-->
@sadolite
What does any of this have to do with violence.
You opened the can of worms with the DNA and disorders references. Own it. Answer their question.
A small % of black men ARE the most VIOLENT in American society
Posts
Total:
133
-->
@TWS1405
I answered it, but you reposted before I could. Oh I i said nothing about DNA you opened that can of worms.
-->
@sadolite
No, you did not answer the question:
I'm asking whether there are genetic differences between human races.What is your response to that question?
This question has nothing to do with choosing to pull one's pants down or not before shitting them.
-->
@sadolite
What does any of this have to do with violence.
We've already established that you believe there are no genetic differences between races in regards to violence A small % of black men ARE the most VIOLENT in American society (debateart.com) . So, I moved on from that point.
I then asked you if you believe there are no genetic differences between races A small % of black men ARE the most VIOLENT in American society (debateart.com) . You failed to answer, so I asked it again. You've also failed to answer it here yet again: "Physical intolerances to substances exist in all races".
Your failure to answer the simple question speaks for itself.
Violence is a learned behavior.
Do you have any evidence to support this conclusion?
-->
@TWS1405
I did answer it VIOLENCE IS A FUCKING BEHAVIOR THAT YOU CHOOSE TO ENGAGE IN. JUST LIKE YOU CHOOST TO EITHER SHIT IN YOUR PANTS OR NOT SHIT IN YOUR PANTS, Is that clear enough. It is not my problem if you don't like my answer but quit fucking saying I didn't answer it.
-->
@Avery
Look at inner city gang life. Absolute proof of learned behavior.
-->
@sadolite
I did answer it VIOLENCE IS A FUCKING BEHAVIOR THAT YOU CHOOSE TO ENGAGE IN. JUST LIKE YOU CHOOST TO EITHER SHIT IN YOUR PANTS OR NOT SHIT IN YOUR PANTS, Is that clear enough. It is not my problem if you don't like my answer but quit fucking saying I didn't answer it.
No, choosing to commit acts of violence is incomparable to choosing to shit in your pants versus getting to the toilet. Implicit false equivalency fallacy right there. And yelling at me won't make the idiocy of your assertion any less idiotic.
You STILL have not answered Avery's question.
-->
@TWS1405
I answered the question you don't like the answer, tough shit. I see no difference in choosing to engage in violence or choosing to shit in your pants or not shit in your pants. You say there is a difference so I didn't answer the question. There is where we have nothing left to talk about. I answered the question 3 fucking times. You don't like the answer, end of fucking story.
-->
@TWS1405
You STILL have not answered Avery's question.
I don't know why he thinks people can't just read what was written and see he's not answering it. No one in this thread is falling for his question dodging.
It's pretty funny xD
-->
@sadolite
I answered the question you don't like the answer, tough shit.
No, you did not answer the direct question.
I see no difference in choosing to engage in violence or choosing to shit in your pants or not shit in your pants.
Hence the level of the Dunning Kruger Effect you put on display with your answer and doubling down on that answer, that doesn't even answer the question posed of you, at all!
You say there is a difference so I didn't answer the question. There is where we have nothing left to talk about. I answered the question 3 fucking times. You don't like the answer, end of fucking story.
"There is where we..."
You're getting so emotively flustered in your intellectual cowardice that you cannot even type grammatically correct statements anymore.
Committing murder is NOT the same thing as shitting one's pants, on any level or multiverse plane of existence.
Your denialism knows no bounds.
-->
@Avery
I don't know why he thinks people can't just read what was written and see he's not answering it. No one in this thread is falling for his question dodging.It's pretty funny xD
Same goes for Ramshutu. Both are classic denialists, but Ramshutu is a classic example of the Dunning Kruger Effect. Others exhibit intellectual cowardice, like sadolite and his inability to admit that he is so clearly wrong.
-->
@Ramshutu
Have a link, or a example?
Starting in 2020, white liberals began to rate white people as more violent than black people, as well as less intelligent and more lazy. This shouldnt be surprising given the widespread anti white sentiment on the left, where it’s incredibly common to see “white men” or “white people” used as an invective
The data is available in the link below but you have to give them your email to get it. I can confirm that it’s there
As far as this specific site goes I had an argument with theweakeredge where he claimed that white men were the USAs most violent demographic and we can’t trust the existing data because police just don’t arrest white men when they commit violent crimes. His posts got several likes so at least some people definitely agreed with him. Public_Choice can be seen denying the data in this post, and claiming that “it is apparent there is a number of white supremacist police officers in our police departments around the country, and their racist policing has contributed to unusually high arrest rates for Black Americans”
There are tons of liberals who would deny that the data suggests that black males commit crime at a higher rate than white males. Unless you can find contradicting and superior survey data the empirical data suggests that the median liberal would deny the validity of crime statistics
It really is a tiny amount of black men that commit a massively disproportionate amount of crime. It’s not even “black men aged 18-25” it’s a tiny slice of that already tiny slice of a demographic that commit absurd amounts of crime and depending on the jurisdiction often are able to victimize a huge number of people before finally being taken off the street. Idk if we could get perfect equality but we could definitely make a dent in the problem by actually trying
-->
@TWS1405
Truth does NOT equal racism.
Yeah but... like... what you're posting isn't the truth though, as I systematically showed the last time.
More than 80-90% of LEAs report data to the FBI.
It was 88%, so my "more than 1 in 10 comment" is factually accurate.
There is a standard definition of racial classifications. It's the same as used by the US Census Bureau.
Not true. Every police department uses their own classifications because the state and local police departments are STATE AND COUNTY AND CITY RUN AND ENFORCE STATE AND COUNTY AND CITY RULES. You would know this if you went to a college that actually taught good criminal justice.
But, just because you will simply say I'm wrong, I will quote Cliffsnotes' website on Criminal Justice to drive the point home that basic aspects of criminal justice are completely lost on you:
An advantage of the UCR is that it includes homicides in its calculation of the violent crime rate (which the NCVS by its nature cannot). The main disadvantage of the UCR is that much crime is never reported to the police and never shows up in the UCR. Thus, UCR estimates of the volume and rates of crime are always lower than the actual frequencies of such occurrences because crime is subject to both nonreporting by citizens and nonrecording by the police. Trends in official statistics may be the result of changes in public reporting and police recording practices, not of actual changes in the amount of crime. [1]
You keep claiming I'm wrong but you seem to be so pigheaded to realize that the UCR is not what you think it is. It is missing roughly 10% of the recorded data of crimes themselves, and the police regularly change their reporting practices at their department levels.
This is basic Criminal Justice stuff. If Cliffsnotes talks about it, then certainly your Criminal Justice textbooks did.
This was why the FBI states that the UCR is not comprehensive and should NOT be used for comprehensive analyses on crime. Because they, the FBI, who MAKES THE UCR, know it is by no means an accurate representation of true crime. It is just partial data on crime in general.
But, ya know. Keep saying black people are responsible for violent crime. Even though that is not provable currently based on the current data we have, knowing its limitations and such.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Do you really want him to search 8 hours for that citation so you can merely respond "well that guy is an idiot and doesn't represent the opinion of any thinking person".I don't know why people get hung up on these types of points.
It’s similar to the “It’s not happening and it’s a good thing that it is” phenomenon you see when talking about CRT or gender theory being taught in schools. A difficult or extremely tedious to meet standard of evidence is demanded which shuts down discussion 90% of the time. If that standard is actually met it becomes clear that the leftist actually supported those things all along. It makes discussion really tedious and annoying (look at this thread…) People need to just own up to their beliefs
-->
@Public-Choice
No, you proved no such thing.
I’m going to sleep now. Tomorrow, I will be evicerate your poorly given position.
-->
@thett3
. If that standard is actually met it becomes clear that the leftist actually supported those things all along. It makes discussion really tedious and annoying (look at this thread…) People need to just own up to their beliefs
I know it's really annoying when the person you are talking to has enough common sense to know that you will find the evidence if you give a shit enough to actually go out of your way to find it. Especially for things we all intuitively know are true like the statement "some significant amount of people believe this stupid thing".
He 100% knew evidence existed of that and just backpedaled to essentially
"Well none of the intelligentsia do, so it doesn't matter"
-->
@TWS1405
Here is the question I am answering>>> "You believe there are no genetic differences for violence in human races, despite them evolving in completely different environments." My answer>>>> Yes, Violence is a learned behavior. I will answer it the same way no matter how many times you ask me.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I would also like to add violence exists everywhere in all races on the entire planet. This is where you tell me I didn't answer the question again. I think this is supposed to directed to someone else. Who ever it is that says I am not answering the question
-->
@sadolite
Yeah not me. I never accused you of dodging a question
-->
@sadolite
Here is the question I am answering>>> "You believe there are no genetic differences for violence in human races, despite them evolving in completely different environments." My answer>>>> Yes, Violence is a learned behavior. I will answer it the same way no matter how many times you ask me.
You still haven't answered the question lol.
You already answered that question you quoted, but you've dodged the follow up question every time: "Do you also believe there are no genetic differences between human races at all?"
I asked again here, giving a clear example: A small % of black men ARE the most VIOLENT in American society (debateart.com)
I pointed out that you've failed to answer it here: A small % of black men ARE the most VIOLENT in American society (debateart.com)
So, we're still waiting for you to answer that question.
-->
@Public-Choice
Truth does NOT equal racism.Yeah but... like... what you're posting isn't the truth though, as I systematically showed the last time.
There is a standard definition of racial classifications. It's the same as used by the US Census Bureau.Not true. Every police department uses their own classifications because the state and local police departments are STATE AND COUNTY AND CITY RUN AND ENFORCE STATE AND COUNTY AND CITY RULES. You would know this if you went to a college that actually taught good criminal justice.
No, YOU are WRONG. I worked in law enforcement and reported data through LEDS (Law Enforcement Data System), have you!?! Yeah, I did not think so.
You keep claiming I'm wrong but you seem to be so pigheaded to realize that the UCR is not what you think it is. It is missing roughly 10% of the recorded data of crimes themselves, and the police regularly change their reporting practices at their department levels.
10% is insignificant to the data already collected and extrapolated into their respective reports, tables, etc. That 10% would not change the FACT brought up in the OP you failed to defend your similar position in, that a small % of black males commit over 50% of the entire nation's violent person crimes. That's just a fact, and YOU are being the stubborn one, not I.
But, ya know. Keep saying black people are responsible for violent crime. Even though that is not provable currently based on the current data we have, knowing its limitations and such.
I will, because it is a proven fact and I have proven such. You're just a stubborn denialist intellectual coward. End of story.
-->
@sadolite
Here is the question I am answering>>> "You believe there are no genetic differences for violence in human races, despite them evolving in completely different environments." My answer>>>> Yes, Violence is a learned behavior. I will answer it the same way no matter how many times you ask me.
But that was not the entire answer you gave. Just own it, because you are NOT saving face here with anyone.
Look at the violence in Africa.
Africa is one continent of black negroes but because of internal war is divided into some 54 countries.
Lists of conflicts in Africa
This is a list of conflicts in Africa arranged by country, both on the continent and associated islands, including wars between African nations, civil wars, and wars involving non-African nations that took place within Africa. It encompasses colonial wars, wars of independence, secessionist and separatist conflicts, major episodes of national violence (riots, massacres, etc.), and global conflicts in which Africa was a theatre of war.
Contents
* 1 African Great Lakes
* 1.1 Burundi
* 1.2 Rwanda
* 1.3 Kenya
* 1.4 South Sudan
* 1.5 Tanzania
* 1.6 Uganda
* 2 Central Africa
* 2.1 Cameroon
* 2.2 Central African Republic
* 2.3 Chad
* 2.4 Congo (Republic of)
* 2.5 Congo (Democratic Republic of)
* 2.6 São Tomé and Príncipe
* 3 Horn of Africa
* 3.1 Djibouti
* 3.2 Eritrea
* 3.3 Ethiopia
* 3.4 Somalia
* 3.5 Somaliland
* 4 Indian Ocean islands
* 4.1 Comoros
* 4.2 Madagascar
* 4.3 Mauritius
* 5 North Africa
* 5.1 Algeria
* 5.2 Egypt
* 5.3 Libya
* 5.4 Morocco
* 5.5 Sudan
* 5.6 Tunisia
* 6 Southern Africa
* 6.1 Angola
* 6.2 Lesotho
* 6.3 Malawi
* 6.4 Mozambique
* 6.5 Namibia
* 6.6 South Africa
* 6.7 Swaziland
* 6.8 Zambia
* 6.9 Zimbabwe
* 7 West Africa
* 7.1 Benin
* 7.2 Burkina Faso
* 7.3 Côte d'Ivoire
* 7.4 Gambia
* 7.5 Ghana
* 7.6 Guinea
* 7.7 Guinea-Bissau
* 7.8 Liberia
* 7.9 Mali
* 7.10 Mauritania
* 7.11 Niger
* 7.12 Nigeria
* 7.13 Sierra Leone
* 7.14 Western Sahara
* 8 Chronological list of wars
* 8.1 19th century
* 8.2 20th century
* 8.3 21st century
-->
@TWS1405
If you really worked in Law Enforcement, then you should have known that other states and cities don't work just like yours. At least, all my friends in Law Enforcement know that.
Also, those responses are old and I already debunked them lol.
I just don't understand why you are so hellbent on believing something that the FBI, themselves, doesn't even believe about the data the put out.
You keep talking about how 10% of the days is irrelevant. But, honestly, that makes you sound really stupid.
I'm willing to bet that if we decided to remove 10% of the votes in the 2020 election because they are "insignificant" you would argue left and right that those votes matter.
But, suddenly, 12% of missing data from crimes statistics and, because it may make black people look just as innocent as all other races, you are arguing it is "insignificant data."
Mo data is insignificant, especially when it is 12% of all the data. For fuck sake, black people are 12% of the population. A statistic you love to cite when claiming they are supposedly "more violent" than everyone else.
If we are removing data because we don't think it is significant, why don't we just remove the 12% of black people from the population and then argue black people commit no crimes.
Do you see how dumb that sounds?
As much as I dislike Trump he was the first to pass comprehensive Criminal Justice reform in decades.
As much as I dislike Trump he was the first to pass comprehensive Criminal Justice reform in decades.
Trump vows to pardon everyone who participated in the overthrow of the election Jan 6, 2021.
-->
@Public-Choice
If you really worked in Law Enforcement, then you should have known that other states and cities don't work just like yours. At least, all my friends in Law Enforcement know that.
Easy to claim you actually have friends in law enforcement.
All law enforcement agencies have the same goal: law and order. While departmental SOPs may be slightly different, they are for all intent and purpose the same across the board.
Racial classifications are all the same across all agencies, period. There is no other classification for White/Caucasian, black/African-American, Pacific Islander, etc. They are what they are and they are all used exactly the same across the nation. There is no special category for white people like "pink." Do you see how dumb that sounds?
You can claim all you want all day long and you will be wrong 24/7. Claiming it is easy. Proving it is something else. And there is no agency anywhere in the US that uses "pink" for white/Caucasian, "chocolate" for blacks/African-Americans, "yellow" for Asians, so on and so forth.
Also, those responses are old and I already debunked them lol.
No, those responses are not old, and they are still valid and 100% factually accurate. You didn't debunk shit!
Mr. Dunning Kruger you are wallowing in delusions of grandeur.
I just don't understand why you are so hellbent on believing something that the FBI, themselves, doesn't even believe about the data the put out.
The FBI doesn't state what you claim they do. It's an exercise in futility to waste so much time, effort and money producing such criminological data that they didn't feel was useful towards studying criminality among the citizenry.
You keep talking about how 10% of the days is irrelevant. But, honestly, that makes you sound really stupid.
No, it doesn't. There is no amount of that 10% of data that would alter the very real fact that a sliver of black males commits over 50% of the entire nation's violent person crimes. Only one consistently sounding stupid across these threads on point is you, PC.
I'm willing to bet that if we decided to remove 10% of the votes in the 2020 election because they are "insignificant" you would argue left and right that those votes matter.
Non-Sequitor. Red Herring. Strawman.
But, suddenly, 12% of missing data from crimes statistics and, because it may make black people look just as innocent as all other races, you are arguing it is "insignificant data."
Of the few agencies not reporting, of that 10% there would likely be less than 2% that would sway in favor of black arrestees; but it would NOT significantly change the raw number of arrests that a sliver of black males in America are subject to for committing violent person crimes.
Mo data is insignificant, especially when it is 12% of all the data. For fuck sake, black people are 12% of the population. A statistic you love to cite when claiming they are supposedly "more violent" than everyone else.
No, black people are 13% of the population, 7% are female and 6% are males. A sliver of that 6% (less than half) have been proven year after year for more than two decades being arrested for over 50% of the entire nation's violent person crimes. Fact. Period. Fact.
If we are removing data because we don't think it is significant, why don't we just remove the 12% of black people from the population and then argue black people commit no crimes. Do you see how dumb that sounds?
Yup, and only you would say such a stupid thing.
-->
@thett3
Apologies - one of the kids needed a couple of days in hospital - this week I learnt gastro can trigger cluster seizures in toddlers…. But all good now.
The gist of these arguments so far appears to be that it’s super unfair to ask someone to justify their characterization. That somehow it’s unfair or unreasonable for me to ask for some examples of people holding the belief apparently “everyone holds” because it’s clearly and obviously true and unfair to ask you to provide examples.
Imagine this was something like, say, climate change denial, or that the election was fraudulent - or even that Hillary Clinton killed a bunch of people. You could for sure start arguing the level of support for those beliefs - but it’s pretty clear I could spend all week posting links of people holding those specific beliefs on all of those examples with nearly no effort. If all I had, was to point at two members of this forum - and a poll that doesn’t show anything close to as the specific thing in question (more on that later), you’d likely question the support for my conclusion that a bit.
There’s obvious differences there, certainly, and I’m not saying that they’re the same, but the idea that this is a fairly general belief on the left, and yet - almost impossible to find anyone who seems to believe it; kinda bellies the actual position.
The data itself isn’t the issue - As I suggested, there maybe cracks in much of it, and you can argue it’s accuracy: and you can argue about the impacts of, say, over-policing; and I’m pretty sure you can find many people who mix those issues up together.
The broader issue with them is not the stats themselves, which is why you find so few people actually denying the data - but primarily with how people talk about them:
Historically, law and order and crime have been used as the pretext for a whole ton of racist policies - both explicitly racist and functionally racist: and with one of the prevailing and pervasive stereotypes of black people in some shape or form being brutes and thugs since the 1800s ; have all in no small part helped in creating and perpetuating the pervading stereotype of the violent, dangerous black man; that has in part been used to make people more comfortable with some pretty nasty laws over the decades - democrat and republican included.
Given the history, there is no longer any slack, or any benefit of the doubt given to people - especially white people - who say things that perpetuate or play up to those historically problematic stereotypes - intentionally or not.
Thus when a white person angrily talks about the black crime rates, like TWS does - it sounds pretty racist.
When someone stamps their feet and complains that they are obviously, totally not racist and stating facts and it shouldn’t matter if it’s true - it doesn’t change that it still sounds pretty racist.
If someone goes onto a bunch of unapologetic rants about black crime rates and how black males have a crime problem, and fixated on solely listing and regurgitating every last negative statistic about black people they can find- any rational human beings know it’s going to sound racist.
The issue with people like Thomas Sowel, is not as much Thomas Sowel himself: but the way he, and literally any other black speaker, is put on a pedestal and wheeled out during arguments in a very “some of my best friends are black” type of way; to lend some element of credibility to their arguments because you know it otherwise sounds racist coming from a white person.
That’s where the real contention is; if there is discomfort about the facts it’s far less about whether the facts are correct, but discomfort about how to frame things without sounding like we’re deliberately trying to stereotype, or play up a stereotype of a race; given the historical harm those stereotypes have caused and, to an extent, continue to cause.
That’s the specific issue - it’s why you see way more focus on the left in the media of the racial disparities in rates of victimization as opposed to offender - because that is a key way to talk about the actual problem, and talk about solutions about how to make communities safer without playing up stereotypes.
If you keep the right keep feeding those same stereotypes - regardless of how true they think the data is, or how well you think other people should take it: you’re keep going to have people not talking to you about it, and making - frankly reasonable judgements about potential intent.
I mean - if you’re unwilling to couch language in the face of an innumerable number of decades of racism - you kinda deserve it.
The gist of these arguments so far appears to be that it’s super unfair to ask someone to justify their characterization. That somehow it’s unfair or unreasonable for me to ask for some examples of people holding the belief apparently “everyone holds” because it’s clearly and obviously true and unfair to ask you to provide examples.
Imagine this was something like, say, climate change denial, or that the election was fraudulent - or even that Hillary Clinton killed a bunch of people. You could for sure start arguing the level of support for those beliefs - but it’s pretty clear I could spend all week posting links of people holding those specific beliefs on all of those examples with nearly no effort. If all I had, was to point at two members of this forum - and a poll that doesn’t show anything close to as the specific thing in question (more on that later), you’d likely question the support for my conclusion that a bit.
There’s obvious differences there, certainly, and I’m not saying that they’re the same, but the idea that this is a fairly general belief on the left, and yet - almost impossible to find anyone who seems to believe it; kinda bellies the actual position.
The data itself isn’t the issue - As I suggested, there maybe cracks in much of it, and you can argue it’s accuracy: and you can argue about the impacts of, say, over-policing; and I’m pretty sure you can find many people who mix those issues up together.
The broader issue with them is not the stats themselves, which is why you find so few people actually denying the data - but primarily with how people talk about them:
Historically, law and order and crime have been used as the pretext for a whole ton of racist policies - both explicitly racist and functionally racist: and with one of the prevailing and pervasive stereotypes of black people in some shape or form being brutes and thugs since the 1800s ; have all in no small part helped in creating and perpetuating the pervading stereotype of the violent, dangerous black man; that has in part been used to make people more comfortable with some pretty nasty laws over the decades - democrat and republican included.
Given the history, there is no longer any slack, or any benefit of the doubt given to people - especially white people - who say things that perpetuate or play up to those historically problematic stereotypes - intentionally or not.
Thus when a white person angrily talks about the black crime rates, like TWS does - it sounds pretty racist.
When someone stamps their feet and complains that they are obviously, totally not racist and stating facts and it shouldn’t matter if it’s true - it doesn’t change that it still sounds pretty racist.
If someone goes onto a bunch of unapologetic rants about black crime rates and how black males have a crime problem, and fixated on solely listing and regurgitating every last negative statistic about black people they can find- any rational human beings know it’s going to sound racist.
The issue with people like Thomas Sowel, is not as much Thomas Sowel himself: but the way he, and literally any other black speaker, is put on a pedestal and wheeled out during arguments in a very “some of my best friends are black” type of way; to lend some element of credibility to their arguments because you know it otherwise sounds racist coming from a white person.
That’s where the real contention is; if there is discomfort about the facts it’s far less about whether the facts are correct, but discomfort about how to frame things without sounding like we’re deliberately trying to stereotype, or play up a stereotype of a race; given the historical harm those stereotypes have caused and, to an extent, continue to cause.
That’s the specific issue - it’s why you see way more focus on the left in the media of the racial disparities in rates of victimization as opposed to offender - because that is a key way to talk about the actual problem, and talk about solutions about how to make communities safer without playing up stereotypes.
If you keep the right keep feeding those same stereotypes - regardless of how true they think the data is, or how well you think other people should take it: you’re keep going to have people not talking to you about it, and making - frankly reasonable judgements about potential intent.
I mean - if you’re unwilling to couch language in the face of an innumerable number of decades of racism - you kinda deserve it.
-->
@thett3
Two good examples there - theweakeredge; and public-choice. Both pretty much what I was asking for.
TheWeakerEdge, arguing that there’s reason to believe there is some level of skew in the crime data; and negative implications of over policing: he seems to be mixing the two up; together - as well as dropping in various issues of social attribution every so often. Public-choice, was explicitly pointing out that the crime data being used is unreliable and can’t be used to justify these sorts of opinions. I’m not entirely sure whether they’re on the left, nor whether they’re disagreeing with the broader crime trends the data shows - or simply saying that the data can’t be used to show any the crime trends. I could read it both ways, but the nuance isn’t unreasonable. I liked that post as a result, because the point is excellent, not necessarily that I agree with the specifics of everything he implies. But it’s a good point, that’s been largely left ignored.
I think characterizing those two aspects as denying the data is fairly accurate - I could argue that there’s a little bit more nuance there than you may give them credit for - but accurate
The two aspects of the characterization I would dispute; is the obvious one of likes = everyone holds that specific view; as opposed to any one of a number of things - for example had I seen some of the the points on rural policing, the issues of over policing, and aspects of bias in the police - as they’re good points; sometimes I like because there’s pushback on a particular flavour of a perspective. There’s a lot of nuance, and drawing that sort of silly conclusion is an incredible stretch as a result.
Likewise - liberals thinking whites are more violent - working in my phone only I can read the questions, not the actual csv data - but I can believe the overall spread of whites more violence than blacks mentioned in the tweet.
Your characterization of what that number really means - however - is again silly. Poll responses are specifically dependent on the interpretation of the question: and for this example; there’s so much baggage baked into the interpretation assuming many, or enough liberals took it in the way you’re implying they did is not worth consideration:
For example: as a snap question; that answer could be reflective of who you feel more threatened by, of who is felt to pose a bigger general danger of violence. It’s influenced also by whether one group seems to be becoming more violent or belligerent.
I could, for example, very easily rank whites more violent than blacks right now - not because I materially disagree with the crime rates - or even that I am judging in reference to crime rates at all; but as part of the general political climate. That answer would not be necessarily be inaccurate in that context.
This poll could be a reasonable indicator that liberals are perceiving a growing threat from whites than blacks - it could also be an indicator of the violence they feel is most significant, or most significant to them - or even most aware of personally - but to suggest it’s some sort of definitive indicator of liberals thinking, say, the inner city is as safe as the suburbs - or that it’s a specific measure of how liberals view the racial violent crime rate - not so much. The question is generalized enough that it’s hard to draw that sort of concrete conclusion from it.
This is why polls - or likes for that matter - are terrible. And that’s pretty much the reason I asked for specific examples of people; it’s pretty unambiguous.
TheWeakerEdge, arguing that there’s reason to believe there is some level of skew in the crime data; and negative implications of over policing: he seems to be mixing the two up; together - as well as dropping in various issues of social attribution every so often. Public-choice, was explicitly pointing out that the crime data being used is unreliable and can’t be used to justify these sorts of opinions. I’m not entirely sure whether they’re on the left, nor whether they’re disagreeing with the broader crime trends the data shows - or simply saying that the data can’t be used to show any the crime trends. I could read it both ways, but the nuance isn’t unreasonable. I liked that post as a result, because the point is excellent, not necessarily that I agree with the specifics of everything he implies. But it’s a good point, that’s been largely left ignored.
I think characterizing those two aspects as denying the data is fairly accurate - I could argue that there’s a little bit more nuance there than you may give them credit for - but accurate
The two aspects of the characterization I would dispute; is the obvious one of likes = everyone holds that specific view; as opposed to any one of a number of things - for example had I seen some of the the points on rural policing, the issues of over policing, and aspects of bias in the police - as they’re good points; sometimes I like because there’s pushback on a particular flavour of a perspective. There’s a lot of nuance, and drawing that sort of silly conclusion is an incredible stretch as a result.
Likewise - liberals thinking whites are more violent - working in my phone only I can read the questions, not the actual csv data - but I can believe the overall spread of whites more violence than blacks mentioned in the tweet.
Your characterization of what that number really means - however - is again silly. Poll responses are specifically dependent on the interpretation of the question: and for this example; there’s so much baggage baked into the interpretation assuming many, or enough liberals took it in the way you’re implying they did is not worth consideration:
For example: as a snap question; that answer could be reflective of who you feel more threatened by, of who is felt to pose a bigger general danger of violence. It’s influenced also by whether one group seems to be becoming more violent or belligerent.
I could, for example, very easily rank whites more violent than blacks right now - not because I materially disagree with the crime rates - or even that I am judging in reference to crime rates at all; but as part of the general political climate. That answer would not be necessarily be inaccurate in that context.
This poll could be a reasonable indicator that liberals are perceiving a growing threat from whites than blacks - it could also be an indicator of the violence they feel is most significant, or most significant to them - or even most aware of personally - but to suggest it’s some sort of definitive indicator of liberals thinking, say, the inner city is as safe as the suburbs - or that it’s a specific measure of how liberals view the racial violent crime rate - not so much. The question is generalized enough that it’s hard to draw that sort of concrete conclusion from it.
This is why polls - or likes for that matter - are terrible. And that’s pretty much the reason I asked for specific examples of people; it’s pretty unambiguous.