If the victims are black it's racist. If the shooter is black it's racist. If the shooter and victim is black it's racist. If neither is black it's racist (for leavin them out)
Are all shootings on tv shows inherently racist?
Posts
Total:
17
-->
@n8nrgim
If the victims are black it's racist. If the shooter is black it's racist. If the shooter and victim is black it's racist. If neither is black it's racist (for leavin them out)
There are over 45,000 gun related deaths in America 2020 data. Blacks are 5 times more likely to be killed by guns. That still leaves 9000 white deaths by guns.
-->
@Shila
There are over 45,000 gun related deaths in America 2020 data. Blacks are 5 times more likely to be killed by guns. That still leaves 9000 white deaths by guns.
Your math is incorrect.
-->
@n8nrgim
If the victims are black it's racist. If the shooter is black it's racist. If the shooter and victim is black it's racist. If neither is black it's racist (for leavin them out)
Is it just this one, or are all your posts inherently idiotic.
-->
@Athias
4*9k = 36k
45k-36k= 9k
His mathematics is correct except you are correct that other racial pedigrees and mixes exist, meaning he has overlooked something.
To make clear what he did:
45 000 ÷ 5 = 9 000
this established the amount that would be multiplied by 4 for the black deaths if only pure whites and pure blacks exist.
5 ÷(4 + (4 ÷ 4)) = 1
1 × 9 000 = 9 000
The error made was statistically assuming he was dealing with a population that consisted either of whites or blacks, exclusively.
He also ignored the 'over' but that helps him out, not hurts him, given the other error.
-->
@RationalMadman
4*9k = 36k45k-36k= 9kHis mathematics is correct except you are correct that other racial pedigrees and mixes exist, meaning he has overlooked something.To make clear what he did:45 000 ÷ 5 = 9 000this established the amount that would be multiplied by 4 for the black deaths if only pure whites and pure blacks exist.5 ÷(4 + (4 ÷ 4)) = 11 × 9 000 = 9 000The error made was statistically assuming he was dealing with a population that consisted either of whites or blacks, exclusively.He also ignored the 'over' but that helps him out, not hurts him, given the other error.
No.
Shila stated so-called "blacks" are five times more likely to die by gun-related incidents. This suggests a 5:1 ratio. Assuming of course that death by gun-related incidents can be distinguished solely among so-called "blacks" and so-called "whites,"--that is, for every so-called "white" person who dies as a result of gun-related incidents, five so-called "black" people join. (It can't be zero, because every number times zero is zero.) We must also take into consideration that numbers in a ratio are contained. So let's use Shila's erroneous number, 9,000 to illustrate this point. If there were 9,000 so-called "white" people who die as a result of a gun-related incident, and we maintain that so-called "black" people are five times more likely to die as a result of a gun-related incident, then that would suggest that the deaths of so-called "blacks" would amount to 45,000 (i.e. 5 x 9,000.) Assuming again, that only so-called "blacks" and "whites" die in this sample as a result of gun-related incidents, that would suggest a total amount of 54,000 people dying as a result of a gun-related incident, which as you can tell is inconsistent with the total, Shila herself, cited.
Another way this can be expressed RationalMadMan is with this simple algebraic equation: 5x + 1x = TGRD (TGRD = total gun related deaths.)Where 5x represents the total number of so-called "black" deaths as a result of a gun-related incident and 1x represents the total number of so-called "white" deaths as a result of a gun-related incident. Now let's input our numbers once again:
1x = 9,000.
Therefore x = 9,000.
Enter x-value into equation:
5 (9,000) + 1 (9,000) = TGRD
TGRD = 54,000
INCORRECT.
But WE KNOW the total gun related deaths, so let's use our equation again:
5x + 1x = 45,000
6x = 45,000
x = 7,500.
Even though it's redundant, let's input the x-value again:
5 (7,500) + 1 (7,500) = 45,000
37,500 + 7,500 = 45,000
45,000 = 45,000
CORRECT.
Now, let's make sure that 37,500 is FIVE TIMES the amount of 7,500, which we know when added together sums up to 45,000:
7,500 (Multiplier) = 37,500
Multiplier = 37,500/7,500
Multiplier = 5.
CORRECT.
Rationalmadman, I'm actually quite good at math. When I told Shila her math was incorrect, I already performed the arithmetic--not that it was particularly difficult. The problem with your rationalization Rationalmadman is that your operations are more consistent with one who would state, "four times more likely," not five. I hope my explanation clears things up.
-->
@Athias
There are three issues here:
- The word 'over'with the 45k
- The word 'more' likely being probably erroneous as Shila probably meant 'as' likely.
- That ethnic and racial mixes and identities other than caucasian and african or Caribbean blacks exist.
-->
@Athias
You are correct, Shila's result is wrong.
-->
@RationalMadman
Er...4 × 9 000 = 36 0001 × 9 000 = 9 00036k + 9k = 45k
Rationalmadman, when Shila states that so-called "blacks" are "five times more likely," you have to ask, "five times more likely compared to what?" Now if we assume that Shila was using so-called "whites" as a reference in this comparison, which is a fair assumption, given that she mentioned and related the total amount of so-called "white" related deaths as a result of a gun-related incident with her erroneous computation, then it necessarily suggests that if we were to maintain that so-called blacks are "five times more likely" to die as a result of a gun-related incident, that for every ONE so-called white person who dies, FIVE so-called blacks would likely die, too.
Your suggestion RationalMadman suggests that so-called blacks are "FOUR TIMES" more likely to die, NOT FIVE. Read Shila's statement again: she said, "Blacks are five times more likely to be killed by guns" NOT "The total number of gun related deaths represents five times the number of so-called white people who die as a result of a gun-related incident."
-->
@RationalMadman
There are three issues here:
- The word 'over'with the 45k
The number was 45,222 in 2020 (correct me if I'm wrong.) I would presume she would have gotten this number from a google search.
The word 'more' likely being probably erroneous as Shila probably meant 'as' likely.
That doesn't matter much. I presumed Shila was making a mention of trends ceteris paribus.
That ethnic and racial mixes and identities other than caucasian and african or Caribbean blacks exist.
This wouldn't matter much either, given that all other so-called ethnicities, racial mixes, and identites, can all be grouped together in the comparison. They can all represent the "one" in a "five to one" comparison.
-->
@Athias
The mixed race people and non-black non-white people would matter actually.
-->
@RationalMadman
The mixed race people and non-black non-white people would matter actually.
I'm not suggesting that they don't matter in a sociopolitical or philosophical sense, only that as far as the comparison is concerned, you can compare so-called "blacks" to anyone or everyone else. That is, in a "five to one" comparison, so-called "mixed-race," "non-black, non-white," and so-called "white" people can comprise the "one" in that comparison, when grouped together. Now if you want to expand the scope of the comparison, then the ratio can adjust as the comparison does.
-->
@n8nrgim
"Racist" and racism are nonsense concepts. They lack logical consistency and defined form.
I think your OP rhetorically conveys that (which I believe to be your intention).
Preferred language would be 'racial hatred', of which is defined and consistent. If someone is yelling out as they shot a black person, "die, you worthless n*gger!", then we could confirm there is racial hatred afoot. If a black person is shot, then we wouldn't yet be sure if racial hatred was involved.
-->
@Avery
I always liked the definition of racism to mean unjustifiable prejudice. Hate makes sense too but might not be broad enough
-->
@n8nrgim
I always liked the definition of racism to mean unjustifiable prejudice. Hate makes sense too but might not be broad enough
That definition might work as well.
I think hate's narrowness can be justified by looking at how explosive the term "racism" is. It's associated with Hitler, mass racial genocide etc.
But both of our definitions are better than what is currently used.
-->
@n8nrgim
Someone saw the meme with the chads shooting each other and the libjak screeching racism
-->
@n8nrgim
If the victims are black it's racist. If the shooter is black it's racist. If the shooter and victim is black it's racist. If neither is black it's racist (for leavin them out)
😂 Are you saying whitey can't win?