6,867 Forum Posts by "SadisticMonkey"
cue australian leftists saying crap like
- this is a result of minorities feeling 'marginalized' and 'without a voice' and that Australia needs to make more of an effort to fully embrace and accommodate those of different backgrounds blah blah
-this has nothing to do with islam and people are just being 'ignorant'
- [generally being more upset over the "racism" is reponse to the incident than over the incident itself]
- ham-fisted comparison of reponse to this incident and response to recent black deaths in america to prove that white people are racist and only care about white victims/colored perps
god white people are such a bunch of racist assholes
At 12/14/14 03:49 AM, naronic wrote: Here's the crux of the issue laid out on the table
among the color of crime's "major findings" was that "Police and the justice system are not biased against minorities"
So, not what I was talking about?
On average, blacks receive almost 10% longer sentences than comparable whites arrested for the same crimes. At least half this gap can be explained by initial charging choices, particularly the filing of charges carrying mandatory minimum sentences. Prosecutors are, ceteris paribus, almost twice as likely to file such charges against blacks"
Same goes for men relative to women, is the justice system sexist?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374804/
"Persons of color compose 60% of the incarcerated population. In 1996, Blacks constituted 62.6% of drug offenders in state prisons. Nationwide, the rate of persons admitted to prison on drug charges for Black men is 13 times that for White men, and in 10 states, the rates are 26 to 57 times those for White men. People of color are not more likely to do drugs; Black men do not have an abnormal predilection for intoxication. They are, however, more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for their use."
Most drug possession charge occur after arrest for other crimes and since blacks commit more of them, they're going to get found with drugs more often.
http://www.americanbarfoundation.org/uploads/cms/documents/correll.park.judd.wittenbrink.sadler.keesee.2007.pdf
Also can be found in the APA.
"Police officers were compared with community members in terms of the speed and accuracy with which
they made simulated decisions to shoot (or not shoot) Black and White targets. Both samples exhibited
robust racial bias in response speed. Officers outperformed community members on a number of
measures, including overall speed and accuracy. Moreover, although community respondents set the
decision criterion lower for Black targets than for White targets (indicating bias), police officers did not.
The authors suggest that training may not affect the speed with which stereotype-incongruent targets are
processed but that it does affect the ultimate decision (particularly the placement of the decision
criterion). Findings from a study in which a college sample received training support this conclusion."
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/
"As you can see, a person shot at by a police officer is more than twice as likely to be black as the average member of the general population.But, crucially, they are less likely to be black than the average violent shooter or the average person who shoots at the police.
We assume that the reason an officer shoots a suspect is because that officer believes the suspect is about to shoot or attack the oficer. So if the officer were perfectly unbiased, then the racial distribution of people shot by officers would look exactly like the distribution of dangerous attackers. If it’s blacker than the distribution of dangerous attackers, the police are misidentifying blacks as dangerous attackers.
But In fact, the people shot by police are less black than the people shooting police or the violent shooters police are presumably worried about. This provides very strong evidence that, at least in New York, the police are not disproportionately shooting black people and appear to be making a special effort to avoid it."
So look at your simulations all you want, in the real world it doesn't play out like that.
I'm not trying to attack you here, I'm trying to help you understand how to argue better. So everytime I scroll down the page I don't see paragraphs of unsupported statements, bad sourcing, with rude ad-hominems folded and sandwiched in between. It's really an eye sore.
Go fuck yourself you shit-eating cock-sucker.
As for your source, it really doesn't prove much of anything. You're clinging to one source out of many, better sources that disagree with it (and that I can cite just as easily),
None of which provide a jot of evidence to dispute the claim that black people don't commit more violent crime per capita than whites when controlling for socio-economic factors :^)
Unless you think that the FBI is wrong about its crime surveys?
This kind of report isn't peer-reviewed because no journal would publish it regardless of its validity because the outcomes are too politically incorrect and peer review is not about being fair or equal.
Now the broad category of "blacks" being referred to do commit more crimes on average. I'm not going to lie, there are large problems with the culture that certain African Americans surround themselves with- however what were looking at here is more of a feedback loop with extra variables. Different treatment by authorities coupled with different cultures surrounding blacks generally feed into the different behaviors that may, in turn, cause the different treatment. I don't think we should absolve either side.
1. If i was convinced the police and justice system had it in for me I would be trying particularly hard not to come into contact with them any more than I had to (i.e. not committing crimes). I certainly wouldn't go out and commit MORE crimes than other groups. But hey, I'm sure you think rational thought is eurocentric and racist.
2. The male/female violent crime gap is the same as the black/white violent crime gap. Men get profiled by police relative to women and get longer sentences and are more likely to get jail time for the same crimes. I guess this explains why men commit much more violent crime than women, and I guess this means that women have 'female privilege'.
3. For someone jerking off over peer-reviewed this and unsourced blah blah blah blah that, you're throwing around these 'cultural' explanations very liberally without a jot of evidence.
At 12/7/14 08:35 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Miami is a major city, and murders occur every day. I feel protected by the police. They may not be the best, but they provide peace of mind. If they accidentally murder a criminal every once in a while, I am okay with that.
Eric garner/ Mike Brown were not murdered, if thats what youre referring to.
At 12/6/14 09:19 AM, MonochromeMonitor wrote: The majority of TASER deaths are due to preexisting heart problems, which cops should definitely be more conscious of.
What the fuck?
Should they ask violent criminals who are attacking them whether or not they have a history of heart disease before tazing them?
New rule: If you have health problems that could be exacerbated by a physical confrontation with the police, don't do shit that causes a physical confrontation with police.
At 12/12/14 06:55 PM, naronic wrote: The color of crime is a booklet (not a study and most certainly not peer-reviewed or published in any journal of merit as places like Ncjrs are just reference services ) that was produced by Jared Taylor and has come under heavy criticism from everyone from Cambrage University to the Southern Poverty law center.
The southern poverty law center is nothing to bolster one's arguments with. Who "peer reviews" them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Century_Foundation#Criticism
"In The new white nationalism in America: its challenge to integration (Cambridge University Press, 2002), Carol Miller Swain observed that the New Century Foundation faxed conclusions from the publication to major US newspapers, and that its stated purpose was to support the practice of racial profiling.[10]"
Criticizing its alleged motivations, not its statistical methodology. Its motivations do not make it any more biased than an organization publishing a report showing blacks commit less crime in order to oppose racial profiling would be.
"The Southern Poverty Law Center called it "a kind of Bible" among its supporters but has argued that the reason for the disparity in crime rates shown in the publication is not Black genetics, but rather, the fact that Blacks have a lower socioeconomic status."
The report controls for crime rates on the basis of income, education and employment and blacks still commit disproportionate amounts of crime so this criticism is complete garbage.
" that whites still account for the majority of crime in the United States"
Not per capita, and ESPECIALLY not when you control for the fact that hispanics are lumped into the white category for perpetrators (see below).
" and that part of the reason blacks are over-represented for many crime categories is their neighborhoods are generally much more heavily policed and black suspects are significantly less likely to be acquitted or released with a warning. "
idiot
the color of crime uses data from the fbi crime victimization survey which is based on reported crimes, NOT convictions.
"The book also uses statistical data to argue that blacks are actually over-represented as victims of interracial violence per capita (arguing blacks are 50% more likely to be victims of interracial violence than pure chance would predict) and that overall white criminals pose the greatest threat to white Americans and black criminals pose the greatest threat to black Americans.[12]"
NOPE, Tim Wise ignores (or should that be "ignores" ?) the fact that the FBI lumps in Hispanics with whites for perpetrators but gives hispanics their own category as victims.
Therefore, if a hispanic attacks another hispanic, white interracial violence perpetrators increases by one and hispanic interracial crime victims increases by one too, even though there was nothing interracial about the incident, nor did it involve any white people.
It's not a source I'd throw my money behind.
If these are the best 'criticisms' that can be mustered against it then I'd say there's probably something to it.
instead try and sample from peer reviewed journals
Peer-reviewed journals would never publish such findings regardless of their statistical validity.
At 12/13/14 07:22 PM, Light wrote:At 12/12/14 07:48 PM, AKMan2 wrote: I think today in our country, there is "black can do no wrong" attitude when that is surely not the case. Black people contribute just as much to the racial divide as whites.lmao
White people are the ones who want to be colorblind and not treat people on the basis of race. Black people oppose this and call it racist and who want racially-based policies to benefit them relative to whites. They're the ones who see a black person being killed (after attempting to murder a police officer) as an attack on their entire race and hold nationwide protests about it but ignore the fact that >90% of interracial violence in black on white, or even claim that its justified or white people's fault. Black people support a racial divide because the government treating everybody the same regardless of race will lead to blacks coming out on the bottom.
Heck, white people being racist to blacks in america is so rare that black people have to fabricate instances of it.
why would their core demographic change
for fucks sake
neither trayvon martin, michael brown nor eric garner were murdered and all three cases went at least before a grand jury, its just that he disagrees with the outcome. in fact, far from "no legal recourse", there was more of it than there would have been had the victims been white. If some fat white guy had a heart attack after the cops pulled him to the ground while he was resisting arrest, that's the last you would have heard of it. If some little white turd decided to beat the shit out an hispanic neighborhood watchman for following him and was killed in the process, Zimmerman would have probably been considered the victim who was bravely standing up against white male racism.
Differences in incarceration rates are meaningless unless you look at differences in rates of crime perpetration, and as it happens black men commit much more crime than white men or any other group.
Blacks are more likely to be involved in street dealing of drugs, and most possession charges occur after arrest for another crime, which again blacks commit more of to begin with.
Blacks get longer sentences but this is meaningless without comparing to average no. of prior convictions which, you guessed it, is higher for blacks because of the previously mentioned higher crime perpetration rate.
But no, I'm sure this is part of some grand conspiracy to keep the black man down o lawdy!!!
Eric garner was saying he couldn't breath probably because he was having a heart attack, and shortness of breath is one of the main symptoms. He was NOT in a chokehold or headlock when this occurred.
If you want to talk about racism, why not mention the fact that blacks commit more murders than all other races combined and blacks attacking whites accounts for ~90% of interracial violence in America. Why the fuck should we give a shit about black people when they clearly don't give a shit about white people. They'll hold nation wide protests accompanied by rioting and looting because ONE piece of shit got killed whilst attacking a cop for no reason, but never say boo about all the white people killed, raped, assaulted and robbed by black people each day in america.
(And before you say it, I don't give a shit if all of these black perpetrators went to jail for these crimes (even if it were true), because at the end of the day, people are still dead, raped, injured and so forth.)
This guy is a massive faggot and I think conservatives who see this video will be more motivated by it (against his message) than progressives will.
At 12/12/14 09:18 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: This is the kind of thing that can happen to anyone in this country.
Surprise surprise... it is a black man...
oh okay then
At 12/12/14 09:51 PM, MrPercie wrote:At 12/12/14 08:17 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: demonstrates how the british are a bunch of culturally-sucidal ethnomasochistsYeah I know, its almost as if you got to take risks rather than relying on tradition to get around these days.
what the fuck are you talking about
At 12/12/14 01:20 PM, Chozz wrote: Ha, Farage is hated over here.
demonstrates how the british are a bunch of culturally-sucidal ethnomasochists
At 12/11/14 07:52 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Let's stay on topic please. I'm happy to talk with you about on topic points, but I'm not helping you derail a thread.
No, really, why do you only care about americans?
At 12/11/14 07:26 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: But yeah, an angry, ornery crowd is the last place where you want your car to suddenly stop working.
Which is why I was in admiration of hte fact that he managed to get through and that he risked it at all in the first place given that anybody with half a brain would know that his bloody corpse would be dragged through the streets if they got a hold of him.
At 12/11/14 09:37 PM, Newgaf wrote: You don't even know what I think about the different parts of the altercation, and all you do is presume that you do, then attack those presumptions.
if you dont think what it seems you think then you're saying some really dumb things that dont make much sense to bring up
At 12/11/14 07:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote: First off, the only indication that we can make it that Brown was attempting to take Wilson's gun.
Attacking a police officer out of the blue and attempting to take his firearm is damn good indication if ever there was one. And if we say that it's uncertain, what on earth was Wilson supposed to think? Oh look at this joker, playing a silly prank on me very funny. People have been shot by police for a LOT less.
What Brown intended to do with it is 100% unknown and we have no evidence to say what he would have done with it at all. He may have used it to threaten Wilson to allow him to leave. He may have taken it and thrown it away. He may have attempted to shoot Wilson. He may have attempted to carjack wilson.
It doesn't matter. You take a cops gun, you've armed yourself and disarmed a cop. The cop is jsutified in doing essentially anything at this point, and its only reasonable that they would, especially after being attacked by somebody. What he was "actually" intending to do with it is 100% irrelevant.
What ever abels we can put on Brown are 100% irrelevant.
I didn't give him labels. The other poster implied that Wilson should have acted differently because he was 18 years old (either that or he forgot other irrelevant details like what color socks Brown was wearing) and I'm saying that Brown gave Wilson every indication that he posed a lethal threat to him.
Whether or not Brown was a thug or a sweetheart, whether he was a person who harms or was harmless, whether he was Hitler or the second coming of Jesus, is 100% irrelevant.
Except if your name is George Zimmerman.
So stop saying "Well, Brown was a thug, therefor it's OK that he was shot."
I DIDN'T SAY THAT OR ANYTHING LIKE IT
I said Brown's actions towards Wilson made it clear that he intended to harm Wilson regardless of Brown's relatively young age. The other poster was the one who wanted special treatment for an irrelevant factor.
At 12/11/14 08:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: First off, don't use a reply to me to screw with cam or anyone else. Go do that in a reply to them. Thanks.
Your initial post to me was to my reply to cam in the first place though!
Next, you make a lot of statements about black people that are inflammatory and you seem to think they are somehow inherently inferior or defective as a group so....yeah, I don't all the way agree with what Cam says, but I don't think he's totally off the mark either.
I think black people's lower socio-economic outcomes in America and abroad are largely the result of themselves. I've never even implied they cause most of the world's problems.
Thanks for proving my point. You are impossible to talk to about this like so many others because you make blanket statements that the other side is unwilling to talk and pre-suppose all their arguments and then dismiss them. The problem with such statements is what I pointed out earlier, if I can find even one person from that group that proves you wrong, the assertion falls apart. I'm progressive, I'm willing to have a serious discussion about race, but you don't seem to want to do that. You'd rather just insult those that disagree with you instead.
https://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=white+people+need+to+shut+up&gws_rd=ssl
No, there is absolutely fucking not an interest in having a 'conversation'. It's precisely what I said it was: whites being told why they're wrong until they're browbeaten into submission.
Enlighten me then, maybe without being an ass.
How about taking 3 goddamn seconds to do a google search yourself?
I just searched shorter jail sentence white privielge and the first result that happened to appear was this article from the daily kos which is an extremely popular progressive website. From the article:
Q: White privilege. The way that society just hands people like you a better experience in everything you do in life than people like me. Less suspicion. Shorter jail sentences. The way you're never asked to speak on behalf of your race as a group. The way you can walk into a crowd of people and not be met by silence.
And please, for the love of god, do not inform that this is a joke article. I know that, but the description of white privilege is clearly meant to be in earnest.
source for your gap is non-existent claim.
http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html
Caught a headline in the NY Post the other day where cops had to shoot a killer after trying to talk to him and get him to surrender.
Eric Garner was choked to death because he was talking to some people after breaking up a fight and they alleged he was selling cigarettes.
For fucks sake. Eric garner was not choked to death. Force was used to apprehend him, not for talking to people or selling cigarettes, but because he physically resisted arrest (which the police NEVER tolerate) and this resulted in him having a heart attack. Not only was he absolutely fucking not 'choked to death', his death was in no way whatsoever intentional.
But it could also be those cops were better trained then the ones confronting Garner.
B-b-but that doesn't aid the narrative though!
Seriously, link to this stuff if you're going to use it to make a point. And anyway shooting someone is intentionally killing them, unlike garner's death.
Because they are, all minorities are.
Chinese people are?
Yeah, it is. Because the man represents a clear and realistic potential for threat based on factors that are easy to quantify. The example with blacks isn't so much because that is purely down to racial profiling and stereotyping. If you honestly don't understand that, I don't know how we'll find any common ground to work from.
It has nothing to do with size differences or whatever, it's to do with rates of attacks. If men raping women was virtually unheard of, women wouldn't be afraid of men raping them unless a man gave some clear indication that he was going to. Women fear men raping them because it happens on a regular basis and there is a not insignificant chance it will happen to them.
As I've already said, the black/white violent crime gap and the male/female violent crime gap are the same! That's the reason racial profiling exists.
It is, it's just not considered reliable, but it exists.
Well then don't use it.
No the fuck it isn't man! men are more likely to be criminals.
SO ARE BLACK PEOPLE, that's the fucking point.
http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html
There are legit reasons for the woman to be nervous about the man, there's none that aren't based on prejudice for the white man to be afraid of a black man. It's apples to oranges.
Any given black man is more likely to attack you than any given white man, so being more worried about black men is perfectly rational. What's so hard to understand about this?
It doesn't? Then you clearly don't pay attention.
Sorry, how do people allegedly crossing the road to avoid black people explain them committing more crime or going worse in school, exactly?
I was too. You seem to have just zeroed in on the cop example.
You mean the only example you gave?
Source?
http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html
It however does go towards the way you debate and how honest it is.
The fact that one of the few things he listed was so OBVIOUSLY wrong as an example of white privilege goes towards the concept of white privilege being a load of crap.
It's pretty well proven so....I'd say it graduated to "theory" by now.
What? Is it really proven? Because that would require data showing that illegitimacy was equal for all races controlling for poverty or whatever other factors you mentioned.
dictionary.com didn't have it.
It does, and the fact that 'falsify' comes up when you search for it (rather than 'we couldnt find that word') should have indicated that it will not be listed as a main entry but would be included at a lower level.
http://i.imgur.com/ZhxMGSG.png
Guess I should have double checked.
Well here I was expecting an English speaker to know basic english words.
My bigger issue with is is that it cuts really close to proving a negative.
Do you even understand what falsifiability is all about? Do you understand why hypotheses must be falsifiable?
We're talking about race relations in the US in this topic, so to me it shouldn't just be about whether or not white privilege exists or not. I see that as a very small (perhaps even insignificant) part of the larger discussion.
The post I was replying to was explicitly about white privilege and my goal was to refute the points associated with the post. So unless you or cam want to disavow the concept of white privilege, it doesn't make sense to talk about it unless you're going to bring up something new.
At 12/11/14 08:55 PM, Warforger wrote: I did. It started with him saying that Hunter-gatherer societies were better for the individual and then you wanted to start talking about economics seeming to imply that good economy = happy people.
No, it didn't you fuckin idiot.
We were talking about why Africa was poorer and less advanced than Europe, and colonization was blamed. I'm saying that colonization made them wealthier and more advanced. If you had actually read my post you would have said that this was true "even if you oppose it for non-economic reasons" i.e. I wasn't actually making a value judgement on the desirability of colonization.
That isn't really a good way to characterize colonization. It was more of get rid of or how to use the Africans to get to the minerals.
I'm talking about the problems faced in Africa after colonization. Genocide and civil wars were caused by europeans in the sense that the creation of centralized government and the provision of access to european technology enabled them to be carried out, but it still required blacks to be violent in the first place. It was not due to the malice of european settlers.
No that's not even a correlation.
No, it really is.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18162
Also notice when Europeans go to a completely unindustrialized country and actually stick around that it becomes as wealthy or wealthier than Europe? Like America, Australia, canada, new zealand...And? Who cares?
Who cares? How could my point be any more obvious?
If colonization made countries worse off in the way spongebob whoever said it does then australia should be extremely poor and miserable. Instead, it has one of the highest standards of living in the world.
Some countries have been getting worse others better. India is certainly getting better since Britain left, Myanmar hell no.
India is getting better due to access to western technology, and so all countries should expect to be getting better over time. British India had better trends though and were better rulers than the indians have been.
At 12/11/14 06:57 PM, Newgaf wrote: I would have been like in the video games; wound him and get points for live capture, and probably an Achievement.
get the fuck outta here
Simply not true. Page 226 of the testimony script describes a chase before the kid supposedly decided to go balls out and Wilson. Ergo, he was fleeing, literally, and what I said is completely literally correct.
He wasn't fleeing when he was shot, and he wasn't shot for fleeing. Given that, it's stupid to bring up the fact that at one stage he was fleeing. Might as well say that "OK I think that 18 year old walking on the road is subdued." because he was doing that at one stage.
I didn't imply that at all. Maybe you feel you can't make your point without putting words in my mouth? Maybe you were set on the whole list thing, and realized a list of two just looks unprofessional.
You said: "OK I think that fleeing 18 year old is subdued."
Why say this then? If he was only shot at whilst still running towards Wilson then there was no error in judging when Brown was in fact subdued.
I guess. I'd much rather have to take down an 18 year old than a 40 year old, but that's just me, and probably most other people on the planet.
I'd much rather have to take down the average 40 year old than Brown. Are you saying that Brown should have reacted differently because of Brown's age (which I would contend would not have been easily discernible given Brown's size)?
Also note that in all likelihood Brown had just attempted to murder this police officer so it's dumb to act like this was someone harmless little kid.
What an embarassing performance from Brand.
At 12/11/14 08:44 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:At 12/11/14 07:51 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsTPvmDV67sIf it weren't for their door being locked, that driver would have had his head kicked in. What a jackass.
hahahaha flawless victory
you know his actions not his story
also assuming the driver is a male is sexist
At 12/11/14 04:55 PM, Newgaf wrote: Does anybody care that Wilson fired his gun 12 times?
No. If someone is charging towards you and will make contact in a few seconds you shoot and keep shooting until they aren't charging towards you any more. Not all 12 shots even hit Brown, which is why listing the number of shots fired isn't even meaningful on its own.
OK I think that fleeing 18 year old is subdued.
1. He wasn't fleeing, unless he was running backwards, because the shots hit the front of Brown and Brown fell forward after being shot.
2. The shot location shows that wilson stopped shooting brown once he had fallen over, so the implication that brown was shot after going down is complete bogus.
3. Why do you mention he was 18. He was a young adult male who was tall and heavy and so he's among the most dangerous demographics of people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsTPvmDV67s
hahahaha flawless victory
At 12/8/14 08:18 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Good on the chap for working the system and using ... Americans fixation on "Fascism" as a means to score deals and save money cause god know the Government steals enough wealth from the people.
What a positively bizarre definition of fascism you must have.
theres a thread for this
At 12/6/14 11:39 AM, GrizzlyOne wrote: American culture at least from what I've seen is definitely entitled, but not in that vein of what you're speaking of at all. I know people who work 3 or 4 jobs and are still poor or lower middle class. That's silly.
Number of jobs is not meaningful as opposed to total number of hours worked.
At 12/1/14 09:08 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Great for them! What I'm talking about is people who don't have that option for one reason or another. Be it choices they made, having things thrust upon them, or just plain being in an area with no industry and opportunity and therefore not the economic means or ability to dig out. What about them?
This describes billions of people in the world. Should be provide assistance to them too? If not, why not? Why are Americans more valuable to you than anyone else in the world? Are you an 'American nationalist' or something?
At 12/6/14 02:28 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: It's generalizations like this that make it hard to take you seriously. Because it's easy enough to just go find some blacks and progressives who don't agree and then the whole generalization is shot. It's also the exact rhetoric of those who want to deny racism exists at all that result to that. That's why there is never a productive discussion about these issues really, each side begins from a defensive stance and will give no ground to the other.
Funny how you don't say the same to camarohusky for his idiotic claim that I "blame black people for all the world's problems".
That's both sides of the line as I just pointed out. When neither side is willing to agree to the most basic principles of fact as being such, no solutions can be reached. That's a problem with any charged discussion in this country these days it seems.
No, it's not. Non-progressives largely are willing to talk about race. progressives believe that white people "don't get to decide what's racist or not" and other such garbage that excludes them from the discussion.
Or they'll just shake their head because saying the word "privilege" conveys a positive benefit, while yes, being incarcerated less time is positive....your still incarcerated and punished so....not even close to what people are talking about when they claim things like 'white privilege' exist. You've got a false analogy on your hands here.
No, you really don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
The fact that white people receive less jail times than blacks is literally claimed to be an example of white privilege (even though the gap is non-existent when you control for previous crimes).
I mean, look at the example camaro gave. Blacks being racially profiled by police.
Men are profiled by police too, so your understanding of privilege is junk.
Not at all. Again with false analogy and equivalency.
No, it's not. Women will be more scared of men walking behind them at night than women, which is clear example of anti-male bias.
Then you don't know black people. There's tons of anecdotal evidence from just about any black person in the history of ever who can talk about a white person who either crossed the road to avoid them, looked at them funny simply because they're black, or made some sort of reflexive fear based reaction if they see two or more of them together and coming towards them. It's just how the world is.
Anecdotes are not evidence, and once again the same can be said about how women treat men.
And more importantly it doesn't explain how this affects black outcomes.
There's a generalization that I can blow apart with anecdotal. The area I live in is predominantly racist. I know plenty of white racists. The NJ chapter of the KKK has it's headquarters 20 minutes down the road from me. White cops harrass blacks all the time in my area. You're as full of shit as the straw man "progressives" you rail against.
"that's a generalization that I can refute with a specific and questionable example".
I'm talking about social interactions, not what some racist cops who may or may not exist do.
And once again, blacks commit more violent crime than anyone so receive more police attention, just like how males get more police attention than women for the same reason. Guess either the people crying about 'racism' or the prople crying about 'sexism' must be wrong because their narratives are colliding.
Once again, you only pick out something that you feel agrees with your argument and ignore all other indicators, especially the indicators put forth in the piece your responding to.
1. I don't have all day to refute everything he says so i refuted the most obviously false one.
2. Pointing out that i didn't address everything he said doesn't mean that my refutation was invalid.
Would you like to know why? Poor education, higher poverty, all those things that have been mentioned before as being a greater problem for non-whites.
That's one hypothesis.
That isn't a word.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfalsifiable
u illiterate brah?
Why don't they make the same decisions I wonder? This is again, a problem with the argument. You say these things, then don't seem to have an inclination to figure out WHY it is this way.
No, I don't mention my views on WHY because that's a different discussion. We're talking about white privilege, which is meaningless if the decisions aren't the same. The basis for decisions is a different topic.
