White privilege at its best

[AngleEyes]

You are both cherry picking to suit your ingrained opinions, where as my views where changed in light of the facts.

Nonsense, you interpreted and presented certain facts to suit your argument.
For instance, you presented total numbers, rather than looking at the percentage of the population.
And you argued, from those carefully chosen statistics, that more white people are killed than ethnic minorities.

You presented figures about prison populations, totally ignoring the poverty in society, and its causes, and prejudice in society and the police and justice system that causes more ethnic minorities to be caught, charged and more severe penalties to be handed down.

Your argument was that relatively more ethnic minorities are involved with the police and justice system, totally ignoring the prejudicial probability that ethnic minorities suffer more from poverty, discrimination from police and justice system.
Your whole attitude ignores the causes of crimes.
Your methodology was flawed to start with.

 

[SirGalahad]

You are both cherry picking to suit your ingrained opinions, where as my views where changed in light of the facts.

Thats a complete lie. You don't bring together two sets of data and then assume some relationship - you don't even know the difference between causation and correlation.

How long before you post your nonsense again?

 

[^woody^]

Black people used to be lynched, once upon a time in the USA - for doing nowt. These days they get blasted with a shotgun or suffocated to death

Now that's white privilege right there, to come out with generalisation like that. And part of the ongoing division and segregation problem too. It's called passive racism.

How many black people get "blasted with a shotgun or suffocated to death" annually nowadays? Out of a populous of how many. And for what reasons?

Does this generalisation apply to Indians, Hispanics, japs Muslims or just blacks?

 

[noseall]

Does this generalisation apply to Indians, Hispanics, japs Muslims or just blacks?

I don't think your Dixie cousins particularly tolerated anything other than fellow whites. However, black lynchings seem to be their favourite, with a few Mexicans thrown into the mix.

 

[^woody^]

I don't think your Dixie cousins particularly tolerated anything other than fellow whites. However, black lynchings seem to be their favourite, with a few Mexicans thrown into the mix.

Is there a cut-off date for when people can no longer keep citing the same old things form centuries ago? And is there any ruling that we keep things relevant to blightly, or can I expect your ramblings on the Serbian or Rwandan genocides, the Uighurs, The Myanmar Coup and crackdown, or in fact any persecution of a minority other than the broken record of black. American. slavery. - which is frankly, tiring after four centuries.

 

[noseall]

Is there a cut-off date for when people can no longer keep citing the same old things form centuries ago?

Incredible that it still goes on - white privilege and killing blacks for no reason. Agree, it's very tiresome (sigh).

 

[AngleEyes]

Is there a cut-off date for when people can no longer keep citing the same old things form centuries ago? And is there any ruling that we keep things relevant to blightly, or can I expect your ramblings on the Serbian or Rwandan genocides, the Uighurs, The Myanmar Coup and crackdown, or in fact any persecution of a minority other than the broken record of black. American. slavery. - which is frankly, tiring after four centuries.

As much as you'd like to ignore racism and pretend it never existed, no, there is no cut-off date for when racism is explained, exposed, ridiculed or objected to.

 

[Mottie]

.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

Is there a cut-off date for when people can no longer keep citing the same old things form centuries ago? And is there any ruling that we keep things relevant to blightly, or can I expect your ramblings on the Serbian or Rwandan genocides, the Uighurs, The Myanmar Coup and crackdown, or in fact any persecution of a minority other than the broken record of black. American. slavery. - which is frankly, tiring after four centuries.

Let me know if you find the cut off date as I've been thinking about claiming state benefits from Italy and France over such matters as the Roman invasion and the Harrying Of The North.

 

[AngleEyes]

Let me know if you find the cut off date as I've been thinking about claiming state benefits from Italy and France over such matters as the Roman invasion and the Harrying Of The North.

Benefits were not introduced into France or Italy until the 1930's. And the governments of those countries did not make them retrospective.
As William the Conqueror was considered King of England, his Harrowing of the North were considered English policies, just like Boris's so called 'levelling up', so France and Italy were not involved.

Also, I suspect you were not born during the Roman invasion, so benefits would be payable to your ancestors, not to you. It would be illegal for you to claim their benefits after their demise.

 

[^woody^]

As much as you'd like to ignore racism and pretend it never existed, no, there is no cut-off date for when racism is explained, exposed, ridiculed or objected to.

You seem to be implying that racism only applies to blacks and to those who have descended from the slave trade ... a statement and concept which is a itself passive racism.

 

[^woody^]

Incredible that it still goes on - white privilege and killing blacks for no reason. Agree, it's very tiresome (sigh).

I don't see many (any) of your posts championing the senseless killings in Mexico City or Latin America generally. Do you have something against our Latino brothers?

Even more bizarre your post count is very low on the killings for no reason in Jamaica (top three world homicide rates), and yet my understanding is that those killed in Jamaica are predominantly black. The implication of this (in the minds of superior white privileged liberals) is that if you kill a black person for no reason and you are black, then that's 'OK' you wont get any condemnation from the superior white liberals, but if you kill a black person and you are white, then the same superior white privileged find you summarily guilty not just of murder but of racist murder. And that again is passive racism. I'm seeing a trend here.

 

[noseall]

I'm seeing a trend here.

Yes po' blacks being killed by entitled gun crazy whites, just for being black. Took you a while though. Can you believe those gammons weren't arrested until there was an outcry? Just like the good old's days of Dixie.

 

[SirGalahad]

I don't see many (any) of your posts championing the senseless killings in Mexico City or Latin America generally. Do you have something against our Latino brothers?

Even more bizarre your post count is very low on the killings for no reason in Jamaica (top three world homicide rates), and yet my understanding is that those killed in Jamaica are predominantly black. The implication of this (in the minds of superior white privileged liberals) is that if you kill a black person for no reason and you are black, then that's 'OK' you wont get any condemnation from the superior white liberals, but if you kill a black person and you are white, then the same superior white privileged find you summarily guilty not just of murder but of racist murder. And that again is passive racism. I'm seeing a trend here.

The issue is why there is a difference between those killed by police. Unless your brazen bigotry has veered off on a tangent again and it's not just to do with racism.

 

[joe384]

Did you selectively quote 2016 figures, or did you massage the stats?

Here is what he quoted, from the guardian:

If you add the black, native American, Asian and Hispanic figures together the numbers look astronomically stacked against non-white people.

Young black men were nine times more likely than other Americans to be killed by police officers in 2015, according to the findings of a Guardian study that recorded a final tally of 1,134 deaths at the hands of law enforcement officers this year.
Their rate of police-involved deaths was five times higher than for white men of the same age.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/31/the-counted-police-killings-2015-young-black-men
​

On the basis of this evidence the rest of your comments can be dismissed as fake propaganda, fuelled by prejudice.

You are selecting the stats that are adjusting for population here. Which is wrong, as huge numbers of the population are not coming into contact with the police anyway. Transam has pointed this out several times. By your reasoning, young males are unfairly targeted as well.

I've shown how munroast's claims are fictional.

Not fictional. They were the total 2016 figures.

Nonsense, it's a recognised fact that the police choose with whom they interact. If they are biased (and they obviously are) they will choose to interact more with the non-white population, and in a more disrespectful and aggressive way. That is an historical and ingrained culture.

This is ludicrous. The police go to where the crime is reported. Not quite sure what you are suggesting here.

Nonsense, you interpreted and presented certain facts to suit your argument.
For instance, you presented total numbers, rather than looking at the percentage of the population.

Correctly, as explained above.

And you argued, from those carefully chosen statistics, that more white people are killed than ethnic minorities.

A true fact!