patrick.net

socal2 says

The same Democrat morons today will tell you straight to your face that a boy doesn't need a father, there are 238 genders, and a single mother with government assistance is just as good if not better than a 2 parent household.

D's of today are clearly anti-science and do not use evidence-based reasoning, which unfortunately is not being pointed out to them in media.

CornPoptheOriginalGangster says

CCWs

Carry Concealed Weapon?

6rdB says

D's of today are clearly anti-science, which unfortunately is not being pointed out to them in media.

Starting with the denial of the screamingly obvious fact that race exists.

Dems will readily agree that dog breeds have different personalities, but not human races. Even though dogs have been domesticated for a shorter amount of time (50,000 years) than the races have been separate. Hell, the Andaman Islanders alone have been separated from the rest of humanity for 50,000 years.

Patrick says

Even though dogs have been domesticated for a shorter amount of time (50,000 years) than the races have been separate.

That is not a good comparison. Dogs were bread specifically for certain traits in a particular breed. Human breeding follows rules that are somewhat similar everywhere, with few outliers (male and female roles are about the same, which is the most important evolutionary selection pressure, unless you are a progressive and then there are 223324 genders who all are oppressed by Fucking White Males with their Toxic masculinity). Of course, there will be some differences (people living in high altitudes will have more hemoglobin etc) but overall I do not see how races would be drastically different in their genetic makeup.

6rdB says

I do not see how races would be drastically different in their genetic makeup.

I didn't say drastic, but I do mean distinct and measurable differences in temperament and abilities by race.

Doesn't it seem plausible that the obvious differences in appearance may correlate well with neurological differences, as they do with dogs?

Black babies walk at 11 months on average, white babies at 12 months, and Asian babies at 13 months. For example.

The shrill denial by leftists that there cannot possibly be any significant differences among the races is clearly a case of protesting too much because they are afraid it's true.

There are discrepancies within races.

The Ibo are a famous example, as smart or smarter than Jews or Chinese, but Black as stovepipes.

Living Arrangements are another factor. Herders and Sea Fishers are generally smarter, because their livelihood depends on planning, counting, thinking ahead.

For example, counting the herd, planning to move up to the mountains for better grass in the summer, how many sheep to cull before winter, etc. Naturally maritime peoples have to plan, build, navigate, and guesstimate boats and where the catch will be.

Traditional Farmers just throw seed on the ground and pray for rain; much more fatalistic and less questioning of things.

The Igbo pretty much ran NASA.

“Primarily Christianity, sometimes syncretised with indigenous Igbo religion and belief systems, [2]”

Probably pro-Trump. “In rural Nigeria, Igbo people work mostly as craftsmen, farmers and traders. The most important crop is the yam.[17] Other staple crops include cassava and taro.[18]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igbo_people

CornPoptheOriginalGangster says

There are discrepancies within races.

And there s more genetic diversity within Africa that within the rest of the world combined.

So the crime rate is generally decreasing across all races. That’s good news! Thanks @tim aurora

Tim Aurora says

Not sure where Patrick got his data from.

Looks like the exact same source as you did. But it’s a differently scaled measurement.

Guess the race of the Elderly Woman sucker puncher!

Damn those Vietnamese!

https://nypost.com/2019/10/01/man-who-sucker-punched-elderly-woman-in-brooklyn-in-custody/

Because 90% of blacks are descendants of slaves owned by whites.
Ancient ancestral payback is alive and kicking!!!

Patrick says

How is it possible that only 12% of the population (blacks) assault whites at more than 5x the reverse rate?

Is it racist to attack your great great great great great great great great grandfathers oppressor's decendents???

Patrick says

It's possible only if black people are far more racist than white people and deliberately choose to attack whites.

That's because at this stage of the game democrats cannot identify the sex of anything, having blended the perverse into the norm...

socal2 says

The same Democrat morons today will tell you straight to your face that a boy doesn't need a father, there are 238 genders, and a single mother with government assistance is just as good if not better than a 2 parent household.

BlueSardine says

Is it racist to attack your great great great great great great great great grandfathers oppressor's decendents???

Why yes, it is racist!

Two reasons:

1. children do not inherit the sins of their ancestors
2. most white people (myself included) have zero ancestors who had anything to do with slavery anyway

To single out and violently attack people based entirely on their race is the purest racism that has ever existed.

That evidence is damning.

https://patriotpost.us/alexander/87406?source=patrick.net

https://summit.news/2022/04/20/justice-sotomayor-argues-people-familiar-with-fbi-crime-stats-should-be-banned-from-capital-case-juries/?source=patrick.net

Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that jurors who express familiarity with FBI crime stats should be banned from Capital case juries for “racial bias.”

Yes, really.

The opinion was in relation to Kristopher Love, a black man who was convicted of capital murder in the course of a robbery that happened in 2015.

Before Love’s trial, prospective members of the jury filled out a questionnaire which included the following two questions.

“68. Do you sometimes personally harbor bias against members of certain races or ethnic groups?”

“69. Do you believe that some races and/or ethnic groups tend to be more violent than others?”

The prospective juror answered no to the first question but then answered yes to the second and explained that he understood “[n]on-white” races to be the “more violent races” because he had seen statistics to this effect in “[n]ews reports and criminology classes” he had taken.

Despite the juror making clear that his views were based on statistics and not his personal feelings about black people, Love’s counsel moved to exclude the prospective juror based on “his stated beliefs that . . . non-whites commit more violent crimes than whites.”

Yet it is a fact that blacks in particular commit violent crime at at least ten times the rate that white people do.

White people also commit violent crime at about twice the rate that Asians do.

https://vdare.com/posts/his-name-is-christopher-brennan-while-in-his-backyard-in-st-louis-white-man-shot-in-the-head-by-20-year-old-black-male

Christopher Brennan was a white man. Kyle Stone is black, not even of legal age to drink.

It’s yet another black-on-white murder, this time in the white man’s backyard.

Welcome to life in 2022 St. Louis, where a black-on-white murder barely makes the local news, in a nation supposedly dominated by white supremacy, white privilege, systemic inequality, implicit bias, and invidious discrimination.

There's no doubt that blacks commit MUCH more violent crime than whites when accounting for their comparatively small population %.

But If you look at how many homicides blacks commit, and then find what % of those homicides were directed at whites vs at blacks, it was much less than I anticipated.

2018 Homicides
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls



514+2600+39+24 = 3174 committed by blacks against all
2677+234+54+46 = 3011 committed by whites against all

% of black offender homicide targeted at whites = 514/3174 = 16%
% of black offender homicide targeted at blacks = 2600/3174 = 82%
% of white offender homicide targeted at blacks = 234/3011 = 8%
% of white offender homicide targeted at whites = 2677/3011 = 89%

So for murder at least, both blacks and whites primarily kill their own. But when killing the opposite side, blacks do it at 2x the proportion as whites do (8% vs 16%). But I have a feeling this data breaks down in interesting ways if you consider the scenarios, and population. My biggest guess here is that some of this difference is because the black population is much lower than white - if murder was truly random, with no victim bias/racism, zero social circle effects, neighborhood composition effects etc... then the %s we see would perfectly mirror the population. If there were only 2 blacks in a country of 99.99% whites, and they murdered purely random targets, stats would show that when blacks kill, 99.99% of the time they kill whites. But clearly this is just due to population in this hypothetical. But in the usa, whites are 4-5x the population of blacks, and so if murder was random, I would expect to see black on white murder at 4-5x the %, but it's only 2x, which I didn't expect. I don't know the explanation for why the proportion is less than expected when accounting for population, but I would guess its social circle effects.

This dataset included hispanic/latino in with whites, and I didn't bother to try to correct for it, which I'm sure skews things.

I do expect to see very different numbers for a dataset that encompasses all violent crime, not just murder. I think murder is extreme and motivated by very different things than assault/robbery etc...

I’ve been the victim of black on white crime in the past… as has been my mother and brother.

This was addressed once we moved away from Oakland. The black on white crime stats ring home to me.

My liberal friends accuse me of being racist if I ever bring up crime statistics with them.

Hircus says

But when killing the opposite side, blacks do it at 2x the proportion as whites do (8% vs 16%).

Those are the absolute numbers. You could say that blacks kill whites at 2x the reverse if the population contained equal numbers of white and black people.

But the populations are very different. There are far more whites than blacks in the US, say 5x more whites. So black people kill white people at somewhere around 10x the reverse rate when you take the populations into account.

This implies that blacks are deliberately killing white people, which is a black racism far more pervasive and deadly than that of whites.

BayArea says

I’ve been the victim of black on white crime in the past… as has been my mother and brother.

This was addressed once we moved away from Oakland. The black on white crime stats ring home to me.

My liberal friends accuse me of being racist if I ever bring up crime statistics with them.

Get new friends.

Most of my friends are conservative but tough not to have a few liberal friends when living in the Bay Area.

Patrick says

Hircus says

But when killing the opposite side, blacks do it at 2x the proportion as whites do (8% vs 16%).

Those are the absolute numbers. You could say that blacks kill whites at 2x the reverse if the population contained equal numbers of white and black people.

But the populations are very different. There are far more whites than blacks in the US, say 5x more whites. So black people kill white people at somewhere around 10x the reverse rate when you take the populations into account.

This implies that blacks are deliberately killing white people, which is a black racism far more pervasive and deadly than that of whites.

I was under the impression that’s it’s closer to 15-18x

If true, that’s absolutely alarming and a forfeit of ever accusing someone concerned for their safety of being racist.

Right, the dilemma is this:

A: Avoid black men because you know that you have at least a 10x rate of being assaulted by them.
B: Don't avoid black men because the majority of black men will not hurt you.

What's more important, your own safety, or being fair to the black guys who won't hurt you? You can make an argument either way, but at least some extra caution around black men is clearly warranted.

BayArea says

I’ve been the victim of black on white crime in the past… as has been my mother and brother.

This was addressed once we moved away from Oakland. The black on white crime stats ring home to me.

My liberal friends accuse me of being racist if I ever bring up crime statistics with them.

can say the same thing actually.

Patrick says

Right, the dilemma is this:

A: Avoid black men because you know that you have at least a 10x rate of being assaulted by them.
B: Don't avoid black men because the majority of black men will not hurt you.

What's more important, your own safety, or being fair to the black guys who won't hurt you? You can make an argument either way, but at least some extra caution around black men is clearly warranted.

It's (almost like [don't know how to do crossout on PatNet}) is, the "good" black people are having to carry the burden of suspicion based on the actions of the thugs. This begs the question: if black people in general don't want to be racially stereotyped, how can blacks and whites together identify the thugs, and purge the scourge of violence? This can't be just a black or white thing - it needs to be an honest sit-down with takeaway rules for reporting thug behavior, be it black or white.

stereotomy says

It's (almost like [don't know how to do crossout on PatNet}) is, the "good" black people are having to carry the burden of suspicion based on the actions of the thugs.

I agree. They can fix this - turn "traitor" against the criminals. It is a burden I realize.

George Floyd was a criminal, BLM should have been called out far more vocally by the black community. The black community MUST realize they have traitors within their ranks. White people realize this.

Our government, and "news" media, still continues to victimize black people. They perpetuate this bullshit. Our media could just be honest about reports and non-partisan and non-racial. Our "government" (our mafia) could stop bowing down to criminals that happen to be black. Derek Chauvin was innocent. He didn't kill George Floyd, Floyd died from a drug overdose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gQYMBALDXc

See for yourself.

stereotomy says

[don't know how to do crossout on PatNet}

@stereotomy You can use the "strike" html tag, like this:

crossed out

Patrick says

stereotomy says

[don't know how to do crossout on PatNet}

@stereotomy You can use the "strike" html tag, like this:

crossed out

<strike>text</strike>

I am kind of a dick.. But I'm a helpful dick.

@richwicks Why does your example actually show the tags?

Patrick says

@richwicks Why does your example actually show the tags?

@Patrick

OK, this will be hard. I'm going to have to figure this out so I need to experiment.

&lt;strike&gt;stricken&lt;/strike&gt;

<strike>stricken</strike>

stricken

First one explains what I wrote, but I had to do a meta-meta version of it to show you what it looked like to demonstrate the tags
Second shows what I wrote to do the strike tag - this shows you what the ABOVE produces when I enter it, as you see it.
Third is the HTML tag example

PLEASE don't ask me to do a meta-meta-meta version. I'm looking up how to display characters as text in html. This is the & sign: &amp; I had to write that to display the &

This is super confusing. I'm writing in HTML to display HTML to explain how to show HTML.

@Patrick ^^^^ that. That took me 20 minutes to do! Also, I don't think I explained it properly, but the text is correct. This is

0) how to show &
1) how to demonstrate how to do the tags - what I wrote in html to display the literal < and > - what I literally wrote
2) how to do tags as I typed them in.
3) the tag itself

Man, my brain is broken.

use <pre>

Patrick says

Those are the absolute numbers. You could say that blacks kill whites at 2x the reverse if the population contained equal numbers of white and black people.

But the populations are very different. There are far more whites than blacks in the US, say 5x more whites. So black people kill white people at somewhere around 10x the reverse rate when you take the populations into account.

This implies that blacks are deliberately killing white people, which is a black racism far more pervasive and deadly than that of whites.

I'm not sure what you specifically mean when you refer to adjusting for pop. I can think of multiple ways to do it, each yielding different results.

I'll try to expand on the point I tried to make earlier.

Assume murders are random, unaffected by social circles, locality, bias etc...
You would expect all murders would be distributed equally among races, according to population percentage.
So if blacks are 13% of the pop, and whites are 60%, (and 27% in other categories) then you would expect to see 13% of murder victims be black, and 60% white.
And these same exact ratios would be expected for both white and black murderers. So, the expected ratio of victims would be determined by population ratios.

Expected victims of white murderers: 60% white, 13% black
Expected victims of black murderers: 60% white, 13% black
Actual   victims of white murderers: 89% white, 8% black
    Outgroup victim gap 13% - 8% = 5 or 13/8 = 1.6
Actual   victims of black murderers: 16% white, 82% black
    Outgroup victim gap 60% - 16% = 44 or 60/16 = 3.75

Of course, murder isnt random, nor is it unbiased, and social circles are a huge factor, along with other factors. But the reason I found this very unexpected is because while both blacks and whites show a VERY strong affinity for killing their own, blacks are much farther away from the population-expected percentage of victims than whites are. It's possible this indicates that blacks have a stronger affinity for killing their own compared to whites, although I want to say that I feel this dataset is pretty much inadequate for drawing conclusions from. While it's true that blacks kill outside their own more often than whites (16% vs 8% of their victims are outsiders), this would probably reverse if you adjusted for population, because since whites outnumber blacks 5x, in the absence of bias, one would expect the higher population white group to account for a relatively larger % of the victims compared to if whites were a small pop group.

While I don't have any personal experience with homicide, my personal experience with violent crime is that blacks have a chip on their shoulder and are aggressive towards whites much more often that the reverse. And this is a big part of why I was surprised by these findings, because it seems unintuitive and at odds w/ my experience.

If you look at the data from other angles, I think it would be easy to see that blacks commit more murders than whites, and dramatically more so when adjusted for pop. I think the "blacks are violent" argument is easy to make from that observation. But I'm not convinced on the "blacks target whites for murder" argument being drawn from this data set. I'm starting to wonder if maybe "blacks are violent" is sometimes misinterpreted as "blacks target whites for murder", at least for part of it.

I still think things will change if we had a better dataset. I suspect this data is like the female pay gap - one set of conclusions looks so obvious and strong when viewed from mile high aggregates, but when you break things down by context/scenario/specifics, it all falls apart, and flips prior conclusions on their head.

Hircus says

I'm not sure what you specifically mean when you refer to adjusting for pop.

The number of whites killed by blacks, divided by the number of blacks is 514 / (330000000 * 0.13) = 1.2 x 10^-5 whites killed by blacks per year, per member of the black population.

The number blacks killed by whites, divided by the number of whites is 234 / (330000000 * 0.60) = 0.12 x 10^-5 blacks killed by whites per year, per member of the white population.

So black people are about 10x more likely than whites to commit interracial murder, per person.

And since the number of black-white interactions is identical to the number of white-black interactions, black people are about 10x more dangerous to whites than the reverse.

@Hircus

Ok. So I agree blacks are violent, and also more violent than whites, which IMO is what that shows. I don't agree this particular data implies that they target whites.