(April 28, 2016 at 7:35 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: @ Paul Pablo, yes, I know 90 is more than 80.
My point was that the only reason there are more attacks on white people is because 80% of the population are white. The fact there's almost as many on black people when 80% of the population are white is relevant.
So I'm saying "90 is more than 80, there are still more attacks on white people" is true but irrelevant. Of course there are more. That's kind of because 80% of the population are white ain't it? Point is there is clearly far more racism against black people and you're far more likely to be attacked if you're black.
Reducto Ad Absurdum argument:
If one black person was in the country, and every other person was white.... obviously there will be more attacks on white people, and that black person may never ever get attacked, but he's still more likely to be attacked than any other one person.
White privilege is real.
Simple multiplicative maths will tell you that, given the figure of 80,000 attacks on 20%* of the population, to have the same proportionality of attacks on the 80% that would mean they would need to suffer 320,000 attacks in the same period.
* That's assuming the study is looking at white and non-white UK residents, if the study is looking at e.g. Afro-Carribeans against white people, then the number will be a lot higher.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Home