This was bound to happen somewhere

submitted by jet199 from imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Thats because they have less niggers. Low nigger population zones in the USA with guns have the same low murder rates.

There's a few things you should do in order to make this into a reasonable argument.

1) Get the grammar right. Blacks are countable, so it's fewer not less. People will wonder if you are simply afraid of a black who can spell "job" taking your job, rather than you having a sound argument.
2) Avoid the racial slur. People will assume that you're suffering from racism, rather than having a sound argument.
3) Provide your evidence. Provide your reasoning. Your point isn't obvious. For instance, This table shows that slightly less than half (Single victim, single offender, federal) homicides are perpetrated by blacks. If that extrapolates to all homicides, the rate for other races is still somewhere around 3.9 per 100,000, which is still 2.4 times the "low" murder rates in Australia.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Thanks, you've sparked my racist curiosities. You seem good with numbers. What is the murder rate among american whites per 100,000?

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

White murdering white?

Or white murdering anyone?

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

White murdering anyone please.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

If you're not happy with the extrapolations I made in the GGGP post, you'll have to point me to a more complete data set yourself.

But I get about 3.9 per 100,000. The assumptions being that the proportions of all murders by race are about the same as those in the linked table.

But I said that already.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Are you claiming the white homicide rate is 3.9 per 100,000? That was my question.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm claiming that that's what I get extrapolating the racial breakdown from FBI one on one murders to the national homicide rate for 2020.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Earlier you made this claim:

If that extrapolates to all homicides, the rate for other races is still somewhere around 3.9 per 100,000

Here you said "other races". Is that the rate for whites or other races? Please clarify why these numbers are identical.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Is that the rate for whites or other races?

It's all other races.

Please clarify why these numbers are identical.

I was communicating with someone who said: "It's the niggers, not the guns."

So I was focusing on the non-blacks. I did understand that the data wasn't exactly for whites, but I figured someone who uses an offensive slur to describe a racial group is going to be difficult enough to discuss statistics with without getting into nuances.

I figure it's identical enough, given the audience. It includes Asians who have a lower murder rate, and includes natives who have a higher murder rate. It would approximately come out in the wash. The data separates people of latin american heritage, but they would generally be white.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I couldn't find anything that showed the white homicide rate either. Thanks for trying. Although if you look into "low nigger population zones" like I originally mentioned, I'm sure you will find plenty that are safe and have much fewer gun violence, if that's what you are worried about.

[–]jet199[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The fewer vs less thing is a myth.

Both have been used interchangeable in English for a thousand years or more.

It was only the middle class Victorians who tries to make English fit with Latin who came up with a different jargon usage.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The fewer vs less thing is a myth.

You're also using "myth" with a unique meaning here.

Both have been used interchangeable in English for a thousand years or more.

Not exactly. But also irrelevant.

They were never interchangeable, but prior to a couple of centuries ago, you could use less for fewer. You couldn't use fewer for less.

But this is irrelevant. We don't speak the English of 1000 years ago. Prior to 1066 is Old English. When a modern reader reads old English:

Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

They don't think "ooh, look how they used 'fewer'". They think "what language is that?"

It was only the middle class Victorians who tries to make English fit with Latin who came up with a different jargon usage.

Yes. The rules of English are often decided upon. Nonetheless they are.

[–]IkeConn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'll bet you were an unpopular tattle tale in school, Karen.