https://youtu.be/jQ_0bqWKO-k

(July 13, 2016 at 8:45 pm)Bella Morte Wrote:

(July 13, 2016 at 6:46 pm)Irrational Wrote: How you feel is no determinant of what is true. Unlike infowars.com, researchers usually test their hypotheses, and hence why we have a number of studies on modern racism.

Yeah, black people can be racist, particularly against other black people. But why ask anyway? Did you just want to feel better about yourself by being told by a leftist bastard like me that black people can be racist?

Wait, what?

Quote:But why ask anyway?

Because there are morons out there who genuinely believe blacks can't be racist and he was making sure you weren't one of them. Is he not allowed to ask you fucking questions now?

Look up internalized racism if you don't get it.

And as for your other point, context. Perhaps they're using a different definition of racism. But either way, so what? White privilege is real regardless.

(July 14, 2016 at 6:58 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(July 13, 2016 at 8:45 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: Wait, what?


Because there are morons out there who genuinely believe blacks can't be racist and he was making sure you weren't one of them. Is he not allowed to ask you fucking questions now?

 White privilege is real regardless.

Can you define that?

(July 14, 2016 at 6:22 pm)BrokenQuill92 Wrote: https://youtu.be/jQ_0bqWKO-k

Did you watch this A theist?
I'd like to hear your what you think and if it changed your mind a little.

(July 14, 2016 at 7:55 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(July 14, 2016 at 6:58 pm)Irrational Wrote:  White privilege is real regardless.

Can you define that?

I don't have to define it personally. Just Wikipedia it.

(July 15, 2016 at 1:23 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(July 14, 2016 at 7:55 pm)A Theist Wrote: Can you define that?

I don't have to define it personally. Just Wikipedia it.

Lol. "I don't have to explain what I mean, wikipedia can tell you." Like white privileged is some universally agreed upon thing and the ultimate answer is on wikipedia of all places. This is probably my Atheist forums pet peeve. I'm pretty sure he wants to know what you mean by it. Not the editors of wikipedia.

(July 15, 2016 at 1:34 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(July 15, 2016 at 1:23 pm)Irrational Wrote: I don't have to define it personally. Just Wikipedia it.

Lol. "I don't have to explain what I mean, wikipedia can tell you." Like white privileged is some universally agreed upon thing and the ultimate answer is on wikipedia. This is probably my Atheist forums pet peeve.

It's going to be pretty much the same as what Wikipedia says. I read the article earlier. So if they want to know what definition I stick to, it's in there.

(July 13, 2016 at 8:43 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(July 13, 2016 at 6:47 pm)abaris Wrote: Which is also a totally untrue statement, so no need to even ask. According to official statistics. Blacks and Whites commit crimes at roughly the same rate (Which by the way I won't look up for the ones talking out of their asses here. They can very well do their own homework). So, go figure, if there's a little bit of an agenda, apart from Infowar being the tinfoil or tinfoils when it comes to news.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr...verviewpdf

According to these statistics black people commit more than the percentage of their population by what I would call a significant degree in every crime except driving under the influence and liquor laws, both of which they make up 13% or 12% of the arrests.

Some of the arrests are as high as 48% for murder and 54% for robbery.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/fact...rime/19439

The cities with the highest murder rates are 

1) East st Louis.  Black population 97%
2) Chester PA.    Black population  74.7%
3) St Louis MO  Black population 46.9%
4) Gary IN        Black population 84.8
5) Detroit         Black population 82%

Compared to some demographics from the cities with the lowest crime rates 

1) Irvine CA  Asian population 45%  White 50%
2) Arlington County,   63.8%white  9.9% asian   8.9%black.
3)Gilbert AZ   81% White.   15% Hispanic  3% black   4% asian.
4) Fremont CA   50% Asian   32% White   3% Black
5) Henderson NV   80% White



The argument against this as we've established firmly in this thread is that the cause of this could be down to over policing of black neighborhoods (even though people say the police are also racist for under policing black neighborhoods aswell) and racial profiling and racial stereotypes.

But then if this was so then you'd expect the places listed above as the lowest crime rate places in America to secretly be hell holes, if it's just the case that the police are secretly letting all these Asians and white people get away with murder, rape and robbery.  I don't know because I don't live in any of these 5 towns but they seem to get quite good reviews as being safe places to live.

I could understand if you were to say white people and black people commit the same amount of crime if you control for certain factors like income, education, IQ, upbringing.

I'd like to finish off the post by saying that I don't want to make any harsh, fast, un thoughtful statements based on looking at the FBI statistics and the demographics but there is some sort of pattern that could suggest black people do commit more crime.  
Not saying that it isn't because of poverty or whatever though.

I have a question with regards to the stats that have been put up. Do you have statistics for the number of crimes committed by Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indian (Indian sub-continent) and Native Indians and Hispanic? It would be good to see the difference because just like black communities, they stick to their own groups. If this is the case, then how come (only guessing....  ) the arrest rates are lower with regards to other groups of ethnic minorities. Suffice to say, this is just not American statistics either, but European too. I would be greatly interested. 

https://youtu.be/uKj6PxBCdpM

(July 15, 2016 at 1:38 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(July 15, 2016 at 1:34 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Lol. "I don't have to explain what I mean, wikipedia can tell you." Like white privileged is some universally agreed upon thing and the ultimate answer is on wikipedia. This is probably my Atheist forums pet peeve.

It's going to be pretty much the same as what Wikipedia says. I read the article earlier. So if they want to know what definition I stick to, it's in there.

The wikipedia article is very long, includes several different eras several different countries, white privledge as viewed by everything from Marxists to feminists to critiques of white privilege to deny it's existence. So you can't 'just read the what wikipedia says' since it gives different and sometimes contradictory points of view. Which is exactly what most wikipedia articles do and is the whole point of wikipedia.  What it doesn't do is give some magic, handy universal definition. You can't say 'I agree with wikipedia' Wikipedia doesn't agree with itself. It gives an overview of different points of view about it. That's why it's my pet peeve on here. You are basically telling someone else to do your research for you. You'd think that you would at least be able to narrow it down to the section that you agreed with.


By the way, this has nothing to do with my views on white privilege, which I think for sure exists and I wrote a bit about in the thread on white privilege.