Where's the data/raw information from which these statistics were created? What hasn't been tracked, recorded, documented? What is the purpose of bringing it up?

Ohh, I didn't realize the original links in the original article didn't show up when I copied and pasted. If you click on the original article on the original post, then you can see the raw data with graph, charts, etc.

As for what is the purpose of bringing it up? Ugh, I've explained this several times already, including in the very first original post of this thread. I believe that the author is bringing up the statistic...fuck it, let me copy and paste:

As it's title suggests, the article's main argument seems to say that a/the primary cause of police brutality against blacks is not necessarily simply a result of racism (even though racism is a factor) but more so a result of the sheer propensity of crime within the black community (itself largely perpetuated by young blacks), which is itself a symptom of various elements of black history, black culture, and black poverty, among other factors.

Does that make sense? It seems clear to me. It's more nuanced than that. Please read the entire article objectively if you haven't already. I even bolded out the parts that were most important imo.

In this author's case, he's basically saying "yeah there's police brutality, but let's not act like blacks are innocent angels here; in fact, they are the most criminal group, so...."

Are you serious?? No, that's not what he's saying. That's such a bastardization of what he's saying that I can only guess that people are coming to that conclusion because they either haven't read carefully or their bias and projection is in the way.

When it comes to us and folks quantifying our apparent criminality, it'd be negligent of me not to thorougly question the intent, given our history.

Nothing wrong with that. In fact, skepticism is healthy, especially in this context. But again, questioning =/= disproving.

 

[Plutarch]

"This has led to the growth of a divisive movement – ‘Black Lives Matter’ – which has only served to further polarize America down racial lines, obsessing on skin color and invoking white guilt, while ignoring the true causes of and solutions to police brutality."

Yawn. The thing I hate most about white ppl reaction to BLM is this insulting idea that niggas wasn't complaining about police brutality until Ferguson. Cracker please.

Conservatives will make every damn excuse in the book for criminal white folks that bust they guns at Federal police in Ruby Ridge or Waco or a National Wildlife Refuge.......but legal gun owners like Corey Jones or Philando get no forgiveness or leeway and are blamed for their own murders.

They ain't slick

I agree what you've said here, but I don't necessarily see the quoted material from the article as implying or saying that black folk wasn't complaining about police brutality until Ferguson.

its between the lines

"the growth of a divisive movement" = "everything was fine until THESE niggers showed up"

Heh, sounds like a projection/reach to me. Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Plutarch]

I'm supposed to take this article serious, when they claim BLM is "divisive"? That tells me all I need to know.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that BLM is divisive, but I would say that BLM, like many if not all organizations, can be divisive. That almost seems self-evident to me.

Imo, like many others have argued, BLM itself is a debatable term. Are we talking about the founders of the organization? The followers? Affiliated groups? Etc.

 

[(Nope)]

There's the question do we commit more crime, or are the numbers a reflection of the fact blk ppl are disporpritonately targeted and arrested by the police

Yes, an important question, but your two potential answers aren't mutually exclusive. The obvious answer to me seems to be both, and both are backed by evidence. Both have a relationship with one another.

I believe the article makes this point and more.

Then a lot of cases end in plea deals regardless of a persons guilt because many ppl cannot afford adequate legal representation. Blk ppl especially

Yes, a very important point that is not nearly as emphasized as it should be. And this supports the argument that racism helps drives "black crime."

But i would argue you see more violence in blk neighborhoods more because the inhabitants are more disadvantaged, live in areas with high concentrations of poverty and less access to public services

If you control for deprivation, people of different races would be similarly predisposed to commit certain crime

Yes, I agree. Do you think I disagree? I believe that the article makes this same exact point.

I'm not going to source this right now, but I believe the statistic is that 92% of cases are plead out. For those that cannot afford to fight a case, fighting a case is made so difficult and so unappealing for both the defendant and their court-appointed attorney that the risk will outweigh the reward of going to trial.

Court appointed attorneys then become controlled opposition to a CJS that colludes with private entities to house the poor.

For a myriad of reasons--foremost among them being racism--black Americans are the most vulnerable to this process and the target demographic.

 

[Karl.]

I've met racists before obviously. Never really seen anything until I visited the US though.

In a bar this guy came up thanking me for Brexit(which I voted against) and saying how happy he was that Trump will finally be "Sending them niggers home".

He wasn't even discreet about it just openly racist. Apparently he was some local football hero too. Even seen white dudes openly calling each other "nigger/nigga". I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I know this is just some minor shit too.

Racism is on a whole different level in the US.

 

[farris2k1]

I've met racists before obviously. Never really seen anything until I visited the US though.

In a bar this guy came up thanking me for Brexit(which I voted against) and saying how happy he was that Trump will finally be "Sending them niggers home".

He wasn't even discreet about it just openly racist. Apparently he was some local football hero too. Even seen white dudes openly calling each other "nigger/nigga". I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I know this is just some minor shit too.

Racism is on a whole different level in the US.

Damn, how did you respond to that??

 

[Kwan Dai]

Someone mentioned Inteligence Squared in my TED Talk topic. I checked it out and watched this debate.
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/policing-racially-biased

It's about Police Racial bias. You guys should check it out. Basically, they had two black people saying there is racial bias, and two white people saying there wasn't. At the end of the debate the whites were declared the winners. Now, all of us might look at it as bullshit, but honestly I see why they win. For some reason, our people just aren't good at refuting the BS. For those that don't watch, the white side stood solely on the fact that most violent crimes are committed in black and brown neighborhoods. They brought numbers. The black debaters did a good job of presenting historical and modern context, but they did a bad job of shooting down the numbers. They tried, but their attempts weren't strong enough and they lost the debate. I'm not saying they are dumb, but the people who take on these issues have to get smarter. Whenever numbers pop up, they falter and wither, and in this society, people won't really take your side serious if you can't provide number to support your side or at least shoot down he numbers on the other side.

They are using faulty data which makes these types of a debates pointless and racists to begin with.

When law enforcement designate an area as high crime they don't do so using statistics. They do so based on race and maybe, maybe class. Black communities have always been designated as high crime, low moral, and uneducated. What the devil has done is, concocted statistics that justify their racism. Where 50-60 years ago they just flat out said it.

This is trash, masked as academia and politics.

According to their BS data. Blacks kill blacks at about 90+%. whites kill whites at about 80+%. I fail to see what the fucking difference is. The same violence being doled out by police toward Blacks should also apply to whites. And whites should see similar incarceration and conviction rates. Both numbers should be unacceptable. So, the fact that law enforcement believes there is more of an issue with Blacks committing crime is again white racists, racism and the inability to tell the truth.

Lastly. It's whites who have instilled this idea that murder is the most heinous crime. Some times murder is justified. I suppose only cops can justifiably commit murder. But I digress.

 

[D. Morgan]

I've taken a statistics class and what I remember the most was the teacher basically saying with the given numbers you can make the stats say whatever the fuck you want them to say.

Long story short fuck those stats!!!

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Someone mentioned Inteligence Squared in my TED Talk topic. I checked it out and watched this debate.
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/policing-racially-biased

It's about Police Racial bias. You guys should check it out. Basically, they had two black people saying there is racial bias, and two white people saying there wasn't. At the end of the debate the whites were declared the winners. Now, all of us might look at it as bullshit, but honestly I see why they win. For some reason, our people just aren't good at refuting the BS. For those that don't watch, the white side stood solely on the fact that most violent crimes are committed in black and brown neighborhoods. They brought numbers. The black debaters did a good job of presenting historical and modern context, but they did a bad job of shooting down the numbers. They tried, but their attempts weren't strong enough and they lost the debate. I'm not saying they are dumb, but the people who take on these issues have to get smarter. Whenever numbers pop up, they falter and wither, and in this society, people won't really take your side serious if you can't provide number to support your side or at least shoot down he numbers on the other side.

They are using faulty data which makes these types of a debates pointless and racists to begin with.

When law enforcement designate an area as high crime they don't do so using statistics. They do so based on race and maybe, maybe class. Black communities have always been designated as high crime, low moral, and uneducated. What the devil has done is, concocted statistics that justify their racism. Where 50-60 years ago they just flat out said it.

This is trash, masked as academia and politics.

According to their BS data. Blacks kill blacks at about 90+%. whites kill whites at about 80+%. I fail to see what the fucking difference is. The same violence being doled out by police toward Blacks should also apply to whites. And whites should see similar incarceration and conviction rates. Both numbers should be unacceptable. So, the fact that law enforcement believes there is more of an issue with Blacks committing crime is again white racists, racism and the inability to tell the truth.

Lastly. It's whites who have instilled this idea that murder is the most heinous crime. Some times murder is justified. I suppose only cops can justifiably commit murder. But I digress.

The bold is my problem. We can't just say "their stance is racist so debating them is pointless." We have to be able to explain why their point is bad. Too few of the people who represent us are incapable of doing that. You understand the ins and outs of the data because you have reason to dig deeper and refute it. The average white person in that audience doesn't have the same motivation. So when the white chick spits out a bunch of numbers, and the black chick shakes her head in disgusts and makes a bunch of faces, but ultimately can't refute the numbers in a cogent manner, our side loses. Also, keep in mind, that the scoring for this debate wasn't based on which side had more supporters from the audience. The scoring was determined by which side produced the most people switching over. In other words, it wasn't that more people believed the Against side. The problem was that the Against side was better able to sway people over to their side. That's important to acknowledge.

 

[Kwan Dai]

Someone mentioned Inteligence Squared in my TED Talk topic. I checked it out and watched this debate.
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/policing-racially-biased

It's about Police Racial bias. You guys should check it out. Basically, they had two black people saying there is racial bias, and two white people saying there wasn't. At the end of the debate the whites were declared the winners. Now, all of us might look at it as bullshit, but honestly I see why they win. For some reason, our people just aren't good at refuting the BS. For those that don't watch, the white side stood solely on the fact that most violent crimes are committed in black and brown neighborhoods. They brought numbers. The black debaters did a good job of presenting historical and modern context, but they did a bad job of shooting down the numbers. They tried, but their attempts weren't strong enough and they lost the debate. I'm not saying they are dumb, but the people who take on these issues have to get smarter. Whenever numbers pop up, they falter and wither, and in this society, people won't really take your side serious if you can't provide number to support your side or at least shoot down he numbers on the other side.

They are using faulty data which makes these types of a debates pointless and racists to begin with.

When law enforcement designate an area as high crime they don't do so using statistics. They do so based on race and maybe, maybe class. Black communities have always been designated as high crime, low moral, and uneducated. What the devil has done is, concocted statistics that justify their racism. Where 50-60 years ago they just flat out said it.

This is trash, masked as academia and politics.

According to their BS data. Blacks kill blacks at about 90+%. whites kill whites at about 80+%. I fail to see what the fucking difference is. The same violence being doled out by police toward Blacks should also apply to whites. And whites should see similar incarceration and conviction rates. Both numbers should be unacceptable. So, the fact that law enforcement believes there is more of an issue with Blacks committing crime is again white racists, racism and the inability to tell the truth.

Lastly. It's whites who have instilled this idea that murder is the most heinous crime. Some times murder is justified. I suppose only cops can justifiably commit murder. But I digress.

The bold is my problem. We can't just say "their stance is racist so debating them is pointless." We have to be able to explain why their point is bad. Too few of the people who represent us are incapable of doing that. You understand the ins and outs of the data because you have reason to dig deeper and refute it. The average white person in that audience doesn't have the same motivation. So when the white chick spits out a bunch of numbers, and the black chick shakes her head in disgusts and makes a bunch of faces, but ultimately can't refute the numbers in a cogent manner, our side loses. Also, keep in mind, that the scoring for this debate wasn't based on which side had more supporters from the audience. The scoring was determined by which side produced the most people switching over. In other words, it wasn't that more people believed the Against side. The problem was that the Against side was better able to sway people over to their side. That's important to acknowledge.

Dude. Debating them is pointless. They have created the rules and have come up with the data. The deck is already stacked. White people that need numbers to empathize, sympathize with the Black experience in America are at worst racists and at best supporters of White Supremacy. You don't need data when history has been recorded, reported and lived...

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Dude. Debating them is pointless. They have created the rules and have come up with the data. The deck is already stacked. White people that need numbers to empathize, sympathize with the Black experience in America are at worst racists and at best supporters of White Supremacy. You don't need data when history has been recorded, reported and lived...

Who is they? You're doing the same dumb shit white people do to us. You're treating them as a monolith. Not every white person promoter of racism out of maliciousness. A lot of them promote it out of ignorance because they literally don't know any better. For some reason that I don't quite understand, blacks seem to think that whites see things the way we do and just reject the truth. They don't. White people don't live our lives or face our experiences, so they can't possibly see things our way until we show them

It's not about white people needing numbers to empathize or sympathize. It's about them needing numbers to believe that the problem is what we say it is. How is it that so many people on here like to shoot down anecdotal evidence for the debates we have on this site, but then want to act like anecdotal evidence is all white people should ever need to believe us. The bold is the exact problem with why we can't get our point across. The Against side didn't deny the history. They acknowledged it, but said that the present was better because of the numbers. Those numbers are part of the reporting too. And white people haven't lived our experience, so there is no reason for them to automatically believe that experience is true. Absolutely nothing is served by taking up this stance where we dismiss anyone who doesn't instantly jump on our bandwagon. Frankly, that sentiment makes no sense at all. There are racists that will never be swayed, but acting like every like every white person who needs proof is a racist is just silly and counterproductive.

 

[Kwan Dai]

Dude. Debating them is pointless. They have created the rules and have come up with the data. The deck is already stacked. White people that need numbers to empathize, sympathize with the Black experience in America are at worst racists and at best supporters of White Supremacy. You don't need data when history has been recorded, reported and lived...

Who is they? You're doing the same dumb shit white people do to us. You're treating them as a monolith. Not every white person promoter of racism out of maliciousness. A lot of them promote it out of ignorance because they literally don't know any better. For some reason that I don't quite understand, blacks seem to think that whites see things the way we do and just reject the truth. They don't. White people don't live our lives or face our experiences, so they can't possibly see things our way until we show them

It's not about white people needing numbers to empathize or sympathize. It's about them needing numbers to believe that the problem is what we say it is. How is it that so many people on here like to shoot down anecdotal evidence for the debates we have on this site, but then want to act like anecdotal evidence is all white people should ever need to believe us. The bold is the exact problem with why we can't get our point across. The Against side didn't deny the history. They acknowledged it, but said that the present was better because of the numbers. Those numbers are part of the reporting too. And white people haven't lived our experience, so there is no reason for them to automatically believe that experience is true. Absolutely nothing is served by taking up this stance where we dismiss anyone who doesn't instantly jump on our bandwagon. Frankly, that sentiment makes no sense at all. There are racists that will never be swayed, but acting like every like every white person who needs proof is a racist is just silly and counterproductive.

Recorded history is now anecdotal? FOH

You keep believing the trash you do. We can't get our point across because, the majority of White folks don't give fuck. And instead of being lazy pieces of trash and relying on numbers, if they TRULY cared they would volunteer in a Black community of their choosing to discover what the truth is. I am not indicting every white person but I damn sure indicting the overwhelming majority.