Why are so many resilient to fact-based truth regarding black criminality?

Author: TWS1405

Posts

Total: 427
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@TWS1405
To date I have been permanently suspended from Instagram, Facebook and Twitter directly (and very specifically) due to posting fact-based truth backed by criminological (and other scientific) data that clearly demonstrates that black Americans, namely half of the roughly 6% of black male population in the US do in fact commit over 50% of the entire nation's murders and non-negligent manslaughters; and that they are also disproportionately represented among other violent crimes like robberies and rapes. And yet those on the left, brainwashed black Americans, white guilt liberals and democrats deny these truths. They twist and manipulate the news to fit their agenda in order to divide people by race, class and more poignantly by gender/sex.
In the western world, believing in divergent human evolution is currently the original sin. "Racism" is the original sin in humans requiring exorcism. Your social status is tied to how non "racist" you are. Any mention of race (even if purely descriptive) gives these people the green light to attack you because they can score social status points off you. Furthermore, when you post data and crime reports on Black crime, you're attacking these people's essential status hierarchy by saying it's wrong -- that's why you get such a reaction. These ideological zealots cannot have their reality shattered, or else their social status evaporates (similar to how there is no Heaven without the existence of God). Hence, you are the problem that needs correction.

Instafail, facepalm and twatter ban you because you're seen as an advertising risk. A lot of people play the non "racist" social status game when race gets mentioned, of which always leads to flamewars and mess, and hence advertisers don't want to be associated with such controversy. Thus, you get banned.

Blacks and Hispanics en masse vote Democrat. The Democrat Party is smart and understands this, hence it appeals to them. That's the general idea with them.

Nearly every single day there is a video posted online across various social media platforms of some black person acting a fool, and intelligent blacks rip them apart for being just that, acting a fool. Former Officer Brandon Tatum is one of them. Larry Elder. You name it. In fact, I am impressed by the number of black American's who are posting their reactions on YouTube to what they see/hear from Thomas Sowell, one of the greatest scholars of this time, regarding black history across the world; but namely America since he too is an American and wanted to understand the plight of blacks on this side of the planet (North America, Central America, South America and the Caribbean).

Blacks, like Hispanics, are moving to the right and for good reason. Yet so many try to keep them under the Democratic bootheel. 
These Blacks and Hispanics are the minority. Minorities in the USA still vote Democrat, even if there is a shift towards Republican.

Thoughts for discussion?
Yeah: you're not allowed to discuss racial differences with anti-racist zealots, or else you'll receive violent social backlash.
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Avery
Well said! 
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 1,035
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@TWS1405
Definition of compile from five reputable dictionaries:

To put together or compose from materials gathered from several sources [1]

to make or compose from other materials or sources [1]

to make (a book, writing, or the like) of materials from various sources [1]

to compose out of materials from other documents [2]

to collect information from different places and arrange it in a book, report, or list: [3]

Either the whole world misunderstands what compile means, or you are wrong. As I have stated from the beginning, a compilation is not analysis. It is simply taking a groupf if sources and placing it somewhere else. This is all the FBI does. They do not check the data for accuracy, remove duplicates, norm it for different definitions of crimes and racial make up, or anything else.

SOURCES:


Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 1,035
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@TWS1405
And just so you think I am not cherry-picking data, here is an entry on the ethics of data collection from the Encyclopedia of Population that uses Statistical Compilation in a sentence:

"Norms relating to confidentiality and the protection of human research subjects include the succinct statement in the Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics: 'individual data collected by [sic] statistical agencies for statistical compilation…are to be strictly confidential and used exclusively for statistical purposes.'" [1]

So all a compilation is, as according to multiple dictionaries and an encyclopedia entry on the subject, is just taking data and putting it together. There is no analysis of the data whatsoever. There is no fact-checking it or anything. It is just taking something as-is and putting it somewhere else.

As a person with a supposed degree in criminal justice, I figured you would have known this. But obviously not.

The internet, I guess, is a better usage of time than college.

Sources:
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 1,035
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@TWS1405
But I'll even do one better and cite Oxford's glossary of statistical terms on "compilation of vital data," which is likely a sister term:

Compilation of vital data is a process of condensing information by classifying and tabulating vital statistical data into various categories or groups with the object of producing vital statistics according to a determined tabulation programme.[1]

So, once again, all the FBI did was take data as-is and put it somewhere else. There was no analysis of the data, just a rearrangement of it. Even according to a handbook that was written specifically for data science.

The source they cite, mind you, is:

Handbook of Vital Statistics Systems and Methods, Volume 1: Legal, Organisational and Technical Aspects, United Nations Studies in Methods, Glossary, Series F, No. 35, United Nations, New York 1991.

So it isn't some fringe organization or crackpot one-off definition.

Source:
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Public-Choice
See…more of that intellectual cowardice again.

Splitting hairs over a word you’re taking out of context in order to create a sophomorically banal strawman argument. 

You’ve also given us yet another example of your lack of reading comprehension skills as well. I never said the FBI analyzed the data, I said they extrapolate the data into its respective reports, tables, etc. [for] criminological statistical analysis. The word [for] means what the UCR data is used [for] by criminologists (and anyone else) [for] statistical analysis in conducting research and providing reports on their findings. 

Keep making a fool of yourself here. I’ll just keep calling you out for it. 


Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@TWS1405
Well said! 
Thank you :)