Coronavirus - A pale horse,4 men and ....beer

[sa7med]

scroll down..

https://thecourierdaily.com/george-floy ... est/20177/

Again, sorry but that's a bullshit source. What the hell is the courier daily? Someone posted the same source the other day when alleging one of his victims was pregnant but I could not find any other sources. A random online publication is not a valid source. I could set up "thedailycourier.com" tomorrow and post all sorts of bollocks, doesn't make it true just because it's on the internet.

Scroll down and you will see documents obtained by the Daily Mail. I have no idea if its true or not. I assume all will come out when the trial starts.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... lling.html

Yes I read this article (despite it being from the daily mail, an objectively notoriously unreliable publication) when it was posted the other day, but even the daily mail makes no mention of a pregnant victim and points to the charges being for possession not dealing. So the daily mail source actually contradicts your original post.

[superfrank]

Would be if it were actually a fact. This source has it wrong according to the source that they cite.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf

Table 14

Percent of violent incidents, by victim and offender race or ethnicity, 2018
Offender race/ethnicity
Victim race/
ethnicity
Number of
violent incidents Total Whitea Blacka Hispanic Asiana Othera,b Multiple offenders
of various races
Whitea 3,581,360 100% 62.1%* 15.3% † 10.2% † 2.2% † 8.1% † 2.1% †
Blacka 563,940 100% 10.6 † 70.3* 7.9 † <0.1! 9.3 † 1.9 ! †
Hispanic 734,410 100% 28.2 † 15.3 † 45.4* 0.6! † 7.4 † 3.0 †
Asiana 182,230 100% 24.1 27.5 7.0 ! † 24.1* 14.4! 2.9 ! †

3,581,360 white victims, 15.3% where the offender is black = 547,948 black-on-white violent crimes

563,940 black victims, 10.6% where the offender is white = 59,778 white-on-black violent crimes

It doesn't exactly match the figures quoted in the article but very similar. I suspect they were revised.

it's not valid to look at absolute figures, you need to adjust for population. To say it's 9:1 is a distortion. The number of incidents against white people is 6.35 * more the incidents against black people. Roughly in line with population proportions. From the table you could also say white people are more likely to be victims of white people (in line with population) and black people are more likely to be victims of black people (disproportionately). Further, I don't see how any of this was relevant to the conversation.

What absolute crap. The number of incidents are naturally adjusted for population and the offender number is a percentage. 9:1 isn't a distortion at all.

You simply don't want to believe the figures because you don't like them. An example of your bias, not mine.

[sa7med]

3,581,360 white victims, 15.3% where the offender is black = 547,948 black-on-white violent crimes

563,940 black victims, 10.6% where the offender is white = 59,778 white-on-black violent crimes

It doesn't exactly match the figures quoted in the article but very similar. I suspect they were revised.

it's not valid to look at absolute figures, you need to adjust for population. To say it's 9:1 is a distortion. The number of incidents against white people is 6.35 * more the incidents against black people. Roughly in line with population proportions. From the table you could also say white people are more likely to be victims of white people (in line with population) and black people are more likely to be victims of black people (disproportionately). Further, I don't see how any of this was relevant to the conversation.

What absolute crap. The number of incidents are naturally adjusted for population and the offender number is a percentage. 9:1 isn't a distortion at all.

You simply don't want to believe the figures because you don't like them. An example of your bias, not mine.

Please explain. The title clearly say "number of violent incidents". Perhaps there's something I'm missing.


EDIT: Nope, these are absolute figures. Not adjusted for population. Otherwise it would say somewhere no?

EDIT2: let me put it another way, if there are 10x as many green people than orange people and both groups commit the same proportion of crimes. Without adjusting for population, you could easily say that green people commit 10x as many crimes as orange people. Though in reality it's the same proportion. It's distorting the facts.

[superfrank]

There are 5 times more whites than blacks - there are 6 times more incidents against whites than blacks. The number of incidents therefore roughly reflects the population.

[sa7med]

There are 5 times more whites than blacks - there are 6 times more incidents against whites than blacks. The number of incidents therefore roughly reflects the population.

Well that's what I was trying to say; that you have to adjust for population. Actually it's roughly 1.5 : 1 (white victims/black crimes : black victims/white crimes) not 9:1, which is what the source you posted was saying. Not 1:1, but that in itself doesn't imply race as being the causation. It could just be a matter of white people have higher incomes on average and therefore make more sense to be the targets of crime.

[Kai]

I'm sure you guys have other things/markets to do than fueling this pointless argument, don't think you'll solve the "racial issue" by posting a few random stats.

I believe these matters should be treated empirically and not along left/right lines. It really frustrates me when someone says something along the lines of "but that's not what the leftist/right wing media would show" but are at the same time using obviously biased right wing/leftist media to make their point.

I actually don't mind people disagreeing with my random opinions or comments, doesn't frustrate me one bit, everyone is very welcome to form their opinion no matter how different In fact, I urge everyone to form their own opinion and do their own digging if they care enough.

Seeing as I'm not a journalist it's not my job nor place to convince others of anything, and I don't want to spam the forum with disturbing clips like what happened with David Dorn or the samurai kid either.

Thought I made this clear twice before I said anything, but most of my comments were based on the info that I got off Crowder (conservative political commentator) and his fact checking team, since I didn't find anyone else that cares about the facts more, and since the clips I kept seeing backed up what he's saying and contradicted what CNN is saying. Good enough for me to comment on it, if anyone has better sources please feel free to share with others like I did.

Ironically, if someone posted a CNN link or something I could just as easily reply with "I'm sorry but that's not a credible source." Sorry to say but we live in the age of fake news so best of luck finding good sources on anything.

[sa7med]

I'm sure you guys have other things/markets to do than fueling this pointless argument, don't think you'll solve the "racial issue" by posting a few random stats.

I believe these matters should be treated empirically and not along left/right lines. It really frustrates me when someone says something along the lines of "but that's not what the leftist/right wing media would show" but are at the same time using obviously biased right wing/leftist media to make their point.

I actually don't mind people disagreeing with my random opinions or comments, doesn't frustrate me one bit, everyone is very welcome to form their opinion no matter how different In fact, I urge everyone to form their own opinion and do their own digging if they care enough.

Seeing as I'm not a journalist it's not my job nor place to convince others of anything, and I don't want to spam the forum with disturbing clips like what happened with David Dorn or the samurai kid either.

Thought I made this clear twice before I said anything, but most of my comments were based on the info that I got off Crowder (conservative political commentator) and his fact checking team, since I didn't find anyone else that cares about the facts more, and since the clips I kept seeing backed up what he's saying and contradicted what CNN is saying. Good enough for me to comment on it, if anyone has better sources please feel free to share with others like I did.

Ironically, if someone posted a CNN link or something I could just as easily reply with "I'm sorry but that's not a credible source." Sorry to say but we live in the age of fake news so best of luck finding good sources on anything.

I don't follow CNN at all but i find it ironic that people who bash CNN often follow the daily mail or the Sun, which are arguably in another league of unreliability. This is a pretty good reference I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ces#Legend

[Kai]

I don't follow CNN at all but i find it ironic that people who bash CNN often follow the daily mail or the Sun, which are arguably in another league of unreliability. This is a pretty good reference I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ces#Legend

No idea what others follow. My Liverpool bias doesn't allow me to follow The S*n or Daily Mail, they're the very first two banned sources on Reddit where I hang out, followed by TheExpress, TalkSport and so on. We have 5 tiers of reliability plus the banned tier, similar to Wiki, but this is mostly for sports and nobody cares about that.

[Derek27]

Yes I read this article (despite it being from the daily mail, an objectively notoriously unreliable publication) when it was posted the other day, but even the daily mail makes no mention of a pregnant victim and points to the charges being for possession not dealing. So the daily mail source actually contradicts your original post.

I'm guessing it was sexed up.

[Derek27]

I'm sure you guys have other things/markets to do than fueling this pointless argument,

You would think so, on a trader's forum. Yesterday I spent over an hour reading about dinosaurs, today it's been the big bang timeline.

[Derek27]

flipping hypocrites! The statue of of a 17th century slave trader has been torn down in Bristol but it was absolutely fine to stand for the last few centuries!

[to75ne]

flipping hypocrites! The statue of of a 17th century slave trader has been torn down in Bristol but it was absolutely fine to stand for the last few centuries!

and chuchills statue outside parliament as been sprayed with "churchill was a racist". oh dear oh dear.

[Derek27]

I think the world's gone mad. I've even found a tin of meatballs in tomato sauce in my food cupboard, which I must have bought during the supermarket crisis.

[Kai]

I think the world's gone mad.

Does seem that way on election year. Last time Black Lives Matter was trending like this was back in 2016, it must be one of those weird coincidences

[greenmark]

flipping hypocrites! The statue of of a 17th century slave trader has been torn down in Bristol but it was absolutely fine to stand for the last few centuries!

From legitmate protest to cretinous vandalism in a trice.
I believe those monuments to slavery MUST stay. They remind us all of man's inhumanity to man.
We should walk past them every day and ensure these injustices are pointed out and are never repeated. I realise thats ridiculously niave, but destruction never achieves anything. Unless, of course you believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the beginnings of the new Japan.