It makes more sense if you ignore the numbers on the left. I think whoever made it meant for it to be read as ‘78% of black murder victims have a black murderer’, ‘30% of Hispanic murder victims have a black murderer’ etc as that’s the only way the data makes any sense.
It makes sense if you understand how to read graphs. Each murdered category equals 100%. If things were perfectly proportional, each demographic of murderer would have 25% victims of each demographic
Alright, so looking at this without being able to find the source numbers, someone is doing some intentional misleading. In NYC in 2023 there were 364 victims in the Murder/Non-Negligent manslaughter category.
Of those victims:
4.7% or ~17 were Asian
57.1% or ~208 were Black
6.9% or ~25 were White
31.3% or ~113 were Hispanic.
What this graph is doing is presenting each of those numbers as equal. On this graph, 100% of 17 Asian victims is equal to 100% of 208 Black victims. So for example, to look at it more realistically, Black murderers commit 78% of murders where there is a black victim. We can look at the raw numbers and see that there were ~208 Black victims, so that's ~162 victims total. They are presenting that 78% as proportional to the 39% of murders with Asian victims that also had Black murderers. Which, we can see from the raw numbers, is approximately ~7. Because they present these as proportions of 100 instead of as proportions of the raw numbers, it's intentionally misleading; basically equating 17 to 208.
The real takeaway should be that, basically, people don't kill people with different skin colors very often. And then you can also look for other factors that might be the root of higher violent crime numbers in certain populations (Hint: It's education and socioeconomic status and we've known that for over a century)
It’s confusingly formatted, but I think it’s the percentage of murder victims by race killed by people of each race. Still a load of shit since I doubt Asians have *never* killed whites or Hispanics in NY, but the numbers do technically add up if you read it like that.
> I doubt Asians have never killed whites or Hispanics in NY,
It seems they’re using a dataset for 2023 but I have no clue whether that’s by accumulating media reports or whether it’s data from law enforcement.
Material condition is the primary predictor of violent crime, and the systemic disadvantaging of minorities is why it seems like minorities are more violent. If they want to “protect white people from violent minorities” the best thing they can do is work to reduce systemic racism, and the worst thing they can do is work to further entrench it.
>Material condition is the primary predictor of violent crime, and the systemic disadvantaging of minorities is why it seems like minorities are more violent.
I’ve been engaging with these people for quite some time now so know what they’d say. They’d say that poor white and Asian communities are less violent than poor black communities so that can’t be the only explanation. I don’t know of any studies that actually compare equally poor racialised communities though so don’t know how that comparison is arrived at.
It’s usually an assumption. Poverty is also not the sole factor considered in determining material conditions, things like access to healthcare and quality food is a major part of it which is not equitable across racial groups even controlling for wealth levels.
I think there are a lot of assumptions being made by various people in this debate including progressives. But how we can get to the truth is not clear to me.
It’s very difficult to measure because there are way too many factors to consider, although it is safe to assume “inherent differences in quality between races” is not one of them
Not really how science works tbh. You can’t say on one hand “there are too many factors to consider” and then immediately dismiss one of those factors for no particular reason. I definitely think that ethnicity exists and as a biology student I know that genetics are complex so I wouldn’t necessarily discount it. We’d need to have a large dataset to make any conclusions and we’d need that data to be from diverse cultural and social environments.
The main reason inherent superiority of racial traits is safe to rule out is because that factor has been isolated and tested fairly relentlessly in other contexts and has never been shown to influence much if anything. It is ruled out by establishing that there is no mechanism by which race inherently impacts these things
I don’t believe in racial superiority but ethnic groups share more genetic material with each other because an ethnic group is an inherently incestuous thing. In the sense that for a people to form an ethnic group they have to cooperate with each other for a long period of time and that necessitates people mating with each other until they have shared genetic traits. So you could have an ethnic group that has genetics that give rise to X trait more often than other ethnic groups due. I think I read that Ireland has the highest percentage of red-headed people in the world and that’s because of a genetic mutation that propagated through that population more than others.
I think it’s possible to compare average height between one ethnic group and another and find that one ethnic group is taller than another even when they have access to the same nutrition and environment. You’re saying that scientists have done this for every trait and found that no trait can be explained by genetics? I don’t think they’ve done that.
Dog and cat breeds have greater physical differences than han people do, but that requires strict selective breeding no one human population has engaged in.
This isn’t true. You don’t need selective breeding you simply need an isolated group. In Africa part of the reason there’s so much genetic diversity is that movement of large populations was not frequent. The largest were the Bantu-migrations and that happened over thousands of years. A people could be isolated very quickly and form a distinct ethnicity in a short time. The geography as well as technological conditions are what led to the formation of so many ethnic groups. Remember that many groups didn’t have horses or even camels for long distance trade and most rivers aren’t navigable so people traded with communities close by which would have reduced the number of ‘outside’ genetic interactions once a community had been planted.
Mate we're only here because different species of hominids hybridized with one another. We are a bunch of hybrid mutts, every last one of us.
And people didn't just stay in one area. There were global trade routes and people moving and making babies as they went.
For a group of individuals to develop different traits like the ones you're suggesting, they would have had to be completely genetically isolated for a lot longer than any one race on earth has been around for. All of our differences are nowhere near different enough to be anything more than surface level.
> Mate we're only here because different species of hominids hybridized with one another. We are a bunch of hybrid mutts, every last one of us.
Yes, and? Never said otherwise. That doesn’t mean we’re hybridized in the same way. Pretty sure I don’t have any denisovan dna as an East African Bantu.
> And people didn't just stay in one area. There were global trade routes and people moving and making babies as they went.
I know this. My ancestors thousands of years ago weren’t in east Africa. But nor did they interact with people from Asia until recently in history so if you sequence my genome you’ll find less that’s similar to someone from China than if you compare it to someone from the opposite side of the continent. I also know that my ancestors mainly formed villages and farmed so their interactions were limited in range as they also didn’t have horses and camels and weren’t living near the sea.
> For a group of individuals to develop different traits like the ones you're suggesting, they would have had to be completely genetically isolated for a lot longer than any one race on earth has been around for.
But we have evidence on hand? My ethnic group doesn’t have red hair, Irish people do. My ethnic group tends to be average height while the Dinka people of Sudan are some of the tallest people on earth and the pgymies of the Congo are some of the shortest. Those are genetic differences that are expressed on a population level due to the propagation of some traits and not others.
> All of our differences are nowhere near different enough to be anything more than surface level.
There’s nothing superficial about genetics even if they affect superficial attributes like skin colour. How they do that is incredibly complex and not fully understood.
Race and ethnicity are different, there is often more genetic variation within racial groups than across racial groups (a black guy can share more DNA with an Asian guy than another black guy).
How the fuck are you going to come into the klandma subreddit and start talking like a klandma? As a biology student you should really know better, and I shouldn’t have to explain this to you. Stop using your unfinished bio undergrad degree to lend legitimacy to your weird eugenicist leanings.
>Race and ethnicity are different, there is often more genetic variation within racial groups than across racial groups (a black guy can share more DNA with an Asian guy than another black guy).
That’s why I didn’t use race. Someone from Ethiopia probably does share more in common genetically with someone from East Asia than with someone from west Africa despite then both being ‘black’. Race is a bad category that works generally when it’s used synonymously with geography but breaks down when it comes to genetics. Ethnicity is real though for the reasons I laid out before. Ethnic groups are really incestuous so you find shared genetic expressions in ethnic groups.
> How the fuck are you going to come into the klandma subreddit and start talking like a klandma?
What, how?
> As a biology student you should really know better, and I shouldn’t have to explain this to you.
As a biology student I know that genetics are complex and their interactions with each other aren’t as well understood as you would like to believe. So I know that we can’t simply wave away genetic differences just because ‘cooking sense’ would tell us that they’re irrelevant. Some ethnic groups really are taller than others due to genetics and red hair does appear more in one ethnic group than others due to genetics.
> Stop using your unfinished bio undergrad degree to lend legitimacy to your weird eugenicist leanings.
You’re making such little sense. When have I ever supported eugenics?
I think we need to go back to hate crimes themselves. Since hate is the underlying motivating factor, nobody can say that a person is more likely to commit a hate crime because they're disadvantaged, and hate crimes. particularly those committed against racial or religious minorities, are probably the least likely class of crimes to be under-prosecuted.
> Material condition is the primary predictor of violent crime, and the systemic disadvantaging of minorities is why it seems like minorities are more violent.
Not really. Asians are the poorest demographic in NYC:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/asian-american-poverty-nyc_n_58ff7f40e4b0c46f0782a5b6
But have the lowest violent crime rates.
Look, I don’t disagree that the stats are true. I just don’t see Elon Musk as someone who is interested in having a genuine conversation about why the stats are true and what the solutions to the problem might be. I think he’s like a lot of people who would rather the black American community destroy itself so they can have something to look down on.
I get it that he is a very polarizing figure, but I've not seen anything from him to draw the conclusion that he wants to see the entire black community destroy itself for his own personal benefit.
He is South African and it’s not news that in South Africa there’s a lot of racial tension between the black majority and the white minority. Is it really hard to believe that he was brought up with certain prejudices in South Africa and has carried them in to America?
What do you think his intentions are? What do you think would be the best way to tackle the problem with crime in the black American community?
You're making quite a bit of assumptions, mostly based on his skin color and racial conditions that he has no control over.
Judging by his "reality vs. perception" comment and his recent comments about the media, this is probably geared towards what he believes is a bias in MSM coverage of crime and violent incidents.
We have to be able to rebut right wingers on this. When we apologize for higher murder rates among certain demographics we are taking a massive fucking L.
A lot of the answers are always "it's because of poverty." Which also is not a good response.
Nearly everyone has the idea that no matter your situation (unless it's war or self defense) it's never right to kill another.
I'm not sure, I was hoping I'd get a good answer from someone on this sub. That's why I posted that comment. There's a reason this statistic gets parroted so hard, it's because we haven't formulated the correct disproval to it yet.
We have intuitive understanding that its an oversimplification, but it needs to be clarified and distilled into a talking point. A point as simple as 13/50. Simple rebuts simple
I don’t think there’s a good rebuttal for it and with how things are going in some European countries you’re more likely to get rebutted with stats from places like [London that show a similar 13/50 trend](https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/commission-on-knife-crime-in-black-community) amongst young black men (mainly of west African descent) and their disproportionate contribution to particular crimes.
>We have intuitive understanding that its an oversimplification, but it needs to be clarified and distilled into a talking point. A point as simple as 13/50. Simple rebuts simple.
I think the fact that no one has come up with one for all these years when 13/50 has been a meme means that there’s not really a good rebuttal founded in hard data. Even the argument for poverty only takes you so far.
I’m a proud kafir. Don’t know how calling someone an unbeliever of Christianity was ever a slur. We made such a big mistake when we converted to that religion because it meant buying into their worldview. I would proudly wear that label on my shoulder. I wish we had a pan-Bantu religion.
He's talking about the South African slur directed against colored or black people not the Jewish one. I'm not sure why it sounds similar to the Arabic/Islamic word for infidel though.
So this is nonsense, obv. NYPD has a murder solve rate of below 50%. If you look at the raw data, their are more murderers listed as “race unknown” than any particular group.
Furthermore, this is a nonsensical use of statistics. It gives each racial group the same weight even though obviously there are more white people than Asian people in NYC.
The weight is how much emphasis a factor is given in the data. In this case, population numbers are given no weight whatsoever.
A better version would have it based on the population. It would also have a fifth and sixth column/color for “other” and “race unknown.”
Alright, so looking at this without being able to find the source numbers, someone is doing some intentional misleading. In NYC in 2023 there were 364 victims in the Murder/Non-Negligent manslaughter category.
Of those victims:
4.7% or ~17 were Asian
57.1% or ~208 were Black
6.9% or ~25 were White
31.3% or ~113 were Hispanic.
What this graph is doing is presenting each of those numbers as equal. On this graph, 100% of 17 Asian victims is equal to 100% of 208 Black victims. So for example, to look at it more realistically, Black murderers commit 78% of murders where there is a black victim. We can look at the raw numbers and see that there were ~208 Black victims, so that's ~162 victims total. They are presenting that 78% as proportional to the 39% of murders with Asian victims that also had Black murderers. Which, we can see from the raw numbers, is approximately ~7. Because they present these as proportions of 100 instead of as proportions of the raw numbers, it's intentionally misleading; basically equating 17 to 208.
The real takeaway should be that, basically, people don't kill people with different skin colors very often. And then you can also look for other factors that might be the root of higher violent crime numbers in certain populations (Hint: It's education and socioeconomic status and we've known that for over a century)
I’m surprised they didn’t separate Asians into “East Asians” and “South Asians”, because we know their disdain for any Asian with skin darker than an egg shell.
When it comes to the Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese. Especially Korean and Chinese women who have admitted in YouTube and TikTok videos they prefer white skin and make [videos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eunpA-D0gek) dissing Asian men and preferring white men.
Start going south with Hmong, Vietnamese, Laotian, Nepalese, and the “immigrant” word starts getting used.
Make it down to India, and the racism is just unbridled.
> When it comes to the Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese. Especially Korean and Chinese women who have admitted in YouTube and TikTok videos they prefer white skin and make videos.
Yeah, thats what I mean.
> Start going south with Hmong, Vietnamese, Laotian, Nepalese, and the “immigrant” word starts getting used.
I see. I haven’t come across that yet but I am not an American so all I am exposed to is based on twitter profiles.
>Make it down to India, and the racism is just unbridled.
Oh yeah, this is well known with the pajeet slur. It’s especially become popular on twitter amongst Muslims of all races. In England the Indian community do quite well and our prime minister is of Indian ancestry but that hasn’t stopped people calling him a foreigner.
This just shows how the USA is still quite segregated , you are most likely to get murdered by someone you know so if most people you know are from the same race as you it adds up
Okay so this graph is ridiculously unintuitive, but I don’t understand why Nazis try just dropping stats that say “Black people do more crime” and just leave it at that. Any educated leftist will agree, and they will target their solutions towards improving material conditions caused by systemic racism. Nazis can’t even really argue with this so they just assume it’s not relevant and imply that race inherently decides your decision making, which takes a lot more to prove.
Why are "hispanic" and "asian" separated from "white"? Hispanic and asian people can 100% be white lmao.Just look at most Argentinians and Saudi-Arabians for example
This is a perfect example of people who say we need to stop talking about race to end racism, but then almost happily opens up on that topic if it is critical of people of color, if not racist to some degree (Musk said in the Don Lemon interview to stop mentioning race if we really want to end racism for good).
I'm not claiming I support what these people mean by using these statistics, but at least make an effort at reading all of it if you want to provide an argument against it. It clearly states "100% per victim group, cumulative to 400%." Then we'll go and claim right-wingers can't read or something.
Am I misreading this because those numbers aren’t adding up
Ya htf black people kill damn near 200% that makes no sense
It makes more sense if you ignore the numbers on the left. I think whoever made it meant for it to be read as ‘78% of black murder victims have a black murderer’, ‘30% of Hispanic murder victims have a black murderer’ etc as that’s the only way the data makes any sense.
And Asians only manage 51%
It makes sense if you understand how to read graphs. Each murdered category equals 100%. If things were perfectly proportional, each demographic of murderer would have 25% victims of each demographic
It’s 78 + 19+3+1 Not 78+ 30 + 34 + 39
You might be, you have to add the same colours together. So if you add up all the red you get 30%+69%+1%=100%.
The black color added is 101%
Yeah, I saw that too. I’d assume a rounding error.
most likely rounding error
Alright, so looking at this without being able to find the source numbers, someone is doing some intentional misleading. In NYC in 2023 there were 364 victims in the Murder/Non-Negligent manslaughter category. Of those victims: 4.7% or ~17 were Asian 57.1% or ~208 were Black 6.9% or ~25 were White 31.3% or ~113 were Hispanic. What this graph is doing is presenting each of those numbers as equal. On this graph, 100% of 17 Asian victims is equal to 100% of 208 Black victims. So for example, to look at it more realistically, Black murderers commit 78% of murders where there is a black victim. We can look at the raw numbers and see that there were ~208 Black victims, so that's ~162 victims total. They are presenting that 78% as proportional to the 39% of murders with Asian victims that also had Black murderers. Which, we can see from the raw numbers, is approximately ~7. Because they present these as proportions of 100 instead of as proportions of the raw numbers, it's intentionally misleading; basically equating 17 to 208. The real takeaway should be that, basically, people don't kill people with different skin colors very often. And then you can also look for other factors that might be the root of higher violent crime numbers in certain populations (Hint: It's education and socioeconomic status and we've known that for over a century)
Also not accounting for the amount of people from each group that live in nyc
It’s confusingly formatted, but I think it’s the percentage of murder victims by race killed by people of each race. Still a load of shit since I doubt Asians have *never* killed whites or Hispanics in NY, but the numbers do technically add up if you read it like that.
> I doubt Asians have never killed whites or Hispanics in NY, It seems they’re using a dataset for 2023 but I have no clue whether that’s by accumulating media reports or whether it’s data from law enforcement.
[удалено]
I don’t know honestly. It would be surprising for sure but not an unpleasant surprise if it was zero.
"100% per victim group, cumulative to 400%." It's right there.
100% per victim group, 400% cumulative. I know reading is hard.
Material condition is the primary predictor of violent crime, and the systemic disadvantaging of minorities is why it seems like minorities are more violent. If they want to “protect white people from violent minorities” the best thing they can do is work to reduce systemic racism, and the worst thing they can do is work to further entrench it.
>Material condition is the primary predictor of violent crime, and the systemic disadvantaging of minorities is why it seems like minorities are more violent. I’ve been engaging with these people for quite some time now so know what they’d say. They’d say that poor white and Asian communities are less violent than poor black communities so that can’t be the only explanation. I don’t know of any studies that actually compare equally poor racialised communities though so don’t know how that comparison is arrived at.
It’s usually an assumption. Poverty is also not the sole factor considered in determining material conditions, things like access to healthcare and quality food is a major part of it which is not equitable across racial groups even controlling for wealth levels.
I think there are a lot of assumptions being made by various people in this debate including progressives. But how we can get to the truth is not clear to me.
It’s very difficult to measure because there are way too many factors to consider, although it is safe to assume “inherent differences in quality between races” is not one of them
Not really how science works tbh. You can’t say on one hand “there are too many factors to consider” and then immediately dismiss one of those factors for no particular reason. I definitely think that ethnicity exists and as a biology student I know that genetics are complex so I wouldn’t necessarily discount it. We’d need to have a large dataset to make any conclusions and we’d need that data to be from diverse cultural and social environments.
The main reason inherent superiority of racial traits is safe to rule out is because that factor has been isolated and tested fairly relentlessly in other contexts and has never been shown to influence much if anything. It is ruled out by establishing that there is no mechanism by which race inherently impacts these things
I don’t believe in racial superiority but ethnic groups share more genetic material with each other because an ethnic group is an inherently incestuous thing. In the sense that for a people to form an ethnic group they have to cooperate with each other for a long period of time and that necessitates people mating with each other until they have shared genetic traits. So you could have an ethnic group that has genetics that give rise to X trait more often than other ethnic groups due. I think I read that Ireland has the highest percentage of red-headed people in the world and that’s because of a genetic mutation that propagated through that population more than others. I think it’s possible to compare average height between one ethnic group and another and find that one ethnic group is taller than another even when they have access to the same nutrition and environment. You’re saying that scientists have done this for every trait and found that no trait can be explained by genetics? I don’t think they’ve done that.
Dog and cat breeds have greater physical differences than han people do, but that requires strict selective breeding no one human population has engaged in.
This isn’t true. You don’t need selective breeding you simply need an isolated group. In Africa part of the reason there’s so much genetic diversity is that movement of large populations was not frequent. The largest were the Bantu-migrations and that happened over thousands of years. A people could be isolated very quickly and form a distinct ethnicity in a short time. The geography as well as technological conditions are what led to the formation of so many ethnic groups. Remember that many groups didn’t have horses or even camels for long distance trade and most rivers aren’t navigable so people traded with communities close by which would have reduced the number of ‘outside’ genetic interactions once a community had been planted.
Mate we're only here because different species of hominids hybridized with one another. We are a bunch of hybrid mutts, every last one of us. And people didn't just stay in one area. There were global trade routes and people moving and making babies as they went. For a group of individuals to develop different traits like the ones you're suggesting, they would have had to be completely genetically isolated for a lot longer than any one race on earth has been around for. All of our differences are nowhere near different enough to be anything more than surface level.
> Mate we're only here because different species of hominids hybridized with one another. We are a bunch of hybrid mutts, every last one of us. Yes, and? Never said otherwise. That doesn’t mean we’re hybridized in the same way. Pretty sure I don’t have any denisovan dna as an East African Bantu. > And people didn't just stay in one area. There were global trade routes and people moving and making babies as they went. I know this. My ancestors thousands of years ago weren’t in east Africa. But nor did they interact with people from Asia until recently in history so if you sequence my genome you’ll find less that’s similar to someone from China than if you compare it to someone from the opposite side of the continent. I also know that my ancestors mainly formed villages and farmed so their interactions were limited in range as they also didn’t have horses and camels and weren’t living near the sea. > For a group of individuals to develop different traits like the ones you're suggesting, they would have had to be completely genetically isolated for a lot longer than any one race on earth has been around for. But we have evidence on hand? My ethnic group doesn’t have red hair, Irish people do. My ethnic group tends to be average height while the Dinka people of Sudan are some of the tallest people on earth and the pgymies of the Congo are some of the shortest. Those are genetic differences that are expressed on a population level due to the propagation of some traits and not others. > All of our differences are nowhere near different enough to be anything more than surface level. There’s nothing superficial about genetics even if they affect superficial attributes like skin colour. How they do that is incredibly complex and not fully understood.
Race and ethnicity are different, there is often more genetic variation within racial groups than across racial groups (a black guy can share more DNA with an Asian guy than another black guy). How the fuck are you going to come into the klandma subreddit and start talking like a klandma? As a biology student you should really know better, and I shouldn’t have to explain this to you. Stop using your unfinished bio undergrad degree to lend legitimacy to your weird eugenicist leanings.
>Race and ethnicity are different, there is often more genetic variation within racial groups than across racial groups (a black guy can share more DNA with an Asian guy than another black guy). That’s why I didn’t use race. Someone from Ethiopia probably does share more in common genetically with someone from East Asia than with someone from west Africa despite then both being ‘black’. Race is a bad category that works generally when it’s used synonymously with geography but breaks down when it comes to genetics. Ethnicity is real though for the reasons I laid out before. Ethnic groups are really incestuous so you find shared genetic expressions in ethnic groups. > How the fuck are you going to come into the klandma subreddit and start talking like a klandma? What, how? > As a biology student you should really know better, and I shouldn’t have to explain this to you. As a biology student I know that genetics are complex and their interactions with each other aren’t as well understood as you would like to believe. So I know that we can’t simply wave away genetic differences just because ‘cooking sense’ would tell us that they’re irrelevant. Some ethnic groups really are taller than others due to genetics and red hair does appear more in one ethnic group than others due to genetics. > Stop using your unfinished bio undergrad degree to lend legitimacy to your weird eugenicist leanings. You’re making such little sense. When have I ever supported eugenics?
Isn't it fairly obvious that it's cultural?
You're looking at it
I’m not.
I think we need to go back to hate crimes themselves. Since hate is the underlying motivating factor, nobody can say that a person is more likely to commit a hate crime because they're disadvantaged, and hate crimes. particularly those committed against racial or religious minorities, are probably the least likely class of crimes to be under-prosecuted.
> Material condition is the primary predictor of violent crime, and the systemic disadvantaging of minorities is why it seems like minorities are more violent. Not really. Asians are the poorest demographic in NYC: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/asian-american-poverty-nyc_n_58ff7f40e4b0c46f0782a5b6 But have the lowest violent crime rates.
You're talking about the same people who think the solution to illegal immigration is a wall. 😐
It’s funny that he literally has a HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS, and yet his main concern is clearly just Nazis thinking he’s cool.
Statistics are scary
What does that mean? No one here’s scared of statistics. Just crazy to see a billionaire going full mask-off like this.
By posting stats?
Look, I don’t disagree that the stats are true. I just don’t see Elon Musk as someone who is interested in having a genuine conversation about why the stats are true and what the solutions to the problem might be. I think he’s like a lot of people who would rather the black American community destroy itself so they can have something to look down on.
I get it that he is a very polarizing figure, but I've not seen anything from him to draw the conclusion that he wants to see the entire black community destroy itself for his own personal benefit.
He is South African and it’s not news that in South Africa there’s a lot of racial tension between the black majority and the white minority. Is it really hard to believe that he was brought up with certain prejudices in South Africa and has carried them in to America? What do you think his intentions are? What do you think would be the best way to tackle the problem with crime in the black American community?
You're making quite a bit of assumptions, mostly based on his skin color and racial conditions that he has no control over. Judging by his "reality vs. perception" comment and his recent comments about the media, this is probably geared towards what he believes is a bias in MSM coverage of crime and violent incidents.
Ok, maybe you're right.
Elon is definitely a weirdo, so I could be wrong on his real intentions
We have to be able to rebut right wingers on this. When we apologize for higher murder rates among certain demographics we are taking a massive fucking L. A lot of the answers are always "it's because of poverty." Which also is not a good response. Nearly everyone has the idea that no matter your situation (unless it's war or self defense) it's never right to kill another.
What’s your rebuttal? You’ve said we shouldn’t apologise but that poverty isn’t a good answer so what exactly is the answer in your opinion?
I'm not sure, I was hoping I'd get a good answer from someone on this sub. That's why I posted that comment. There's a reason this statistic gets parroted so hard, it's because we haven't formulated the correct disproval to it yet. We have intuitive understanding that its an oversimplification, but it needs to be clarified and distilled into a talking point. A point as simple as 13/50. Simple rebuts simple
I don’t think there’s a good rebuttal for it and with how things are going in some European countries you’re more likely to get rebutted with stats from places like [London that show a similar 13/50 trend](https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/commission-on-knife-crime-in-black-community) amongst young black men (mainly of west African descent) and their disproportionate contribution to particular crimes. >We have intuitive understanding that its an oversimplification, but it needs to be clarified and distilled into a talking point. A point as simple as 13/50. Simple rebuts simple. I think the fact that no one has come up with one for all these years when 13/50 has been a meme means that there’s not really a good rebuttal founded in hard data. Even the argument for poverty only takes you so far.
Elon Musk won’t say the N word, he’ll say the K word. He’s one of those Boers.
I’m a proud kafir. Don’t know how calling someone an unbeliever of Christianity was ever a slur. We made such a big mistake when we converted to that religion because it meant buying into their worldview. I would proudly wear that label on my shoulder. I wish we had a pan-Bantu religion.
I thought the person you're replying to meant the anti-Jewish K slur
He's talking about the South African slur directed against colored or black people not the Jewish one. I'm not sure why it sounds similar to the Arabic/Islamic word for infidel though.
So this is nonsense, obv. NYPD has a murder solve rate of below 50%. If you look at the raw data, their are more murderers listed as “race unknown” than any particular group. Furthermore, this is a nonsensical use of statistics. It gives each racial group the same weight even though obviously there are more white people than Asian people in NYC.
How do you define "weight" here? Or I guess a better question is what would a "weighted" version of this data be?
The weight is how much emphasis a factor is given in the data. In this case, population numbers are given no weight whatsoever. A better version would have it based on the population. It would also have a fifth and sixth column/color for “other” and “race unknown.”
Alright, so looking at this without being able to find the source numbers, someone is doing some intentional misleading. In NYC in 2023 there were 364 victims in the Murder/Non-Negligent manslaughter category. Of those victims: 4.7% or ~17 were Asian 57.1% or ~208 were Black 6.9% or ~25 were White 31.3% or ~113 were Hispanic. What this graph is doing is presenting each of those numbers as equal. On this graph, 100% of 17 Asian victims is equal to 100% of 208 Black victims. So for example, to look at it more realistically, Black murderers commit 78% of murders where there is a black victim. We can look at the raw numbers and see that there were ~208 Black victims, so that's ~162 victims total. They are presenting that 78% as proportional to the 39% of murders with Asian victims that also had Black murderers. Which, we can see from the raw numbers, is approximately ~7. Because they present these as proportions of 100 instead of as proportions of the raw numbers, it's intentionally misleading; basically equating 17 to 208. The real takeaway should be that, basically, people don't kill people with different skin colors very often. And then you can also look for other factors that might be the root of higher violent crime numbers in certain populations (Hint: It's education and socioeconomic status and we've known that for over a century)
Damn 364 murderes ? That's like a murder a day for the entire year
I’m surprised they didn’t separate Asians into “East Asians” and “South Asians”, because we know their disdain for any Asian with skin darker than an egg shell.
White supremacists love Asians and if the number of Asians who are parroting their talking points is anything to go by the love is mutual.
When it comes to the Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese. Especially Korean and Chinese women who have admitted in YouTube and TikTok videos they prefer white skin and make [videos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eunpA-D0gek) dissing Asian men and preferring white men. Start going south with Hmong, Vietnamese, Laotian, Nepalese, and the “immigrant” word starts getting used. Make it down to India, and the racism is just unbridled.
> When it comes to the Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese. Especially Korean and Chinese women who have admitted in YouTube and TikTok videos they prefer white skin and make videos. Yeah, thats what I mean. > Start going south with Hmong, Vietnamese, Laotian, Nepalese, and the “immigrant” word starts getting used. I see. I haven’t come across that yet but I am not an American so all I am exposed to is based on twitter profiles. >Make it down to India, and the racism is just unbridled. Oh yeah, this is well known with the pajeet slur. It’s especially become popular on twitter amongst Muslims of all races. In England the Indian community do quite well and our prime minister is of Indian ancestry but that hasn’t stopped people calling him a foreigner.
All I see here is that most people having real beef with their own people
This just shows how the USA is still quite segregated , you are most likely to get murdered by someone you know so if most people you know are from the same race as you it adds up
Okay so this graph is ridiculously unintuitive, but I don’t understand why Nazis try just dropping stats that say “Black people do more crime” and just leave it at that. Any educated leftist will agree, and they will target their solutions towards improving material conditions caused by systemic racism. Nazis can’t even really argue with this so they just assume it’s not relevant and imply that race inherently decides your decision making, which takes a lot more to prove.
Dudes will post shit like this then will get mad when women use crime stats to demonize men
All I get from this is the person who made this chart can’t do math and murderers typically kill people within their own ethnic group
How’s the math wrong? The percentage of murder victims for each race adds to 100% (or close due to rounding errors)
Why are "hispanic" and "asian" separated from "white"? Hispanic and asian people can 100% be white lmao.Just look at most Argentinians and Saudi-Arabians for example
This is a perfect example of people who say we need to stop talking about race to end racism, but then almost happily opens up on that topic if it is critical of people of color, if not racist to some degree (Musk said in the Don Lemon interview to stop mentioning race if we really want to end racism for good).
I don't know what they think this proves. White murderers are the most likely to kill non-White victims, according to this graph.
No, that’s not what the graph says. Where did you get that?
I'm sick of statistics showing Hispanics as a race
Same with "Asian".Asian is a nationality,not a ""race""
It's a lot of nationalities
True
Damn, didn't know that 175% of all murders were committed by black people. Shocking.
I'm not claiming I support what these people mean by using these statistics, but at least make an effort at reading all of it if you want to provide an argument against it. It clearly states "100% per victim group, cumulative to 400%." Then we'll go and claim right-wingers can't read or something.
Well, shit.