Topic: Black Crimes Matter & the 817 Serial Predators - page 9. (Read 4612 times)

Report: Suspect in murder, rape of 14-year-old girl in 1984 arrested in Florida

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2020/09/11/report-suspect-in-murder-rape-of-14-year-old-girl-in-1984-arrested-in-florida/

In the US the word "discriminate" has pretty much lost the meaning you speak of, and today is strictly used to mean racial discrimination (or to allege that).

You see in this thread, the broadening and generalization (or attempt to ) of the phrase "white supremacy," and others.

Yes, I agree this has been a much more sensible discussion than most I've had on social media or on this forum.
I have no doubt that however hard we try to be objective over such complex issues we will always allow our past experiences to be a factor. So yes I think that's a fair point.

Cheers it was nice to have a civil chat here on bitcointalk.

Found!!! At Trump Rally!!!

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2020/10/04/video-pjms-megan-fox-finally-finds-a-white-supremacist-outside-walter-reed-hospital-n1002936

I see now that you've tightened up on your definition of racism.
That is sensible.

You see the word discriminate isn't really enough either. It is simply the ability to make a distinction.

What you seem to be getting at is provably unfair, suboptimal and unwarranted treatment/distinction based on race.
You will probably say and genuinely mean it " yes that's what racism is"
But many are not willing even to confine it to that.

This will really mean that every single scenario will be open to debate on what is unfair,unwarranted and suboptimal.
There is no point saying something is racist unless you can conclusively prove it is unfair, unwarranted and suboptimal.

The knife crime example I provided is a perfect example.

I disagree with you that most people want to use the term racism as a debate opener.

I have experienced this on twitter and other social media and in RL.
You only have to say that you disagree with them and start to present you argument and they will immediately scream racist racist racist. They never attempt to debunk or refute your points or even in many cases willing to allow you to present them.

Also racism is not only used by many when they believe there is clear negative or suboptimal discrimination they will scream racist at any discrimination aka any distinction observed or proposed. They seem to see no requirement to demonstrate it is negative in any meaningful or useful way.

I feel the analogies with animals may be upsetting you so I will leave that. However, you've later answered your own point. If I had access to the statistics on any given situation in would use those to my best ability to attain my goal.  This included statistics on large cats or any creature.
As you say this is just being smart and attempting to behave in an optimal way in that situation.

I don't see the animals as an inappropriate analogy.  But anyway.

It seems that we are more in alignment when you are describing how you would behave based on data you have access too.
However many would call that racism and I believe this is exactly the same as how the police operate with the stop and search for knives. You goal is to preserve your life, their goal is to preserve as many other lives or prevent as many deaths due to stabbing as possible.

Like chinese people who screamed racism when covid was first announced to the west and its origin was china and only chinese persons so far had been tested postive. So you get a bunch of chinese tourists next to you in the museum and you may decide to move away based on that data you have and your goal of not getting infected. This is sensible and reasonable behavior.

This is why racism is not useful as a word because it is so widely abused and expanded that it encompasses to many people any distinction made on race. You can keep saying but yes it has a definition ?but the definition is not drilled down on sufficiently to be useful.
Better to say to the person you are debating with I will not recognize your claim of racism until such at time your argument demonstrates that my own is sub optimal.  I will not accept my opinion or argument is simply racist because you've said your magic word and that's the end of it you win.


The word racist must be used when the debate is concluded or not at all. Conclusive proof or irrefutable evidence is harder to attain than many believe hence why the term racism is never going to be provably appropriate in most scenarios that realistically would be considered debate worthy. I mean most true racism could likely be explained sensibly by incredibly low functioning and mental illness.

The definition of racism to me is intentionally open ended and vague. Hence its huge power to cower people into submission and encompass nearly anything they like.

I still say it is a useless term simply because it is too vague and hence too subjective. Subjectivity is rarely useful.

If racism had a very tight definition and was drilled down and down upon until it was near impossible for people without complete understanding of the topic to misrepresent then it could be useful.
Most people screaming racism and hate speech on Twitter and other social media rendered those terms meaningless along time ago when they accepted racism to be any distinction made on the basis of race. .

Sorry if my English is not crystal clear. It is not my first language.

Any specific points you wish to clarify just ask.
I simply like to debate for my own personal expansion.
I like being shown it is optimal to adapt my views.
I am very open minded.
My experience with White and Black people has been pretty much equally positive.
In my anecdotal experience which means little I have found Black people to be more sincere and open than white people. White people to be more diplomatic and less physically violent. That is only limited to environments where both were I would estimate to be of middle class. I would honestly say though that black people in my opinion seem to consider race a lot more than whites in general discussion. I wouldn't say that makes them more " racist" but certainly they would bring race into discussions a lot more than whites. That may be sensible and relevant so not a negative or positive just an observation.

I would love to see a diverse environment world wide and for that to be optimal for human kind.

I do fear this is not realistic without a huge amount of turmoil and suffering along the way.
I'm not sure diversity is natural and that humans are ready for this as yet.
Somethings are hardwired in via evolution and these fears and genetic differences are insoluble.
As a dominant or more populace race sees another race growing to a size to rival their own those evolutionary traits come to the surface.

It seems that the next stage in evolution may supersede or make those differences redundant so in 50yrs this entire problem will be resolved by technology.

Anyway that is for another time.

When people call you a racist or claim you are guilt of hate speech getting them to drill down on their definition and make their reasoning transparent for analysis often results in the opponent either just repeating the allegation or running away.

I don't think its always negative to treat people differently by race, in healthcare its absolutely necessary. But the definition I provided doesn't mean medical circumstances, or respecting anthers culture. Thing is, that isn't racism. Racism is explicitly negative and means to discriminate against another person based on race, sorry I should have worded it better.

Racism is absolutely a useful word. It brings uncomfortable discussion to light which is in itself is very important. No one said the word racism is a debate winner, but its descriptive, explanatory and helpful. You are the only person saying people use racism to try and 'end debates' when in reality the word racism should trigger discussion, not end it. If you see the word racist and somehow think it isn't a necessary word you're living in a bubble.

I'm going to assume you to be a civilian. A racist action from you would be abusing someone (physically or verbally) based on their race. I'm sure this isn't something you'd do because what normal person would?
Or it could be calling the police on black people existing in a public space, again a racist action as its based on their colour.

A racist action from a police officer results in people dying or unfairly getting criminal convictions.
A racist action from a civilian with a gun gets people killed.
A racist prejudice held by a court judge means more prison time.

The problem is racism in positions of power.

Okay so per your hypothetical situation, you've been told one big cat is friendly, the other will try to rip your face of. Do you apply this knowledge to all big cats you meet? Or would you be naturally cautious of all of them because you don't know them as individuals, you dont know if theyre wild or have owners, you dont know their mannerisms? Any sensible person exercises caution. That isn't discriminatory, its smart.
I don't know why you think animals are a good example when talking about people.

I'm cautious of any white person with a gun, they're statistically more likely to shoot so I am not gonna go near them. I'm cautious of any man at night, they're statistically more likely to kill. I'm cautious of people in poorer areas, the location is more likely to be a high crime area. That isn't discrimination, they're strangers, I wouldn't go near them anyway. My behaviour hasn't changed, I've just made a judgement based on private prejudice that hasn't outwardly effected anyone.

You are confusing personal private prejudices with overt racism.

The thing is though, all the statistics point to unfair targeting of coloured people regardless of area, harsher prison sentences and more fatalities in police custody. Any neutral analytical eye can see that. I

Lets just focus on one point at a time and take it from there.

As per your definition of racism aka treating people differently according to race.
You think that must be a negative.
I simply don't agree.
It can be positive thing.

Let's think up some hypothetical examples.

Fatalities due to stabbings. Not carrying knives.

If we say 95% of fatalities due to stabbing were perpetrated by black people

The goal is reducing fatalities due to knife crime.

Then it is perfectly sensible and reasonable for the police to stop and search far far more black people than white.

I mean even if you claim that there is no significant difference in the numbers of each race carrying knives but you will obviously only find more on black people if you stop and search them more. Really doesn't matter if the goal is reducing fatalities due to stabbings and not having a goal of simply making sure equal amounts of both races are busted for carrying knives.

Your point about cat and lion and criminal and non criminal is not sensible.
I am distinguishing between cat and lion and black and white.
I mean if it makes it seem more analogous

I am housing sitting a wealthy persons home. He tells me he has 2 exotic pets a black panther and snow leopard. He says the black panther will simply lick you and be pals, the snow leopard well.. don't open its cage because it will maul you.

So again panther wanders in, I'm chilled and relax let it snuggle up. Snow leopard  gets in somehow then i run to another room lock the door and make some phone calls.

I mean without the information the friend gave me and my sensible goal of preserving my life then I couldn't tell from appearance only if I should act any differently to either. Since I have the stats to hand that panther has demonstrated he is a lick and snuggle kind of cat and the other is tear your arms off kind of cat then I can sensibly elect to treat them very differently according to their species.

Making sensible and reasonable use of information to attain your goals is clearly not a negative. Where the goals are themselves no immediately or after debate established as a negative.

For instance some may say that reducing fatalities due to knife crime is a negative because the stats further show that the fatalities resulting from black knife crime are 99% black.  They may argue that therefore this is helping to reduce the black population. Therefore stopping and searching blacks is entirely wrong and indeed racist.   That could be seen as a preposterous by others who say the goal is not to reduce the black population via black on black stabbings at all and that stop and searching blacks for knives as much as possible is a sensible idea to save black lives and is not racist because it is not a negative to save their lives and see a nice booming increase in the black population.

Each suggestion must be weighed on its merits according to the goal. That goal must be analysed sensibly to establish its value and merit.

Treating people differently according to race is entirely sensible in certain scenarios.
I'm sure you don't claim affirmative action is racist. That is treating people differently according to race.

Racism is not a useful term. Actions are either sub optimal or optimal. There must be debate to establish this not just a magical one word that seeks to win every debate by insinuating the opponents argument is negative and must be rejected when that is not true.

White supremacy, hate speech and racism arent broad terms at all, they all have very clear definitions. You cant just not recognise terms that are a literal part of english language.
White supremacy - beliving white people to be superior/supreme (the words are right there, theres no other interpretation)
Hate speech- speech indicating prejudice against specific groups
Racism - treating someone differently based on their race
See, that wasn't hard at all, they're terms with definitions and they are perfectly valid in debates. Mind you I find people like to latch onto those words and cry they're 'open to interpretation' or 'not a real argument'. They're definitely words that definitely have a place in debates and I find that sometimes upsets racists (please refer to definition above) but frankly I don't care.

Racist can only be in a negative sense. It isn't racist to say "hes black and hes white", acknowledging difference is healthy. Everyone has unconscious prejudice, thats natural. Its when people act on that that racial tension occurs.

Anyone with eyes can tell the difference between a cat and a lion. But tell me can you tell the difference between a person and a criminal?

If you search more black people for knives you will find more knives on black people. If you search more white people for knives, you will find more knives on white people. If you target primarily black areas, results will be skewed. Stats are way too easy to manipulate.

Heres the thing, black people tend to live in poorer communities in America. Why do people jump to it being a race issue rather than any other factor? Surely if you love statistics so much you can also see that what a lot of criminals statistically have in common is poverty? So surely that is where change needs to occur in america. Or are you too fixated on racial stats to go any further?

Lets look at some rough stats:
Deaths by police shootings
 - White people were 64% of the populations, fatal shootings made up 36.8%
- Black people were 13.4% of the population but someone made up 23.4% of the population
Strange proportion that is

Theres a few more fun statistics here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52877678...

Heres the thing though, if you are truly neutral, why is it even a discussion whether you believe in racism or not? Surely you're so far removed from it that you can objectively look at the situation and go 'damn theres a lot of messed up stuff going on'?

'I don't care for race', if people get treated differently because of it, you should care. By denying that you already have a narrowed view of reality.




 

Do you think this guy justcheckin is racist or no?  Are you not comfortable calling someone a white supremacist because it feels politically incorrect to you?

Next you and your progressives will be banning Hemingway. Or Jack London. Or a hundred other examples.

Please note that Trump has virtually banned your critical race theory Marxist propaganda in federal agencies, and I think in schools also. I hope we see more such rules, because using and abusing terms needs to stop.

Yea, exactly.



Agree again (this must be a record).

Do you disagree about the examples I gave of (what I consider) openly racist posts that promote White Supremacy in this thread?

Not just over used, but their definitions and generality are being changed progressively.

That's what progressives do, right? Create progressive change?

There should not be any problem with asking exactly a debate opponent means in a question or assertion.

Just because the terms are over used doesn't mean they shouldn't be recognized.

How would you describe these posts?  They're pretty explicitly racist and promote White Supremacy imo, which is rare as it's most often implicit, like with OP.



^^That's the KKK oath of allegiance

These terms such as racism and white supremacy, hate speech, white privilege are generally so broad and encompass so many different things and scenarios to so many different people they are now of little real value or use. Same for woke, radical left etc

These terms are usually thrown in when people shy away from deep debate.
They are used to immediately cast aside opposing views. Almost like an immediate condemnation and alleged debunking of opposing  opinions that requires no analysis or debate.

I don't even recognize such terms. Either bring a specific example of what you are referring to and prove that your opinion is conclusively more optimal that my own. Or accept my views are as valid and correct or nearer to optimal than your own.

I don't accept bitcointalk is primarily far right.  That is ludicrous.
I would expect on other issues that are not specifically race related most would be leaning far more to the left or certainly centre.

Far right ... another bogus term when applied by those who simply disagree with your opinions and wish to get a bunch of low functioning plebs to start bleating their support for opinions they can't corroborate or give any credibility to,  due to having no supporting  evidence to base any argument that would hold up to scrutiny.


Black crimes if you can rely on the stats at all, are clearly a big problem in the US.
Especially violent crime. Actually this pattern seems universal not just the US.
White crime is a problem too especially in other areas.

I'm not racist in the negative sense, of course I can distinguish and  take note of observable differences and apply sensible arguments to support how different approaches and different treatment is sensibly and credibly justified.

Just as I can distinguish between a domestic cat and a lion entering my home through and open downstairs window and apply sensible and reasonable behaviours towards those animals like pulling a gun on one whilst I back away and run out of my own backdoor or picking one up and placing it outside my back door.

For instance if 90% of knife crime was provably and undeniably committed by black people. Then the police focusing stop and search on black people for knives is quite sensible and useful.

The same for if 90% of drunk driving accidents were committed by white males and random searches at xmas were predominantly conducted on white males that would be sensible and optimal action from the police.

You are distinguishing between different behavioral patterns that seem to relate to race and clearly treating each race according to those observed patterns for an optimal solution.

People denying there are such patterns or differences need to take it up with stats. If you can find fault with the numbers to the point the stats are fully bogus or misleading then you can change the way you discriminate or treat differently the races.

I have no care for race. You will get bad eggs in all.
But these terms are bullshit invented by people who want to win a debate or argument by saying a magic word.

If something is sub optimal then it needs attention. If something is optimal is does not need to be changed.

I guess the big question if you took a large population of blacks and whites gave those groups a similar level of educational that resulted in similar grades and ensured they obtained similar levels of employment and income.

Would you see similar crime levels in specific categories of crime.
Even then what would happen in terms of those crimes  if you mixed the two populations together?


Can diversity ever work? Or is it a long experimental path to oblivion.
I guess we are on the cusp of finding out.
If diversity is sub optimal for all races from this point then what next?

I'm not woke, right wing, racist, liberal, white supremacist or radical left.
Bogus meaningless terms now used as if they are an infallible and conclusive proof you are wrong to disagree with those throwing them around.

BEATEN TO DEATH Dad charged with murdering 8-week-old son after autopsy revealed infant died of blunt force trauma to the head

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/us-news/12653290/dad-charged-murder-8-week-old-son-alabama/

You are so right, this part of the forum reads very different to the rest of it.


Yeah you're both right. I guess people like this have more of a voice here to vocalise shit like this which is a shame really but is what it is. That said, I probably shouldn't have generalised the whole BTC community based of OPs post.

Eh, there aren't many forums that will allow open racism, much less a thread promoting White Supremacy, so naturally the few places that do (like bitcointalk P&S) will have a disproportionate amount.  It doesn't necessarily reflect the community as a whole.  

Black people are held accountable for their crimes. White people? Less so. That said, I'm all for white equality. All colours should be held accountable. Good thing those blacks DO get locked up when they commit a crime, often times with harsher sentences than white people committing the same crime.

I, just as much as you all, want people of all colours to be treated equally. From the 'accidental manslaughter' during arrests, to 'accidentally' shooting a sleeping woman. These crimes matter. But they're ignored and people are protesting to keep the perpetrators out from behind bars. Or do blue crimes not matter so much?

Or what about all the sexual crimes Trump has been accused of? If he were a black man he definitely would've been held accountable. His tax evasion and no doubt countless other white collar crimes and awful but he hasn't been held accountable. But I guess we aren't talking about orange crimes mattering either.

Interesting how the BTC community is so far right they genuinely see a race issue rather than a demographics issue. I'd have expected more political neutrality. That said, this post is so painfully american and you guys are weirdly race obsessed.

Ohio Man Charged with Rape of 12-Year-Old Who Became Pregnant

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020/09/14/ohio-man-charged-with-rape-of-12-year-old-who-became-pregnant/