/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4339650]

Have you guys read White Girl Bleed A Lot yet? It's a new book endorsed by Thomas Sowell, the popular black economist with a cult following similar to Neil Tyson, about hate crime in America.

It has almost 5 stars on Amazon.com

>http://www.amazon.com/White-Girl-Bleed-Lot-Violence/dp/1938067061/

[Anonymous No.4339670]

were you paid to post this here? LOL

[Anonymous No.4339830]

Thankfully Goskomizdat woke up and censored the previous thread about the book!

http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/thread/4337364

Stalin must put more comrades to the great task of purging /lit/.

[Anonymous No.4339929]

Nobody appreciates a book that deals with a race war that white America doesn't even realize has already started.

[Anonymous No.4339935]

arguing that this book doesn't have enough statistics and is just representing a view point is an argument for inclusion in /lit/

that shits pomo as fuck

also hey guys lets not talk about how books or history that offend minorities anymore that might make them racist towards whites

global rule 3 yall

[Anonymous No.4339985]

I'm just surprised the janitor gets away with censoring stuff that is actually very politically correct.

The target of criticism is the media, not Blacks in general.

[Anonymous No.4340028]

>>4339929
>Nobody appreciates a book that deals with a race war that white America doesn't even realize has already started.
lop tel

[Anonymous No.4340080]

This was a response I wrote to a post you made in the last thread, took a while to type up and the 404'd before I could post.

(You asked us to look at Table #1 in this link: http://www.ncdsv.org/images/BJS_HomicideTrendsInTheUS1980-2008AnnualRatesFor2009And2010_11-2011.pdf))

My response:
The statistics in Table #1 cover 28 years of crime investigation, 1980-2008. It shows that blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000).

The table shows that across the 28 years, 50.3% of victims were white and 47.4% were black.

In 2010, however, 46.5% percent of victims were white, and 49.8% were black:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl02.xls

We can calculate that most of these homicides are also intraracial by using this table:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl06.xls

So in 2010, white offenders murdered 83% of white victims, and black offenders murdered 90% of black victims.

Going back to the period between 1980-2008, the calculations show that 84% of white homicide victims murdered by whites, and 93% of black victims murdered by blacks.

This shows that 1% less of the white population were murdered by whites in 2010 than during the aforementioned period, and 3% less of the black population were murdered by blacks.

Ergo, we can conclude from the available data that the trend of interracial homicide in the US is actually going the opposite way from what you describe. The increase of non-blacks killing blacks is greater than the increase of non-whites killing whites.

Also:
>far more poor whites in America than poor blacks

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb11-157.html

Table B shows people in poverty. In 2010 there were 19,599 non-Hispanic whites living below the poverty line (9.9% of all non-Hispanic whites). There were 10,675 blacks living below the poverty line (27.4% of all blacks).

So while there may be a larger number of white people living in poverty, a greater percentage of the black demographic live in poverty.

[Anonymous No.4340081]

While I get that this book is /pol/ trolling (id think that this board of any is quick enough to pick up on the philosophical nuances espoused by /pol/) there is no reason these threads should be deleted, esp since we know one of the most active janitors has expressed marxist sympathies ("life under stalin is preferable to life under the tsar" "he tried to make the world a better place")

Bang up janitor selection, if mouth breathing marxists can shit this place up, so can mouth breathing racialists.

[Anonymous No.4340114]

>>4340081
>one of the most active janitors has expressed marxist sympathies
He does an excellent impression of Goskomizdat.

[Anonymous No.4340123]

>>4339650
>>>/pol/

Seriously, this shit doesn't belong here. We don't want to "discuss" anything with you.

[Anonymous No.4340124]

>race line wars
>intriguing

stay prole

[Anonymous No.4340178]

>>4340123
Then don't post in the thread.

Why does everything on the board have to cater to your delicate feelings?

[Anonymous No.4340189]

>>4340080
#rekt

[Anonymous No.4340204]

>>4340178
No one has to cater to anything.
You are, however, obliged to follow the rules.
Ones like "no flooding" and "no trolling outside of /b/."

How about you go fuck yourself with a cactus, mouth-breathing, bottom-feeding pleb.

[Anonymous No.4340215]

>>4340080
#dii #quoque #ipsi #comprobaverint

It's time for OP to stop making these threads.

[Anonymous No.4340217]

>>4340204
How is he trolling or flooding? You dont even know who you are talking to.

[Anonymous No.4340224]

>>4340217
Yes, I do. You're the OP, or in some way associated with her/him in a prior context. There's the door

[Anonymous No.4340230]

>>4340080
>B-BUT... THE BOOK ISN'T ACTUALLY ABOUT RACE AND VIOLENCE ITS ABOUT MEDIA CENSORSHIP

>smote nsraquab

[Anonymous No.4340231]

>>4340204
>anything liberals don't like is trolling

[THIS IS WHAT LIBERALS ACTUALLY BELIEVE]

[Anonymous No.4340232]

>>4340204
>no trolling outside of /b/
if it is contrary to your religion it is a troll? despite what you were taught, your beliefs arent the universal default just because you bully people into shutting up about their own

[Anonymous No.4340235]

>>4340224
>>4340224
No I'm not. In fact I've been on /lit/ since its inception. I've been on 4chan since 2006. You should get out, since you are obviously not talking about OP's topic (which is literature) instead you are actively trying to derail the thread which is against the rules.

[Anonymous No.4340236]

>>4340232
>>4340231
>>4340217
#buttdevastated

[Anonymous No.4340242]

>>4340235
Actually, I'm talking about why a thread shouldn't be here and why it keeps getting deleted.

Meta-discussion is _not_against the rules, dumbass. Of course you know that, since you've been here so long though, right?

[Anonymous No.4340256]

>>4340235
OP topic is extremely thinly veiled race-baiting. It is against the 'no racism' global rule. Further, as I tried to explain in a previous thread, the rules also clearly explain that mods and janitors don't even need to have a reason to delete threads. Third, what constitutes 'literature' is debatable. You say the OP book is 'literature,' I say its kindling.

[Anonymous No.4340262]

>>4340242
Nigger, is this thread a meta-discussion? Are you allowed to derail threads from the actual topic because its just what you want.

If you want a fucking meta discussion start your own thread or whine to Moot.

[Anonymous No.4340264]

>>4340231
>LIBERALS

Nigga, liberalism and leftism are mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous No.4340273]

>>4340256
The book as actually very politically correct. Try reading it.

It criticizes media and politicians for being biased.

As the WND says, it's racist to NOT discuss these things just because of the race of offenders or victims.

[Anonymous No.4340289]

>>4340256
>OP topic is extremely thinly veiled race-baiting.
Have you read the book?

>It is against the 'no racism' global rule.
Even if it is race baiting, it's not racism

>the rules also clearly explain that mods and janitors don't even need to have a reason to delete threads

And we can restart them all we want, and resist the mods, like we always do. This is 4chan and mods are always bad.

>Third, what constitutes 'literature' is debatable.
Ah, so we can finally remove the philosophy threads as well?

[Anonymous No.4340305]

>>4340080
Hi OP still waiting for a response

[Anonymous No.4340316]

>>4340289
It's a janitor, not the mods. Mods have very rarely approved the janitors ban request and probably only because they were going quickly and not looking.

The janitor needs to be banned.

I don't know why moot thinks its a good idea to make extremely radical censor prone SJW people janitor.

[Anonymous No.4340323]

>>4340264
Don't ruin his buzzwords mate.

[Anonymous No.4340330]

"No army can stop an idea whose time has come." -Aalewis

[Anonymous No.4340340]

>>4340289
>>4340273
The race implications are clear in the title and subtitle of the book.

>White Girl Bleed A Lot
>The Return of Racial Violence and How the Media Ignore It

Presumably, the book explains how "racial violence" has returned. The blurry picture of black men implicating that they are perpetrators.

>it's racist to NOT discuss these things
How? Racism is believing that humanity is biologically divided into races, and that these races can be ranked in terms of superior and inferior. Opting out of discussion is completely different from having a racist point of view. I opt of out all kinds of discussions every day.

>Even if its race baiting, it's not racism
But the reason for these threads is obvious. You, or whoever makes these threads all the time try to drive the discussion towards racist conclusions. There's no other reason to make these threads. You could make threads about any book in the world yet always this book comes up.

>And we can restart them all we want
But you have no basis to complain. There is nothing here that says "4chan is a place for free and open discussion all the time everywhere." Same shit for feel threads on /mu/. Sometimes they get deleted, other times they stay up for 300 replies. Mods and janitors don't have to give a reason or explanation for being uneven.

>so we can finally remove the philosophy threads as well?
It's not up to you. That's the larger point I'm trying to make. Discretion for content here is out of our hands. You agree to this by coming here and posting on the site, it's all explained to you in the rules section. If you don't like it, promote your ideas elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.4340348]

Blacks are 13% of the population and commit over half of the murders. It's not poverty either, poor white towns are nowhere near as violent.

Just look at Africa for proof that blacks aren't nearly as intelligent.

[Anonymous No.4340354]

>>4340340
Go to tumblr if you want a politically correct hugbox.

[Anonymous No.4340360]

>>4340340
>Racism is believing that humanity is biologically divided into races
Not being a race-denying moron should be a bannable offense on all boards? Holy shit liberals are fucking nuts.

[Anonymous No.4340369]

>>4340348
chinese are also much poorer than american blacks, most are even poorer than africans, yet their murder rate is one of the lowest and IQs one of the highest

[Anonymous No.4340375]

>>4340354
stick to /pol/ if you want to be a retard

[Anonymous No.4340377]

>>4340375
stick to reddit if you want to post on a site where everyone is part of the same egalitarian religion.

[Anonymous No.4340378]

>>4340375
Discussing a book about media censorship isn't /pol/. You just don't like things you disagree with discussed because you're used to a reddit/tumblr hugbox. If you disagree with points of view, discuss them rationally like a human being and not a mongoloid.

[Anonymous No.4340383]

>>4340378
good thing nobody here is discussing media censorship
you just want to whine about censorship on 4chan because you're a dumbass who thinks sites have to abide freedom of speech. again, stick to /pol/ you retard

[Anonymous No.4340385]

>>4340383
No discussion is taking place because you're whining and tears are tiresome and obnoxious, lad.

[Anonymous No.4340386]

>>4340383
>good thing nobody here is discussing media censorship
He said the book is about censorship and they're discussing the book. Not censorship itself.

You're just a butthurt faggot who wants to shove social justice into everything.

[Anonymous No.4340387]

>guy tries to discuss book
>butthurt white redditor undergrads derail thread before a single post on the book can even be made

[Anonymous No.4340390]

>>4340385
>you're

meant u'r*

[Anonymous No.4340395]

>>4340378

Funny how this thread came right after the Mandela river of tears about getting banned for shitposting. Learn the rules of the board. It's not your personal soapbox.

And noone gives a fuck about the book, because it has zero literary merit. Stop shitposting and crying a river when you get the boot.

[Anonymous No.4340396]

>>4340348
>Blacks are 13% of the population and commit over half of the murders.

Also, blacks are 13% of the population and make up half of all murder victims.

See how there's two sides to that coin? Showing just the one of them is meaningless.

>It's not poverty either, poor white towns are nowhere near as violent.

Alright, post some sources on this.

[Anonymous No.4340397]

>>4339650
>all these posts that have nothing to do with the book
>all this pointless off-topic discussion
>hurr durrr it's all /pol/'s fault
If you didn't have anything to add or didn't want to discuss the book, why are you posting ITT? If you dislike the opinions of the people/person posting it (this seems to be the case in a lot of posts), then why are responding to him/them and either bumping the thread yourself, or giving them an excuse to do so? Just leave it alone.

I almost want to believe this thread is just trolling, the alternative being that people here are literally incapable of tolerating opinions different than theirs and even more incapable of not getting into internet arguments with the people who hold them, instead of just being retards who fall for easy bait.

[Anonymous No.4340400]

>book gets written about media censorship
>discussion of the book is censored

Checkmate, free exchange of ideas.

[Anonymous No.4340405]

>>4340080
>this is being ignored by /pol/tards
>they can't handle the truth
>implying redpill has any meaning

top lel

[Anonymous No.4340410]

I would basically not delete this thread to avoid us looking like /pol/ or neckbeards. That is worth any price.

[Anonymous No.4340412]

anyone got any cuckold porn?

[Anonymous No.4340418]

>>4340397
The OP just goes on and on about his threads getting deleted. If anyone does start talking about the issues raised in the book, he only engages with them until they effectively counter any points he makes about racially motivated crime, and then he ignores them (because no matter how much he says these threads about narratives in the media, they ARE race-baiting threads).

[Anonymous No.4340419]

>>4340354
This isn't even a matter of being politically correct, it's a matter of factual correctness. There's no "return to racial violence" going on; see >>4340080. The premise of the book is incorrect and isn't worth being discussed.

Second, do you even grasp the irony of your post? If you want a politically incorrect hugbox, go to stormfront, go to /pol/.

>>4340360
There are so many problems in your post its difficult to untangle them all. I'll give this a try.

1. Read the rules. Racism outside of /b/ actually IS grounds for banishment.
2. I never said I thought being racist should be a bannable offense. You made that up in your head. You made a strawman out of my post. Delusions and strawmen are par for the /pol/ course, however.
3. "Race denying." Do you really want to have this discussion? There is no biological basis for "race," either in the historical sense from the 1800s in which it was first conceived, or in any contemporary sense.

"Species" is the lowest biologically meaningful taxonomic category; the organisms produce fertile offspring, and reproduction is the crux of evolution. Any further distinction between organisms of the same species is just humans trying to make order out of visual inputs (physical characteristics). From the perspective of nature, categories below the species level are trivial and arbitrary. Any debate about this centers on the idea that even the species level is too specific. This line of debate began with none other than Darwin himself:

>It is really laughable to see what different ideas are prominent in various naturalists' minds, when they speak of ‘species’; in some, resemblance is everything and descent of little weight—in some, resemblance seems to go for nothing, and Creation the reigning idea—in some, sterility an unfailing test, with others it is not worth a farthing. It all comes, I believe, from trying to define the indefinable.

-Darwin to Joseph Hooker, 1856

[Anonymous No.4340426]

>>4340418
im the OP of this thread and im not sure what you guys are talking about. this is the first time i make a thread about this here. i am guessing it has been posted in the past and everyone got rump roasted? not sure why you all are so obsessed with "OP" when i havent posted itt until now

[Anonymous No.4340436]

>>4340426
aha no

[Anonymous No.4340450]

>>4340436
>ITT: We are all OP, especially if we claim not to be.
Hello OP.
Sincerely,
OP

[op No.4340453]

>>4340436
haha what?

[Anonymous No.4340459]

>>4340080
Except that your statistics are all bullshit, considering it says that white people are responsible for 50% of the crime.
This in itself shows you're incapable of properly analyzing statistics, considering you've lumped every non-black race into the white demographic, including the large Hispanic demographic that has exploded over the last few years.
Then you suddenly drop the Hispanic population when you describe whites living in poverty.

You're also leaving out the enormous shift in demographics, considering the white portion has shrunk considerably.

What the fuck are you doing?

[Anonymous No.4340464]

>>4340081
The difference is that "racialists" are supported by every scientific study done on the subject. For example, when discussing the IQ gap between black and white people, it's not a question of if there is a gap, it's a question of why. They haven't been able to give an answer yet, because it's politically incorrect to point out what every rational person already knows. The few who do are either persecuted or silenced by the media.

[Anonymous No.4340465]

>>4340396
>blacks are 13% of the population and make up half of all murder victims.

Because they kill each other, dumb fuck. No shit.

[Anonymous No.4340471]

>>4340419
You want to quote Darwin?

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla" (1874, p. 178).

- Darwin, The Descent of Man

[Anonymous No.4340473]

>>4340465

[Anonymous No.4340477]

>>4340465
Keep up. The thread is about blacks killing whites. That's why that little fact was being pointed out. :)

[Anonymous No.4340478]

>>4340477
Yes, blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks, proportionately. Keep up.

[Anonymous No.4340480]

>>4340459
>it says that white people are responsible for 50% of the crime

Where? Are you referring to his analysis or to the pdf he linked (which you brought up first. how are you going to call your own sources 'bullshit'?) The pdf says whites made up 45.3% of all homicide offenders. Also, just because it says something you don't personally like doesn't mean you get to call a statistic 'bullshit.'

>you've lumped every non-black race into the white demographic

I'm also not seeing this. Both the pdf and tables separate Hispanics from whites.

[Anonymous No.4340486]

>>4340471
Your quote isn't ammunition against my argument. If Darwin himself thought 'species' was indefinable, surely the biological basis for race was even more flimsy, whether or not he himself believed.

[Anonymous No.4340489]

>>4340486

[Anonymous No.4340493]

>>4340419

Genes are the lowest biological form of competition.
In early life taxonomy using species makes no sense because genes would be transferred horizontally. Without reproduction.
Something similar happens to humans when we pick up genes from viruses.
The tree of life model has been shown to be inaccurate.

[Anonymous No.4340494]

>>4340459
Click the links the data for non-Hispanic whites was not available from the homicide sources dude. The census does provide the data

[Anonymous No.4340496]

>>4340478

The statistics say otherwise. Can you not read?

>>4340080

[Anonymous No.4340497]

>>4340496
>proportionately

[Anonymous No.4340498]

>>4340486
>surely the biological basis for race was even more flimsy

[Anonymous No.4340507]

>>4340080
/POL/ STATUS:

[ ] Not #REKT
[ ] #REKT
[X] #REK-IT-RALPH

[Anonymous No.4340512]

>>4340459
No matter how you look at it in regards to the whites, the blacks ARE being killed more by races other than their own now than they were before, and the statistics show that the same decline is much slower for the whites and white Hispanics. So interracial homicide is still going the other way in regards to blacks.

[Anonymous No.4340519]

>>4340497
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2012-hate-crime-statistics

Of the 5,331 known offenders, 54.6 percent were white and 23.3 percent were black. The race was unknown for 11.5 percent, and other races accounted for the remaining known offenders.

[Anonymous No.4340524]

>>4340519
And for good measure:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2012/topic-pages/incidents-and-offenses/incidentsandoffenses_final

In 2012, law enforcement agencies reported that 3,297 single-bias hate crime offenses were racially motivated. Of these offenses:

66.1 percent were motivated by anti-black bias.

22.4 percent stemmed from anti-white bias.

[Anonymous No.4340525]

>>4340507
>>4340080

whats your obsession with intra-racial murder? murder is very serious, no one is going to travel to another neighborhood just to murder someone of a different race

[Anonymous No.4340527]

>>4340524
Also:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2012/topic-pages/victims/victims_final

Among the single-bias hate crime incidents in 2012, there were 3,467 victims of racially motivated hate crime.
66.2 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-black bias.
22.0 percent were victims of an anti-white bias.

[Anonymous No.4340533]

>>4340519
What percentage of the population are black people compared the the percentage of crime? Is it disproportionate to white crime?

[Anonymous No.4340534]

>>4340519
>>4340524
>>4340527

it's like people don't realize we're on the internet and can look up statistics like this in a couple of seconds

don't spout bullshit you can't back up /pol/tards

[Anonymous No.4340537]

>>4340524

The FBI studies have serious methodological flaws. They're worthless.

[Anonymous No.4340540]

>>4340525
>whats your obsession with intra-racial murder?

>Thread about interracial crime.
>Post a single response
>WHY ARE YOU SO OBSESSED WITH THIS

The low-quality of /pol/ trolling consistently offends me. This is literally just a step above "U MAD BRO?"

Put some fucking effort into it or dont try in the first place.

[Anonymous No.4340541]

>those "hate crime" statistics
because blacks get charged with hate crimes all the time, regardless of if it was racially motivated or not. There's a certain paternal racism involved with hate crime law that I think blacks should be outraged by. Whites should know better but blacks are savage animals so it isn't a hate crime.

[Anonymous No.4340542]

>>4340537
Can you tell me what they are? I am genuinely interested in this, not because I take any side in this debate but because I've never seriously considered that the FBI would have a flawed study, although now that you've said it I don't see any reason why it would impossible.

[Anonymous No.4340544]

>>4340542
Cmon man. He already said they are worthless, what more evidence do you need?

[Anonymous No.4340548]

>>4340527
>>4340524
>>4340519
there are 2 mistakes with your post:
1. youre factoring in population size
2. youre forgetting that whites arent a protected class, "hate crimes" against them arent officially recognized. case in point: knockout game. it was never reported until it became a "hate crime" against jews.

refer to this image >>4340473
, your post was debunked before you even posted it

[Anonymous No.4340549]

>>4340527
>>4340519
You do realise the media and law enforcement are notorious for ignoring hate crime if it's black on white? Usually because retards like you come out of the woodwork and start screaming about racism to begin with.

[Anonymous No.4340550]

>>4340548
youre not factoring in population size*

[Anonymous No.4340553]

People react very violently to simple truths they don't want to hear.
Whites as a whole are very classist. It's not unusual for a white college student to write the suffering of poor whites at the hands of black thugs off as a series of "isolated cases." They gladly write hookers and the white unemployed off as "inbreds who didn't try hard enough," when the disturbing shit that's happening in poorer areas is brought up in response to their narrative of "systemic racism."

Whites do need to check their privilege. That privilege is the privilege of systematically oppressing poor whites for the sake of petty moral fulfillment. The whites in universities will never have to send their kids to a school with a curriculum that was turned into the laughing stock of the first world in order to offer minorities a "way up." They will never be arrested for violating suburban America's sensibilities by turning to prostitution in times of need. They will never live in a neighborhood where it is impossible to sleep at night without having a gun within reach.

[Anonymous No.4340560]

>>4340540
murder isnt the only crime that exists you know. there are hundreds of other violent crime types in the law books. when people bring up black murder, theyre usually bringing up the high rate of murder relative to their total population. that is, any black you come across is much more likely to be a murderer than any white you come across.

bringing this up is just a strawman by multiculturalists.

[Anonymous No.4340563]

>>4340560
There, much better.

A solid 4/10

[Anonymous No.4340573]

>>4340563
epic memes bro, pls continue posting them while you get hammered by facts and statistics. truly you have won another one for toleranz and diversity!

[Anonymous No.4340575]

>>4340548
>>4340473
The picture is fucking bogus you retard. It says in 2010, nearly 70% of all hate crimes were committed by blacks. The source it cites is the FBI 2010 Hate Crime Report.

Let's take a look at that report, shall we?

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2010-hate-crime-statistics
Of the 6,008 known offenders, 58.6 percent were white and 18.4 percent were black. For 12.0 percent, the race was unknown, and the remaining known offenders were of other races.

Seriously dude. Google is RIGHT THERE.

[Anonymous No.4340576]

>>4340563
>lose the argument
>shout troll

This is low level stuff.

[Anonymous No.4340585]

>>4340548
>that image
>implying the money that should be going to nasa isn't going to the fucking military and "liberating" foreign countries

[Anonymous No.4340587]

>>4340575
>It says in 2010, nearly 70% of all hate crimes were committed by blacks.
liberals confirmed for not knowing how to read charts. keep embarrassing yourself, bloke.

[Anonymous No.4340591]

tbh i think this is a p bigoted thread & u guys should seriously consider checking ur white privilege.

sage & report pol shitlord threads

[Anonymous No.4340597]

>>4340585
>implying it's not going to muslim self-esteem programs and global warming hoax awareness

[Anonymous No.4340599]

>>4340597
>climated change
>a hoax
Do you think that evolution is a satanic lie, too?

[Anonymous No.4340610]

>>4340599
no, which is why i believe in race and gender inequality. do you? or are you one of those people who believe evolution stopped at the neck or that race and gender equality exists and evolution is false?

[Anonymous No.4340612]

>>4340610
Punctuate your sentences. It makes it really obvious that you are from /pol/.

[Anonymous No.4340613]

>>4340587
Not him, but that is what the chart appears to say.
>[red]% OF RACIALLY-MOTIVATED HATE CRIMES
>red bar near 70%
So what's the problem here? I checked the link he posted and he's correct so far as I can tell.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/tables/table-9-known-offenders-known-offenders-race-2010.xls
>6,008 hate crimes committed
>3,522 by whites
>1,104 by blacks

[Anonymous No.4340625]

>>4340599
If it's not a hoax why are they constantly caught lying and conspiring with the government about it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html#ixzz1ek8dwJIg

inb4 >muh daily mail

[Anonymous No.4340631]

>>4340587

Oh, so it's supposed to be that nearly 70% of all blacks committed a hate crime in 2010?

Haha, okay. Well.

In 2010 there were 38,929,319 black people in America:

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

And the FBI cites a total of 7,699 hate crime offenses in 2010:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/tables/table-1-incidents-offenses-victims-and-known-offenders-by-bias-motivation-2010.xls

Do the math retard

[Anonymous No.4340635]

>>4340631
no retard, it says PERCENT OF RACIALLY MOTIVATED HATE CRIMES. the statistics you keep bringing up are ALL FORMS OF HATE CRIMES. god damn how can liberals be this retarded? its like arguing with 10 year olds. no wonder you guys have to spend all your time and money social engineering and having politicians pander to you, theres no way you could make it in the world on your own.

[Anonymous No.4340638]

>hate crime statistics
The statistics are inherently flawed since blacks are generally not charged with hate crimes despite clear racial motivations. Isn't that kinda the point of this book as well, but looking at the media instead of the justice system? There's a level of pandering and subtle racism involved with it since whites are held to a higher standard.

[Anonymous No.4340650]

>>4340542

There are many instances where bias creeps in. First of all, agencies voluntarily collect information. People who collect the data know what they're looking for, and why. That allows lots of bias at many different levels. Then there's the directions:

>before an incident can be reported as a hate crime, sufficient objective facts must be present to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by bias.

Then they list some examples without giving an exhaustive list.

The currently accepted method of collecting more reliable criminal information is surveying either perps or victims and asking things that happen during a crime, as neutrally as possible and without mentioning the crime. But because this isn't a survey, they use actions instead. And bias is very hard to list exhaustively in actions.

You'd have to ask perps questions, because victims can't reliably identify bias.
Questions for a perp might look like:
Have you taken someone's things without an exchange of value and without them realizing it in the past year?
Did at some point before doing this, use a difference in skin color to identify who to take things from?
Did you use what country they came from in your decision from whom to take things from?

Congress just mandated they collect information on it. No one seems invested in making sure it's useful data. That the evidence is bad doesn't prove or disprove anything.

[Anonymous No.4340660]

>>4340635
Well, no. I pointed out racially motivated crimes for 2012 here:
>>4340519
>>4340524

And was told HEY LOOK AT THIS CHART FOR 2010 YOU'VE BEEN DEBUNKED.

Furthermore, the table linked here:
>>4340631

Actually gives us the numbers of people who were victims of anti-black racial bias.

But for your sake, child, let's do this one more time and clear it up:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-victims

Among the single-bias hate crime incidents in 2010, there were 3,949 victims of racially motivated hate crime. A closer examination of these victim data showed that:
70.0 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-black bias.
17.7 percent were victims of an anti-white bias.

70% of racially motivated hate crime in 2010 was against black victims. That's... That's very nearly the exact the opposite of what the chart says.

Hmm.

[Anonymous No.4340661]

>>4340635
Not him, but I just checked the list of racially motivated hate crime. Here's a screenshot. Where is your data taken from? I'm curious.

>>4340650
Thanks for the serious answer, that makes a lot of sense, I can see why their methodology is flawed if they went about it the way that you mentioned instead of using the current method.

[Anonymous No.4340662]

>>4340661
Forgot my image.

[Anonymous No.4340664]

Why are people in this thread bringing up FBI statistics on hate crimes? Isn't this book specifically written to expose the fact that there is a bias in the media and law enforcement when it comes to whites in this area?

[Anonymous No.4340670]

>>4340664
It's been addressed and ignored in this thread because it's become an I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG echo chamber

[Anonymous No.4340672]

>>4340664
It was brought up by the image/graph showing that more blacks perpetrated hate crimes than whites, despite being a lower percentage of the population, I'd imagine.

[Anonymous No.4340677]

>>4340498
>>4340489
Why is it "damage control"? You haven't refuted my central point. The quote from Darwin was just supplementary. I was also aware you'd use that quote from him as a response. In order to claim that race is actually a thing, you need to be able to answer these questions:

How many races are there, and what are they? Please list all of them.

Race can be determined by observing _______.

Finally, you must justify why race is biologically significant. In other words, if indeed 'race' exists, then it doesn't exist just for humans, it must exist for all other life forms. If in fact this is the case, please submit your findings to biology departments around the world and get published, because you've just made a groundbreaking and important discovery for the discipline. You'll win prizes.

[Anonymous No.4340679]

>>4340650
If none of the data can be relied upon then why do /pol/tards insist on making shit like this:
>>4340473
Or claiming that blacks perpetrate hate crime against whites to a massive degree, when they have no evidence whatsoever?

How can OP's book be held up but the FBI data put down? What makes it more reliable?

[Anonymous No.4340680]

>>4340679
>What makes it more reliable?
The fact that whites are not an officially protected group.

[Anonymous No.4340707]

>>4340680
I'm talking about data gathering techniques - what makes the OP book more reliable? Does it have proof that these incidents do not show up in FBI reports?

[Anonymous No.4340726]

>>4340560
I'ma check this logic against the facts.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl06.xls

Total white homicide victims: 3,327
White victims killed by a white offender: 2,777
White victims killed by a black offender: 447

If I was a white person murdered in the US in 2010, there's an 83% chance that I was murdered by another white person, and a 13% chance that I was murdered by a black person.

So yeah, if I'm walking the street and worrying about who is the most likely to kill me and important to stay away from... Well, white people are looking pretty scary to me right now.

[Anonymous No.4340748]

>>4340726
>liberals cant into per capita
so what else is new?

[Anonymous No.4340777]

>>4340748
>gets confused by a generalization made to ridicule a generalization

Aw, bless.

[Anonymous No.4341083]

ETA until this thread gets deleted?

[Anonymous No.4341108]

>>4340748

white folk ar less than 83% of the population while blacks are about 13%

[Anonymous No.4341116]

Can somebody please tell me why liberals go fully retarded whenever someone disagrees with their point of view? Why can't they just accept that some people disagree with them? Why is their response to somebody holding the subjective opinion that their own race is superior to that of another the denial of current race relations, race, biology, and eventually meaning itself as the argument progresses? Serious.
You guys are the reason nobody takes leftism seriously.

[Anonymous No.4341155]

>>4341116
/pol/ got fucking #rekt in this thread, absolutely beasted by simple facts

racism is a symptom of an emotionally atrophied mind, not a logical one

you are butthurt and mad as hell

[Anonymous No.4341163]

>>4341116
Too bad, OP.

[Anonymous No.4341168]

>>4341155
Looks like the liberals got wrecked in this thread to me. Are you even looking at the right thread?

Oh, and about that atrophied mind thing... (pic related)

[Anonymous No.4341174]

>>4341116
Do you seriously don't think /pol/ does the same when we disagree with you

>WAAAA JEWS WAAAA REDPILL

[Anonymous No.4341176]

>>4341168
>>4341116
More proof that the people making these threads are utterly uninterested in sincere debate and only want a platform for spamming their views on race.

[Anonymous No.4341185]

>>4341174
I don't post on /pol/ and I don't really share any beliefs with them as far as I know.
>>4341163
Not OP.
>>4341155
All I see is retards flailing at each other. One person seems to have made a good post early in the thread in response to some post that I didn't see, but other than that it's just filled with complete idiots drooling on themselves. I haven't read the book the OP linked, but it doesn't look like anybody in this thread did either.

[Anonymous No.4341190]

>>4341083
Probably not until OP deletes it, it's directly related to a book and everyone here is discussing the book itself, the facts/tables/statements/etc. in it, and other books.

[Anonymous No.4341198]

>>4341168
is this even reliable? plus "blacks" "whites" "east asians" what the hell does that even mean

There are SO many races that are "black" and have evolved in different ways in different environments that would not allow for a generalization of their brain structure and behavior.

Same with whites, and asians. What a horribly unprofessional study to categorize races like that, as well as so few of them. I don't even know where the hell I fit, because I'm none of those.

[Anonymous No.4341207]

>>4341198
I looked up the book, and "blacks" refers pretty specifically to Africans/African Descendants, Whites to Caucasians/Europeans and their descendants, and East Asians to, well, east Asians. Chinese, Korean, Japanese, etc. It's probably incorrect, but you're making an awfully ignorant attempt at invalidating it.

[Anonymous No.4341212]

>>4341198
It's /pol/ gibberish science

>>4341185
>I haven't read the book the OP linked, but it doesn't look like anybody in this thread did either.

Which is exactly the reason why the mod should have deleted it in the first place, it's just race-baiting /pol/ bullshit through and through and OP should be banned again for spamming this shit whenever he gets the chance.

My only guess is that this thread was left up to 404 naturally so the dude could no longer complain about muh censorship and hopefully fuck off back to stormfront

[Anonymous No.4341217]

>>4341212
>It's /pol/ gibberish science
Please don't do this, it's disappointing and makes you just as bad as the people you're trying to insult. The book in question is an actual book, and it does make some very good points. It only appears racist when taken out of context.
Here's a paper (only 3 pages long, so it shouldn't be too much trouble to read) briefly discussing the book in question:
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1996reviewRushton.pdf

Sheesh, man, you think you'd try to learn something about this before bashing it and ignoring it as "gibberish science" because it presents a controversial opinion. When you do shit like this all you're doing is making trolls and shitposters sound right when they accuse you of "ignoring facts" and the like.

[Anonymous No.4341221]

>>4341207
As I said, they have evolved in different ways and in different environments. Have you ever read "Guns, Germs, and Steel"?

Say there's one big group of people living on an island. Then, they decide to split, and one sector lives on another island where the primary source of food is vegetation and the group eventually learns agriculture, by not needing to kill the animals for food and domesticating them.

The other group moves to an island with poor soil, and little vegetation to begin with. The group decides, hunting and sometimes gathering is the way to go. They end up not domesticating animals, and as you probably already know, the lifestyle and survival needs of a hunting society and an agricultural society are very different. Therefore, as time goes on, their brains evolve to learn different things.

Also, "whites" evolved by disease. Whichever genes could resist the most disease, won. "Blacks" evolved by survival of the fittest, which not only means physical prowess, but mental as well. Logically, they'd be the smarter race.

[Anonymous No.4341225]

>>4341221
>Also, "whites" evolved by disease. Whichever genes could resist the most disease, won. "Blacks" evolved by survival of the fittest, which not only means physical prowess, but mental as well. Logically, they'd be the smarter race.
then why are whites so much smarter on average and why is every world's strongest man title holder white or slav?

[Anonymous No.4341230]

>>4341198
the idea that race is this mysterious obscure thing that is hard to define has been completely debunked by geneticists, refer to >>4340498

the way people classify race socially is accurate to more than 99% genetically

[Anonymous No.4341233]

>>4341230
did not read my post about subsocieties of races and how they evolve differently mentally, even though they did not evolve differently physically. Argue on that please.

[Anonymous No.4341235]

white /pol/ sure whines a lot!

[Anonymous No.4341238]

>>4341221
>Guns, Germs, and Steel
Last I checked, there were some problems with the book and the theory it presented was flawed.

>Tomlinson also stated that, "The European empires of conquest in Asia, especially those of the British in India and the Dutch in Java, were not based on clear technological superiority in armaments, nor on the spread of disease."
> professor J. R. McNeill, was on the whole complimentary but thought Diamond oversold geography as an explanation for history, noting several exceptions and inconsistencies. McNeill also faults Diamond for underemphasizing cultural autonomy.

I'm actually not entirely sure what you're trying to get at here either. I'm not claiming any race is superior to another. There's also pretty clear genetic evidence for a person's race/ethnicity. Given that the study posted in question did (and therefore could) find physiological differences, these differences exist. Did you read the link I posted? It discusses the book in question, and you should read it before you talk about environmental factors since the author already discusses that.

Even then, arguing that environment is the cause of this difference doesn't discount the fact that this difference apparently exists.

[Anonymous No.4341240]

>>4341217
It is bad science composed by a racist and propagated by racists.

[Anonymous No.4341243]

>>4341221
>Have you ever read "Guns, Germs, and Steel"?
you mean that joke of a book that no anthropologist actually takes serious and is full of lies and self-contradictions?

[Anonymous No.4341245]

>>4341225
World's strongest man holder is irrelevant. That's people who WORKED for it very hard. Not natural ability. That's so many other factors. I think if the average European male and the average African male worked just as hard to become the "strongest man", the African would surpass the European.

And where is your basis on why whites are much smarter than average, accounting for the fact that blacks are generally poor due to past and present treatment by society, and that it's usually "white lower to upper middle class" vs. "black usually lower lower class to lower middle class"

[Anonymous No.4341250]

>>4341245
>World's strongest man holder is irrelevant. That's people who WORKED for it very hard. Not natural ability. That's so many other factors. I think if the average European male and the average African male worked just as hard to become the "strongest man", the African would surpass the European.
i'm only aware of a few black strongman competitors but most of them are not competitive at all internationally
>And where is your basis on why whites are much smarter than average, accounting for the fact that blacks are generally poor due to past and present treatment by society, and that it's usually "white lower to upper middle class" vs. "black usually lower lower class to lower middle class"
if they were intellectually and physically superior, they wouldn't be in a position where another race could treat them badly

[Anonymous No.4341253]

>ITT: actually using a roid competition as a measure for greatness

Why won't /pol/ just leave? Why do they feel entitled to sit at the cool table when they can't handle it?

[Anonymous No.4341255]

>>4341243
zebras are pretty small, huh

[Anonymous No.4341257]

>>4341250
>if they were intellectually and physically superior, they wouldn't be in a position where another race could treat them badly
>thinks Whites are superior but doesn't nothing but cry cry cry crocodile tears 24/7 about how oppressed he is

You people

[Anonymous No.4341258]

>>4341253
I can spam the thread if you want. But it'll be a front page eyesore for at least half an hour

worthwhile alternatives include using your handy-dandy report function

[Anonymous No.4341259]

>>4341250
Still, irrelevant that few black people are interested in being strongmen. I could hold the same argument to you about runners and why black people hold a higher advantage there. (btw, which is what I was referring to as physical prowess. even the strongest person in the world isn't going to beat up a lion. you run AWAY from it, and you're smart in the first place by not getting near)

And why couldn't they be in a position where another race could treat them badly? I'm sure you agree that Middle Easterners are extremely smart. That's even a stereotype of theirs. They progressed and invented just as many things as white Europeans. But they still get stepped on.

[Anonymous No.4341260]

>>4341245
Africans tend to surpass Europeans in endurance exercises and Europeans surpass Africans in strength exercises, that's not racist broseph, it's a very well-known fact. I think the Olympic competitions are actually a great example for studying this, because at this level of competition if you don't have a necessary "biological" edge over the competition, you cannot succeed. Working hard will get you very far, and you need to work hard to qualify as Olympic, but there is a something extra that is necessary to succeed there. Michael Phelps, for example, has longer-than-average arms, feet, and shoulder span, which gives him an advantage over every other swimmer.

So, yes, natural ability plays a role in it, please don't ignore it.

>Not natural ability
>I think if the average European male and the average African male worked just as hard to become the "strongest man", the African would surpass the European.
uh, if you say so. You're not making a good case for yourself here.

[Anonymous No.4341262]

>>4341240
There's definitely flaws in his study, but dismissing it because it's controversial and presents an opinion that is different than your own is ignorant as fuck, dude. It's literally the exact same thing /pol/ gets accused of here, just with "racism" instead "anti-white" or whatever.

[Anonymous No.4341263]

>>4341260
Yeah, you're right. It was silly of me to continue arguing about strongmen. I got caught up in the statement and forgot what my original intent was. And I do agree about there being genetic differences, and I'm not saying that's racist.

[Anonymous No.4341269]

>>4341255
I love how Randolph Carter rides a zebra in Lovecraft's The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath. I had such beautiful visions from that story.

[Anonymous No.4341273]

>>4341262
I'm dismissing it because it's incorrect and Rushton was a racist.

[Anonymous No.4341276]

>>4341257
i don't think whites are superior and i don't cry about oppression
what's your basis for assuming these things about me?
i'm jewish, by the way

[Anonymous No.4341277]

>>4341273
>anything study that hurts my feelings is racist, biased, outdated, homophobic, etc.
yea we've heard it all before >>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.4341280]

>>4341273
If you're the person I was talking to earlier, you dismissed it because it was "/pol/ gibberish science", bro. Dismiss it because it's incorrect and present your (hopefully educated) reasons, not because it presents an opinion or conclusion you dislike.

[Anonymous No.4341343]

>>4341277
>>4341280
I had no idea what this book was before, but after looking it up, I didn't seem to withstand any scrutiny from his academic peers.

>Evolutionary Biologist Joseph L. Graves (2002) notes that the theory had long lacked support and had been invalidated before Rushton's book was written. According to Graves, Rushton's claim (still present in the third edition and without any acknowledgement of counter-evidence), that r- and K-life history theory was 'a basic principle of modern evolutionary theory' "supports my view that Rushton does not understand life history theory. Thus he employs it incorrectly and through this error his work serves racist ideological agendas."

>Scott MacEachern (2006) criticised Rushton's assertion that mental deficits are visible in an evolutionary context, with such cognitive differences existing prehistorically as well. According to MacEachern, an examination of the archaeological record does not support this assertion.

>The biologist Douglas Wahlsten (2001) criticized the approach for doing "nothing to reduce bias in sampling and measurement". He notes that the studies used employ hugely varying sample sizes (and some clearly biased), methods of measuring, and environmental conditions. He wrote: "In my opinion, most of the data raked into one big pile by Rushton are worthless for scientific analysis and should be excluded. Unfortunately, Rushton has not done the hard work of separating the potentially valuable data from the trash. He misleads unwary readers by claiming that averaging many studies can overcome poor research methods."

>Valencia notes that many of the supportive comments for the book come from the Pioneer Fund grantees like Rushton himself, and that a 100,000 copy print-run of the third edition was financed by Pioneer.

>Wickliffe Preston Draper, heir to a large fortune and the fund's de facto final authority, served on the Board of Directors from 1937 until 1972. He founded the Pioneer Fund after having acquired an interest in the Eugenics movement, which was strengthened by his 1935 visit to Nazi Germany, where he met with the leading eugenicists of the Third Reich who used the inspiration from the American movement as a basis for the Nuremberg Laws.
>Frederick Osborn wrote in 1937 that the Nazi Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring was "the most exciting experiment that had ever been tried".
>Harry Laughlin was the director of the Eugenics Record Office at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, New York, funded by the Carnegie Institute of Washington. He served as the president of the Pioneer Fund from its inception until 1941.

[Anonymous No.4341400]

>>4340405

i'm a /pol/tard and don't disagree with anything he said.

what am i supposed to disagree with?

[Anonymous No.4341404]

>>4340419
>There is no biological basis for "race," either in the historical sense from the 1800s in which it was first conceived, or in any contemporary sense.

what does this even mean. "race" being a social construct is irrelevant. it doesn't mean that the people referred to as "black" aren't dumber than the people referred to as "white".

bringing up the historic usage of the word "white" shows that race is a social construct. the problem i'm having is understanding why that matters.

[Anonymous No.4341421]

>>4341343
>This guy says he's wrong

>This guy says he's wrong

>Sample sizes are too small
Potentially the only actual valid counter-argument.

>This guy says he's funded by a group I dislike, so he's wrong

>This guy says something about Rushton somehow being connected to a eugenics movement, which I dislike, so he's wrong


So in other words, you don't know anything about Rushton's science and you're just a dishonest ideologue.