(April 12, 2021 at 5:31 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote:

(April 12, 2021 at 4:27 pm)brewer Wrote: Got a source on that?

I have a source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/

And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use...l_patterns

Oops, not a similar rate.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/fu...leUi=0&

Did you happen to read her notes? (#'s 3,4,5,6)

Quote:Nope. Not 13. Babies and old ladies and old men aren't doing the killing. It's usually males between the ages of 13 and 35 or something similar to that. Around 3 percent of the American population.

Edit- And lol at numeric hate symbols. Stats are not hate symbols. Sometimes hateful people bring up stats to justify their hatred. Big difference. The ADL is a crock of shit.

So no real objection to the source other then snark

---

(April 12, 2021 at 6:22 pm)brewer Wrote:

(April 12, 2021 at 5:31 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/fu...leUi=0&

Did you happen to read her notes? (#'s 3,4,5,6)

Not to mention the author clearly doesn't align with IA

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/202...lence.html

(April 12, 2021 at 6:23 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:

Quote:Nope. Not 13. Babies and old ladies and old men aren't doing the killing. It's usually males between the ages of 13 and 35 or something similar to that. Around 3 percent of the American population.

Edit- And lol at numeric hate symbols. Stats are not hate symbols. Sometimes hateful people bring up stats to justify their hatred. Big difference. The ADL is a crock of shit.

So no real objection to the source other then snark

---

(April 12, 2021 at 6:22 pm)brewer Wrote: Did you happen to read her notes? (#'s 3,4,5,6)

Not to mention the author clearly doesn't align with IA

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/202...lence.html

The ADL called Ilhan Omar anti-semetic when she said nothing close to anti-semetic. The ADL has no credibility whatsoever.

(April 12, 2021 at 6:33 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote:

(April 12, 2021 at 6:23 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: So no real objection to the source other then snark

---

Not to mention the author clearly doesn't align with IA

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/202...lence.html

The ADL called Ilhan Omar anti-semetic when she said nothing close to anti-semetic. The ADL has no credibility whatsoever.

One bad claim does not discredit a whole organization.

(April 12, 2021 at 6:36 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:

(April 12, 2021 at 6:33 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: The ADL called Ilhan Omar anti-semetic when she said nothing close to anti-semetic. The ADL has no credibility whatsoever.

One bad claim does not discredit a whole organization.

http://bostonreview.net/politics/emmaia-...t-it-seems

And does any of that address the specific article Rye Rye cited .....Oh, wait no. So it's irrelevant.

(April 12, 2021 at 6:43 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: And does any of that address the specific article Rye Rye cited .....Oh, wait no. So it's irrelevant.

The article didn't say anything. It just said racists post stats, therefore posting stats is racist. The one does not follow the other. Stats are neutral. Stats can not be hate symbols. Hateful people can use stats to try to make their side look better, but that doesn't make those stats hate symbols. They are not symbols. They are neutral stats, and it's not racist to bring up stats in and of itself. If you're doing it to say "look at these stats that show blacks are inferior or inherently violent", then that's when it becomes racist. The stats themselves are neutral. This is the same organization that says you have to sign off and give up your right to try to help Palestinians by taking part in BDS. This is the organization that wants you to lose your job because you want to help Palestine. The ADL is a despicable organization.

So in other words I was correct and your post is moot.

That may be the case, that stats in and of themselves aren't racist (at least assuming they're accurate and brought up in good faith.) The key question is why you're bringing it up and what you think you have to say about it. For instance, here's a statistic: "The average drunk driver drives under the influence more than 80 times before being arrested the first time." So, why am I bringing this stat up? Well, putting aside the fact that it was on the first result of my googling "random stat" (and was, indeed, the first in a list of 50), it would be reasonable to assume that, if this was being brought up in a conversation where it was actually relevant, it'd be easy to infer that I think the cops who deal with drunk drivers really need to up their game.

And as for the 13/50 (or 3/50, in your case) statistic, it's brought up quite a lot. So, 3% of the population commits 50% of the homicides. This time, the question raised is, in practice, not so much what to do but why? (Though depending on what their answer for "why" is, their answer for what to do about it is pretty easy to predict.) Ultimately, there's really only two answers for why: 1) America dropped the ball that fucking bad when they tried to re-integrate black people into society after slavery, and 2) black people (or, specifically, black males between the ages of 13 and 35) are just naturally like that. And while some people bring up the statistic and argue why #1 is the true answer, and Vaush has a pretty well-argued (if off the cuff) video about why this state of affairs happened to be:




But when it comes to bringing up the stat, voices like Vaush are very much the minority. When it's usually brought up, it's by people who think black people are just born that way. It's so well-known that it's become a fucking meme. And that meme is why the ADL has a page on it. While the Know Your Meme seems to focus more on the counter-meme about how ubiquitous the statistic is, you know, stuff like this,

It also includes a couple examples of the right-wingers who use it. And I'll post two to represent two different approaches to fixing the problem I see whenever I see right-wingers bringing it up.

The first approach: just do nothing. Maybe bring more cops in and police it even harder, but otherwise just do nothing and let the problem keep festering:

(Note, I don't know if this is a photoshop or if this is an actual thing Ben Shapiro did, but given how the mainstream right and the far-right have triangulated in recent years, I can't prove anything either way.)

Or the proactive approach, one that simply isn't pretty:


For the record, IA, I don't think it's likely you're going to endorse the "Destroy the 13% of the population" variety, but frankly, the version I think you've been endorsing (even if you do adjust it to point out that it's specifically black men of a certain age group and not the entire race) doesn't do much good and I think it helps embolden the latter. And just for the record, the ones I picked are the Milder ones.

Scientific racists are certain they can't be racists because scientific racism is just The Truth™, and how can the truth be racist. I always wonder how that happens. A person is just...normal....and then they hear the bigoted bill nye say numbers at them and bingo bongo, racists?