That's not what you did. You attempted to obscure a factual observation. Your post was racist - a completely standard, familiar, US white supremacist response to the observation of white supremacist violence against black people in the US. You outed yourself - you are now a racist, a white supremacist, defending your views. You think none of them are white? Putting a question mark on a lie does not make it a question. Pretending you are honestly forgetful one more time:
Does that nonsense really work for you? Make you feel righteous or something? Silly human ego displays. I actually gave you the numbers for your own claim (77). More than you did. I guess you call that obscuring the facts. You didn't answer the question. I think you have to show more than whiteness to demonstrate racism. Unless you're racist. No need to refute what you've yet to show is racist.
Who's insensitive? No individual random black person is any more responsible for a murder of a black person than any random white person. But their complaint about police violence speaks to the failure of a government institution which is a perfectly legit complaint. You can't ignore prevailing conditions when addressing social ills. It's a contributing factor.
We have to assume quite a bit in your posting because you deal in this pretended question crap Fox has made famous, and knowing where you're coming from is helpful. Example: Why would somebody regard inner city gangs as "largely allied by race"? There are many gang wars and conflicts in which both enemy gangs are the same race, after all. They often wear special colors and have signals to identify membership - race does not identify them. Outer city and rural gangs likewise, regardless of race. All that is obvious. None of it is relevant to the thread. So the post is a puzzle, until we realize that it's an expression of racism against black people. Then it makes perfect sense. You didn't ask a question. You told a lie, and put a question mark on it. You were not asked for refutation of anything, but evidence for your extraordinary claim. You weren't even asked for extraordinary evidence - just regular stuff. That was your third dodge. Meanwhile, Trump made a speech right after the SOTU, in Ohio, that wasn't a slow and haltingly phrased grind through a teleprompter's lies: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-tax-reform-4/ And we get a shadow of the future state of this union: Not applauding Trump speeches with sufficient enthusiasm - why not call it treason?
When 13% of the population is responsible for 52% of the murders, there would seem to be an endemic problem. The odds are much greater than for any given white person. Even police are human and prone to error. So when particular populations require more police interaction, the odds of problematic errors increase. You didn't answer the question. Does poverty preclude morality and responsibility? Are contributing factors absolving factors? Considering the rate at which blacks kill each other, it stands to reason they would have competing gangs. Most gangs have largely racially homogenous memberships. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_United_States#Demographics Bloods, Crips, MS-13, white power skinheads. All primarily single-race gangs, and not all minorities. That you assume all gangs are minorities, specifically "black people", (which is the only way you can really claim bring it up as racism) makes you the racist. You think all Hispanics are from Spain? Why are you so afraid to answer such a simple question? You sure seemed to imply that a Hispanic could be a white supremacist because of Spain's history. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/state-of-the-onion.160508/page-3#post-3503097 This must be projection, because you're the one who keeps making the claim you refuse to support. The null hypothesis is the default position. Aside from Democrats having already called Trump treasonous, Cory Booker calling the Nunes memo release treasonous, Andrew Cuomo calling any NY Rep vote for the tax bill treasonous, Howard Dean implying the Iran letter treasonous, Ted Lieu's "cloud of treason"... ...not being able to rouse Democrats for record low black unemployment, veterans, the national anthem, American families, huge infrastructure spending, or even immigration reform that would grant 1.8 million illegal immigrants and their families a path to citizenship.
So you were posting shitfaced racism in the first place. I agree. Trump claimed credit for good stuff Obama did, and claimed bad stuff of his own to be good, and made several claims that were false altogether. For that he received enthusiastic applause from very bad people who are doing great harm to the United States, as he is. The most disheartening aspect was the enthusiasm of the entire body of Republicans for the prospect of more harm being done to veterans, American families, infrastructure, immigrants, black people employed or otherwise, and eventually the national anthem - if it's sung too often in celebration of Trump's administration, we actually might have to start over; as with flying the American flag over Abu Ghraib, this does long term damage. And it's domestic nationwide, not foreign war zone deniable. In response to your dumbass assertion that Hispanics cannot be white, cannot be acting as white supremacists, etc. (On top of your hardcore racist claim that one drop creates a Hispanic). Just another piece of supporting evidence provided to you, as often before by me, in support of a common reality you attempted to deny - that the killing of Trayvon Martin was a white supremacist killing. And it wasn't counted in your link. So your linked count, already very high, is a significant undercount. Links, evidence, and argument, is support. And the extraordinary claim - yours - is not. You have not provided any evidence, let alone the extraordinary evidence your claim requires. With a basis in reality, of course. You do regard reality as playing some role here, right?
Meanwhile, the state of the onion is of course gerrymandered - but the significance of that needs refreshing once in a while. Here's a reminder that gerrymandering is not accidental: https://www.salon.com/2018/02/06/how-the-republicans-rigged-congress-and-poisoned-our-politics/ A real, live, conspiracy. Not at all theoretical. And with consequences coming to a Congressional district near you, in nine months.
Are errors in estimating threat moral failings? Again, how are facts racist? None of that actually occurred. Go look. What a great imagination you have. What evidence it was white supremacist? None of which connect certain opinions about Obama to racism. What "extraordinary claim" do you think I made? I'm starting to suspect you just imagine an awful lot. I suspect your personal reality may not match reality itself.
It's actually called manslaughter, which is in the absence of malice. They can also be perceived as cherry-picked to reinforce bias. Hence all the racist talk.
Aaaand that's what racism looks like, folks. Them murders gotta be because of the colour of their skin. Can't be correlated with, say, systemic poverty or anything... Have you heard of 'correlation does not mean causation'?' Just because it occurs in a demographic does not mean that particular trait of the demographic is the responsible factor. Racists never seem to get that.
Also if you used statistics to say something about race that is divorced from the society and culture which the races inhabit. You harp on personal responsibility, but blacks aren't personally responsible for a history of being rejected from mainstream society.
Your posting was racist - standard, boiler-plate, seen it a hundred times, run of the mill US racism. Having facts in it doesn't change that. Sometimes, sure. That's one of the most common indications of moral failing - involving as it so often does cowardice, false witness, etc. In post 61 I pretended you were honestly forgetful for the last time. You are now undeniably lying. Unnecessary - that's the default situation, the ordinary and established reality. Normally: birthers are bigots, "secret Muslim" belief marks racism. We all know that, in the US. To argue some birther or collection of birthers is not racially bigoted, you need evidence. You need evidence for your extraordinary claim, because it is extraordinary.
Ha! You're the only one making racist assumptions about "the colour of their skin." That you are so eager to assume such motives for simple facts seems tellingly overcompensating. I've asked before, does poverty preclude morality or responsibility? Correlation doesn't tell us much about causes. I assume it has nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with culture. There are sub-cultures of whites that display very similar problems. The vast majority of charges brought do. Maybe you should go talk to those prosecutors? So their history absolves them of personal responsibility? Sounds like you are infantilizing blacks and not recognizing that they have as much personal moral agency as you do. Did you ever directly answer whether poverty precludes morality or responsibility? Why don't they have the same moral agency as you? You had to add a few other factors to get there. Again, the null hypothesis (that any two things are uncorrelated) is the default position. Not an extraordinary claim. But keep trying to shift the burden if you really feel like it. Only to people of a certain political bent. Get out of your bubble occasionally. Again, null hypothesis trumps the "everyone knows" argumentum ad populum.
I didn't add them - people who badly mistake threats added them. You have no evidence for that nonsense, in particular no support for your extraordinary presumption that culture and skin color are independent in a racial structured society. Blow smoke all you want, nothing will erase your racially bigoted post up there. You appear to be confused about what a null hypothesis is. In this case, the null hypothesis would be that Republican Trump voters who are birthers or "secret Muslim" believers share the normal racial bigotry of birthers and "secret Muslim" believers in general - that there is nothing special or different about Trump voters in that respect.
