Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race.

Author: TWS1405

Posts

Total: 167
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Shila
The only culture blacks in America know is American culture of discrimination.
300 years of black slavery in America made the American dream possible for whites. Blacks built America with their free labour,  blacks even built the White House.
It is 264 years, NOT 300 years.

Blacks did NOT build America. Slavery was a net deficient to the economy of the United States. Even when the cotton gin was created, slavery barely produced a net profit making any money for Southern (or Northern) Americans. 

Blacks, both enslaved and free, participated alongside many others in the construction of the White House. “They” and they alone DID NOT build the White House.

Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TWS1405
It is not hard to see whites as racist. They picked skin colour to identify race and made it an subject of discrimination based on us and them.
Blacks took notice of whites using melanin as a standard to measure superiority of races where less was seen as more and albino whites at the top.
Asians saw themselves as neutral having focused on education, family and accumulation of wealth.

With the introduction of skin whiteners the whites have less to be racist about and the blacks have turned to other white attributes to criticize.

This has created the perception that blacks are more racist because they are highly critical of white superficiality and the whites are less albino white than desired despite using skin whiteners to reduce melanins. 

“They” who?

Cite a legitimate anthropological sources showing the historical source to back up your spurious claim.
They as in white trailer park trash.

The Persistent Problem of Colorism: Skin Tone, Status, and Inequality
Margaret Hunter*
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Mills College

Colorism is a persistent problem for people of color in the USA. Colorism, or skin color stratification, is a process that privileges light-skinned people of color over dark in areas such as income, education, housing, and the marriage market. This essay describes the experiences of African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans with regard to skin color. Research demonstrates that light-skinned people have clear advantages in these areas, even when controlling for other background variables. However, dark-skinned people of color are typically regarded as more ethnically authentic or legitimate than light-skinned people. Colorism is directly related to the larger system of racism in the USA and around the world.The color complex is also exported around the globe, in part through US media images, and helps to sustain the multibillion-dollar skin bleaching and cosmetic surgery industries.

Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Shila
It is not hard to see whites as racist.
It really is, though.

Whites started the end of slavery. Whites bend over backwards in their countries to accommodate other races. The polls referenced in the OP shows that Whites are not the most racist. Whites are the most tolerant of having a different race as their neighbor: A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries - The Washington Post .

You really have to stretch and bend the truth to make Whites racist, or just be totally ignorant of any meaningful data.

They picked skin colour to identify race and made it an subject of discrimination based on us and them.
Lol "skin color".

Buddy, race isn't just skin color. That's why the Bantus genocided the Khoisan. That's why the Chinese are genociding the Uyghurs. That's why the Palestinians and Israelis are trying to wipe each other off the planet. They can pick phenotypic traits (skin color is only one of those) and hate each other based on that.

But you're right. All those races are White people. It's literally only ever White people hating people based on race. "They picked skin color" at that time everyone knows, too.

Blacks took notice of whites using melanin as a standard to measure superiority of races where less was seen as more and albino whites at the top.
Asians saw themselves as neutral having focused on education, family and accumulation of wealth.
Yep. Black people always get along. No ethnic based conflicts in places like Kenya! Ethnic conflicts in Kenya - Wikipedia 

Asians have a stellar record, too, always staying away from racial conflicts. China and Japan are the best of friends (historically, too). Uyghurs love to give the Chinese a cuddle. It's impossible to find any racism in Asia Racism in Asia - Wikipedia 

With the introduction of skin whiteners the whites have less to be racist about and the blacks have turned to other white attributes to criticize.
Let's all end racism by whitening our skins to be as bright as the sun!

This has created the perception that blacks are more racist because they are highly critical of white superficiality and the whites are less albino white than desired despite using skin whiteners to reduce melanins. 
Next time you're going to use skin whitener, you should eat it instead.

TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Avery
** Mic drop ** 
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Avery

--> @Shila
It is not hard to see whites as racist.
It really is, though.

Whites started the end of slavery. Whites bend over backwards in their countries to accommodate other races. The polls referenced in the OP shows that Whites are not the most racist. Whites are the most tolerant of having a different race as their neighbor: A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries - The Washington Post .

You really have to stretch and bend the truth to make Whites racist, or just be totally ignorant of any meaningful data.
Whites colonized all the major countries like  India, America, Africa, Caribbean Islands etc. then plundered and looted the wealth of the countries they colonized. Then turned these colonies into slave trading centres.

They picked skin colour to identify race and made it an subject of discrimination based on us and them.
Lol "skin color".

Buddy, race isn't just skin color. That's why the Bantus genocided the Khoisan. That's why the Chinese are genociding the Uyghurs. That's why the Palestinians and Israelis are trying to wipe each other off the planet. They can pick phenotypic traits (skin color is only one of those) and hate each other based on that.

But you're right. All those races are White people. It's literally only ever White people hating people based on race. "They picked skin color" at that time everyone knows, too.
Whites invented skin whiteners so they would always be whiter than other races. But turned to skin tanning when their colour turned to white albino ghost like. Interracial unions was also another attempt to get rid of the albino white those gene altering creams caused the white  race.


Blacks took notice of whites using melanin as a standard to measure superiority of races where less was seen as more and albino whites at the top.
Asians saw themselves as neutral having focused on education, family and accumulation of wealth.
Yep. Black people always get along. No ethnic based conflicts in places like Kenya! Ethnic conflicts in Kenya - Wikipedia 

Asians have a stellar record, too, always staying away from racial conflicts. China and Japan are the best of friends (historically, too). Uyghurs love to give the Chinese a cuddle. It's impossible to find any racism in Asia Racism in Asia - Wikipedia 

With the introduction of skin whiteners the whites have less to be racist about and the blacks have turned to other white attributes to criticize.
Let's all end racism by whitening our skins to be as bright as the sun!
That was how it all started. All that was needed were skin whitening creams.

This has created the perception that blacks are more racist because they are highly critical of white superficiality and the whites are less albino white than desired despite using skin whiteners to reduce melanins. 
Next time you're going to use skin whitener, you should eat it instead.

Is that the secret behind how whites use white skin whiteners, they eat it?
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Shila
You’re such a denialist, it’s laughable. 

Avery just wiped the floor with you and all you can do is keep sounding like a broken record. LOL!!!
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TWS1405
->
@Shila
You’re such a denialist, it’s laughable.

Avery just wiped the floor with you and all you can do is keep sounding like a broken record. LOL!!!
See Avery’s advice to white people below:

Next time you're going to use skin whitener, you should eat it instead.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Avery
Using that premise, we are very safe to assume that people formed these feelings towards other racial groups through experience.

I’m going to deal with this one first, to simplify the rest: this is repeating the same assertion you keep making throughout: 

For your conclusions to be true the number of people who perceive most members of group to be racist has to be proportional to the number of actual racists in that group. If not - then the numbers of the former can’t be used to determine the latter, and you cannot know the comparative values of racism. For this to be the case there cannot be systemic bias in the responses, EG:

  • How much racism respondents have to experience in order perceive a group as mostly racist must be broadly constant amongst all groups for all races. If a Republican wont rate whites as mostly racist if they see multiple examples, but rates blacks as most racist after seeing 1 - the conclusion fails.
  • How willing or able members of a given group are to recognize their own racial group as racist, must be similar in all groups - if white republicans disproportionately don’t or won’t recognize racism in their own group - the conclusion fails.
  • How racist a group is perceived by another must only be influenced solely by how many racists there are - if this perception is altered by peers, or by media underselling one side of racism or overselling another - the conclusion fails
  • Every group must understand and define racism in the same way for all races. If one group defines or views racism differently for whites or blacks (IE - that blacks having animosity whites is racism, but a white business owner racial profiling a customer is ok)- the conclusion fails.
  • Every group must have equal exposure to examples of racism for each race. If a group is more likely to see only one type of racism - because they’re mostly white - the conclusion fails.
  • Racism must be homogenous in all groups. If black people that live near or around republicans are much more racist than those who live near or around liberals - individual group experience is not representative of the group as a whole - thus the conclusion fails 

If ANY of these aren’t true - they will skew the results: they will add some amount of deviation between the results and the actual number of racists. You have no basis to believe ANY of the above are true - and we have EVERY reason to believe they are not. Indeed we KNOW some of them are untrue.

You actually don’t address any of these issues at all, by justifying why they can be assumed true: you resort to dismissing the arguments in predominantly 3  ways, which I will refer from now on as:

F1: You mischaracterize all these reasonable potential sources of bias in the results of the poll as somehow requiring people to believe a group is racist no reason - then ridicule the result. This is Strawman.

F2: You massively oversimplify your conclusion as answering based on belief, that obfuscates all the potential sources of error above, and then asserting this conclusion is obviously valid. This is both argument by assertion, and a form of straw-man.

F3: You simply reassert your conclusion that, despite all the valid reasons why your assertion is untrue - that the result can only be based on the number of racists.

F4: you don’t actually address the issue or the point; but you complaining about wording or phrasing, or complain of some meaning is incorrect. This is a red herring.

F5: you simply ignore what was said and restate the claim.

You're still not dealing with the fact that your maths number DON'T generate an impact for you, hence your standard is arbitrary.…. You can do it.

This is F5.

In post 106 - I explained why one group has an extreme response (my numbers were off it’s +37 vs -6 - so a factor of 6 different), I gave a helpful analogy of how they objectively skew the results - which was my point. The impact of each Republicans on the result was equivalent to 6 liberals.

Your argument is F4. You complain about meaning. But at no point have you disputed the actual statistical point.

So, just sit there and whine "strawman!" all you want, but we can see the double meaning to your words. No wordplay my butt...

This is F5: you ignored that the clear context of my original point, and when I talked about an extreme result were clearly in the context of statistics. You’re not arguing the point; just trying to find clearly silly objections on meaning.

"All the time" implies always.

Often =/= always.
I eat take-out all the time. I visit the politics forums all the time. These imply regularly, or often - not always. 

This is F4: You’re haggling over wording, as opposed to objecting to the point - that our perceptions are very often wrong.

Again, for like the 5th time, people don't just randomly hate most people of a race for no reason -- this makes absolutely no sense. 

I’ve suggested multiple reasons why an individual answered yes nor no to these poll questions not based solely on how many racists there are in the group. None in this list qualify as “hat[ing] most people of a race for no reason”. You are repeating your F1 strawman.

Not going to touch your Nazi example because it's too controversial for public discourse, but I understand your point.

When people get called slurs, it's racism and "propaganda" or whatever isn't going to impede perception. When a Black man gets on t.v. and say, "we need less White people and more Black people", same thing applies. But we’ve been through this already above..”

Odd that you find discussion of historical racism “too controversial” - given the conversations you’re in.

You’re just re- asserting your super simply explanation applies - after having been provided a clear reasons they do not. This is F2 And F3 you’re not arguing 

We’re the Nazis perception of the Jews as a group impacted by propoganda and media? 

You didn't, you implied it [that perception of racism in other races is based on no reason]. You've implied people lack any reason in developing opinions based on perception.

No I didn’t. The examples I have are valid reasons why perceptions could be systemically impacted by other factors. You are dismissing them by mischaracterizing these as “based in no reason” - then ridiculing the result. This is repeating your F1 strawman

Yeah I'm beginning the question:  why doesn't this guy get what I'm saying..

You ignored the point: this is F4

Yes, I've made inferences from the poll.

Yes, it doesn't measure how severe the racism is.

No, 25% of White poll takers were not KKK. No, 51% of Black people didn't mildly dislike White people. If those things were the case, then what you're saying becomes a problem, but they're not, so it doesn't matter.

You ignored the point again - let me bold the critical part that you seem to ignore. This is F5

You’re using answers to the poll questions to draw inferences about the population the poll is asking about.  If the poll was applied to a known population, using the same question, and your criteria - and gives an answer that doesn’t make sense (which it doesn’t) - it calls into question whether the inference is valid.

My point being is that how many racists is not a good measure without some inclusion of how severe the racism is - as the example you dismissed shows.

Measuring numbers of racists is meaningless without knowing or measuring the severity of the racism - because it leads to absurd answers - as explained by the example

As you don’t know, and have no measure of what the severity in the population actually is without asserting that you know - the answers, even if accurate are utterly meaningless. 
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Shila
See Avery’s advice to white people below:

Next time you're going to use skin whitener, you should eat it instead.

I laughed when I read that.

You opened the door for that one. 
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TWS1405
--> @Shila
See Avery’s advice to white people below:

Next time you're going to use skin whitener, you should eat it instead.

I laughed when I read that.

You opened the door for that one
That was to say be my guest.
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Ramshutu
I'm not going to spend an hour deconstructing your deconstructions involving petty grievances, nitpicks and random logical fallacy accusations:

(1) It's just a poll. It's not a perfect capturing of "racism". It's just evidence as to who is most racist

(2) The limitations of the poll are built-in. All races and political parties have the same limitation issues you described, not just "White Republicans", so the poll is constructed on a level playing field.

(3) Your statistical point doesn't have any impact and remains arbitrary. Watch me do it: the Democrat response was "extreme" because it was negative. The Asian response was "extreme" because it didn't fit cleanly into either the Democrat or Republican response. I can make arbitrary, numerical conclusions, too, and they generate as much impact as yours: zero

(4) The poll didn't involve 25% of Whites being from the KKK and 51% Blacks being slightly annoyed with Whites, so this is not an issue (even if it hypothetically could be, that doesn't affect this poll).

(5) Most importantly: we don't need the precise levels of racism for any individual or group. People are judging based on their experiences, as flawed as they are (not completely as you've conceded), on an equally flawed playing field, and Blacks are voted as mostly racist most frequently, hence they are the most racist.

No, we don't know whether Blacks are mostly racist (despite people thinking they know), but we do know they are the most racist

The OP's poll remains valid.

Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Avery
I'm not going to spend an hour deconstructing your deconstructions involving petty grievances, nitpicks and random logical fallacy accusations:

How convenient, given the last post (and most of my posts) list the exact reasons all of the following points - which you have been making throughout - are wrong. 

Ignoring everything that shows that you’re wrong - only to restate the same conclusions that have already been disproven, is not a particularly reasonable strategy (and also covered by F5 above)

(1) It's just a poll. It's not a perfect capturing of "racism". It's just evidence as to who is most racist

No - this is simply untrue. If you refer to my last post (which you ignored) - this poll is merely perception, that perception can only be used as an indicator of reality if that perception is not altered by any number of possible biases, or skews that can alter peoples perceptions. 

Without being able to show those biases are minimal or don’t exist - which you can’t possibly do - it’s not evidence of anything more than peoples perception

(2) The limitations of the poll are built-in. All races and political parties have the same limitation issues you described, not just "White Republicans", so the poll is constructed on a level playing field.

Again - utter horsesh*t; in the post above (which you ignored) I listed many potential areas of skew that could absolutely change responses of different groups in very different ways. For example - how willing one group is to report their own race is racist - how good different groups are at recognizing different instances of racism.

What you’re doing here, is simply asserting that this poll is a level playing field, and simply assuming all the ways it clearly could not be don’t apply: this is assuming your own conclusion.

(3) Your statistical point doesn't have any impact and remains arbitrary. Watch me do it: the Democrat response was "extreme" because it was negative. The Asian response was "extreme" because it didn't fit cleanly into either the Democrat or Republican response. I can make arbitrary, numerical conclusions, too, and they generate as much impact as yours: zero

I am glad that you have now dropped the nonsense word haggling, and are now agreeing that I’m making a statistical point. Despite your repeated objections:

Neither the liberal nor Asian response can be considered extreme, as the difference between +/- weighting of racism was not significant compared to other groups. Their size and influence on the resulting polls is not significant compared to other groups.

The Republican responses had a +\- skew of +37, liberals had a skew of -6. This mean each republicans in the polls response had an impact on the top line numbers equivalent to 6 liberals.

I used an example (which you ignored), or colour preference that show why such an extreme response biases the overall results, because (as you also ignored)

(4) The poll didn't involve 25% of Whites being from the KKK and 51% Blacks being slightly annoyed with Whites, so this is not an issue (even if it hypothetically could be, that doesn't affect this poll).

You completely and utterly miss the point again - I literally spelled it twice for you in the previous two posts - I even pointed out and bolded.

If the poll was applied to a known population, using the same question, and your criteria - and gives an answer that doesn’t make sense (which it doesn’t) - it calls into question whether the inference is valid.

My point being is that how many racists is not a good measure without some inclusion of how severe the racism is - as the example you dismissed show
If your logic was applied to the population I describe to generate a poll result  - the results would be utterly absurd - showing the measure is meaningless.


(5) Most importantly: we don't need the precise levels of racism for any individual or group. People are judging based on their experiences, as flawed as they are (not completely as you've conceded), on an equally flawed playing field, and Blacks are voted as mostly racist most frequently, hence they are the most racist. 

No, we don't know whether Blacks are mostly racist (despite people thinking they know), but we do know they are the most racist
I have bolded your continued unsupported assertion - I have pointed this out multiple times, you just keep asserting it as if truth.

As listed in the last post; people are using their perception, the number of social and psychological factors plating into that perception are so complex, that it is impossible for you to make any claims about their overall accuracy; and there is every reason to believe that perception is skewed in various groups and not an accurate reflection of reality.

Like I said - if this unsupported assertion is false, you’re conclusions falls apart; and I have presented multiple reasons (all of which you keep ignoring), to presume this assertion is false.

The OP's poll remains valid.
As a measure of perception - yes. Of anything more than that - no.

And frankly; given that you are unable to defend it; and have to resort to literally ignore everything I said in order to present this case, I think even you realize how shaky this point is.

Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Avery
No, we don't know whether Blacks are mostly racist (despite people thinking they know), but we do know they are the most racist

Blacks are not racist, blacks are victims of racism.
Blacks cannot discriminate against people of  colour, they are black themselves.
Blacks cannot discriminate against white skin people because white people discriminate against blacks. Even if that was true it wouldn’t be racism. It would be called reciprocity.

When a white police officer shoots a black man. It’s racism.
When Bill Cosby raped 60 white women. The whites did not call it racism. He was not shot of convicted by the courts. It was neither a crime or racism.
Again, Blacks are not racist, blacks are victims of racism.


TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Shila
@Avery
No, we don't know whether Blacks are mostly racist (despite people thinking they know), but we do know they are the most racist

Blacks are not racist, blacks are victims of racism.
Blacks cannot discriminate against people of  colour, they are black themselves.
Blacks cannot discriminate against white skin people because white people discriminate against blacks. Even if that was true it wouldn’t be racism. It would be called reciprocity.

When a white police officer shoots a black man. It’s racism.
When Bill Cosby raped 60 white women. The whites did not call it racism. He was not shot of convicted by the courts. It was neither a crime or racism.
Again, Blacks are not racist, blacks are victims of racism.
Blacks are racist, they exude racism towards not only other blacks they disagree with, but also whites, Asians and Hispanics. 
Blacks do discriminate against people of color; history is replete with examples of same. 
Blacks CAN discriminate against white skin people; history is replete with examples of same. It [is] racism, not reciprocity. 

When a white police officer shoots a black man, 9 out of 10 times he deserved it due to his own piss poor choices/actions. 
The BIll Cosby anecdote is poorly utilized and, in the end, irrelevant. 
Again, blacks ARE racist, and they victimize their own, whites, Asians and Hispanics. 





Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TWS1405
When a white police officer shoots a black man, 9 out of 10 times he deserved it due to his own piss poor choices/actions.
The BIll Cosby anecdote is poorly utilized and, in the end, irrelevant.
Again, blacks ARE racist, and they victimize their own, whites, Asians and Hispanics.

So why are blacks compensated in the millions. Has it dawned on you that Black Lives Matter?

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The attorney for George Floyd’s family said Friday that a $27 million settlement of a federal lawsuit by the city of Minneapolis is the largest pretrial civil rights settlement ever.

The settlement was announced as jury selection continued in the trial of Derek Chauvin, a white former city police officer accused in the May 25 death of Floyd, who was Black.

Floyd family attorney Ben Crump said the settlement “sends a powerful message that Black lives do matter and police brutality against people of color must end.”
Some settlements in police-involved deaths are kept private. Often a settlement includes money but specifies there was no admission of guilt. Some such lawsuits end up in court where a jury can award massive settlements that are whittled down on appeal.

Here is a look at other high-profile cases of police-involved deaths of Black and brown people and the settlements:

BREONNA TAYLOR

In September, the city of Louisville, Kentucky, agreed to pay Breonna Taylor’s family $12 million and reform police practices.

Taylor was shot to death by officers acting on a no-knock warrant. She and her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, were roused from bed by police. Walker said he fired once at the officers, thinking they were intruders. Investigators say police were returning fire when they shot Taylor several times.

The settlement stipulated reforms on how warrants are handled by police. No officers have been charged in Taylor’s death, but one officer faces criminal charges for bullets fired into another occupied apartment.

Taylor’s mother has filed complaints against the police, seeking an investigation into whether policies were violated in the investigation that led officers to her daughter’s door.

LAQUAN McDONALD

Seventeen-year-old Laquan McDonald was shot dead by Chicago police in 2014.

Nothing in the city’s recent history has created more distrust of City Hall and the police department than then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s unsuccessful legal battle to keep the dashcam video under wraps that shows Officer Jason Van Dyke shoot McDonald 16 times.

A jury found Van Dyke guilty in October 2018 of second-degree murder and aggravated battery in McDonald’s shooting. He was sentenced to six years in prison.
McDonald’s family sued for $16 million — a million for every bullet — but settled for $5 million.

FREDDIE GRAY

Six Baltimore officers were charged in the April 2015 arrest and in-custody death of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old Black man who died after being injured in a Baltimore police van, touching off weeks of protests.

Three officers were acquitted and prosecutors dropped all remaining charges in July 2016 following a hung jury. The U.S. Department of Justice decided not to bring federal civil rights charges.

Gray’s family agreed to a $6.4 million settlement with the city in September 2015.

PHILANDO CASTILE

Jeronimo Yanez, an officer in St. Anthony, Minnesota, was acquitted of manslaughter in the 2016 fatal shooting of Philando Castile.

The Black motorist had just informed the officer that he was carrying a gun. Yanez testified that Castile was pulling his gun out of his pocket despite his commands not to do so.

The case in suburban St. Paul garnered immediate attention because Castile’s girlfriend streamed the aftermath live on Facebook.

Castile’s mother reached a $3 million settlement and his girlfriend was paid $800,000 by the city of St. Anthony and others.

TAMIR RICE

Tamir Rice was 12 years old when he was fatally shot by a white Cleveland police officer in a recreational area in November 2014.

Officers were responding to a report of a man waving a gun. The boy had a pellet gun tucked in his waistband and was shot after the officers’ cruiser skidded to a stop just feet away.

A grand jury in December 2015 declined to indict patrolman Timothy Loehmann, who fired the fatal shot, and training officer Frank Garmback.

The city settled the Rice family’s lawsuit for $6 million.

AKAI GURLEY

Rookie New York City police officer Peter Liang was convicted of manslaughter in the November 2014 death of 28-year-old Akai Gurley.

Liang, an American of Chinese descent, said he was patrolling a public housing high-rise with his gun drawn when a sound startled him and he fired accidentally. A bullet ricocheted off a wall, hitting Gurley.

A judge reduced the conviction to negligent homicide and sentenced Liang to five years’ probation and 800 hours of community service.

The city settled with Gurley’s family for $4.1 million.

MICHAEL BROWN

Michael Brown, an unarmed Black 18-year-old, was fatally shot by a white officer, Darren Wilson, in August 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri.

A grand jury declined to indict Wilson, and the U.S. Justice Department opted against civil rights charges. Wilson later resigned.

The death of Brown led to months of sometimes violent protests and became a catalyst for the Black Lives Matter movement.

His family received $1.5 million.

ERIC GARNER

Eric Garner, 43, died in July 2014 in New York City after a white officer placed him in a chokehold during an arrest for selling loose cigarettes.

A grand jury declined to indict that officer, or any others involved in the arrest. The Justice Department declined to file civil rights charges after a yearslong investigation.

The city agreed to pay a $6 million civil settlement.

TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Shila
>@TWS1405
When a white police officer shoots a black man, 9 out of 10 times he deserved it due to his own piss poor choices/actions.
The BIll Cosby anecdote is poorly utilized and, in the end, irrelevant.
Again, blacks ARE racist, and they victimize their own, whites, Asians and Hispanics.

So why are blacks compensated in the millions. Has it dawned on you that Black Lives Matter?
It's cheaper to settle than go through a full-blown trial. I've told you this before. It is precisely why many people, companies, and agencies "settle" vs trial. 
Another key factor is the underlining issue and the outcome if everyone went to trial and the black families lost = riots. That's why those families get a settlement. It's cheaper, and it avoids further violent rioting and loss of life. 
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TWS1405
--> @Shila
>@TWS1405
When a white police officer shoots a black man, 9 out of 10 times he deserved it due to his own piss poor choices/actions.
The BIll Cosby anecdote is poorly utilized and, in the end, irrelevant.
Again, blacks ARE racist, and they victimize their own, whites, Asians and Hispanics.

So why are blacks compensated in the millions. Has it dawned on you that Black Lives Matter?
It's cheaper to settle than go through a full-blown trial. I've told you this before. It is precisely why many people, companies, and agencies "settle" vs trial. 
Another key factor is the underlining issue and the outcome if everyone went to trial and the black families lost = riots. That's why those families get a settlement. It's cheaper, and it avoids further violent rioting and loss of life.
So you are admitting Black Lives Matter. Blacks rioting helps black cause.
But how does police killing blacks  and paying high settlements cheaper than loss of life?
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->@TWS1405
--> @Shila
>@TWS1405
When a white police officer shoots a black man, 9 out of 10 times he deserved it due to his own piss poor choices/actions.
The BIll Cosby anecdote is poorly utilized and, in the end, irrelevant.
Again, blacks ARE racist, and they victimize their own, whites, Asians and Hispanics.

So why are blacks compensated in the millions. Has it dawned on you that Black Lives Matter?
It's cheaper to settle than go through a full-blown trial. I've told you this before. It is precisely why many people, companies, and agencies "settle" vs trial. 
Another key factor is the underlining issue and the outcome if everyone went to trial and the black families lost = riots. That's why those families get a settlement. It's cheaper, and it avoids further violent rioting and loss of life.
So you are admitting Black Lives Matter. Blacks rioting helps black cause.
But how does police killing blacks  and paying high settlements cheaper than loss of life?
I admit no such thing.

ALL Lives Matter. 

Blacks rioting, burning black homes and businesses, and killing other blacks "helps black cause"?

A violent black criminal being taken off the street saves lives. Just like Ma'Khia Bryant being shot and killed by police. That officer saved a black life, and likely more in doing so. 
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5

I admit no such thing.

ALL Lives Matter.

Blacks rioting, burning black homes and businesses, and killing other blacks "helps black cause"?

A violent black criminal being taken off the street saves lives. Just like Ma'Khia Bryant being shot and killed by police. That officer saved a black life, and likely more in doing so
Blacks rioting appears to help black causes.

So why are blacks compensated in the millions. Has it dawned on you that Black Lives Matter?

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The attorney for George Floyd’s family said Friday that a $27 million settlement of a federal lawsuit by the city of Minneapolis is the largest pretrial civil rights settlement ever.

The settlement was announced as jury selection continued in the trial of Derek Chauvin, a white former city police officer accused in the May 25 death of Floyd, who was Black.

Floyd family attorney Ben Crump said the settlement “sends a powerful message that Black lives do matter and police brutality against people of color must end.”
Some settlements in police-involved deaths are kept private. Often a settlement includes money but specifies there was no admission of guilt. Some such lawsuits end up in court where a jury can award massive settlements that are whittled down on appeal.

Here is a look at other high-profile cases of police-involved deaths of Black and brown people and the settlements:

BREONNA TAYLOR

In September, the city of Louisville, Kentucky, agreed to pay Breonna Taylor’s family $12 million and reform police practices.

Taylor was shot to death by officers acting on a no-knock warrant. She and her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, were roused from bed by police. Walker said he fired once at the officers, thinking they were intruders. Investigators say police were returning fire when they shot Taylor several times.

The settlement stipulated reforms on how warrants are handled by police. No officers have been charged in Taylor’s death, but one officer faces criminal charges for bullets fired into another occupied apartment.

Taylor’s mother has filed complaints against the police, seeking an investigation into whether policies were violated in the investigation that led officers to her daughter’s door.

LAQUAN McDONALD

Seventeen-year-old Laquan McDonald was shot dead by Chicago police in 2014.

Nothing in the city’s recent history has created more distrust of City Hall and the police department than then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s unsuccessful legal battle to keep the dashcam video under wraps that shows Officer Jason Van Dyke shoot McDonald 16 times.

A jury found Van Dyke guilty in October 2018 of second-degree murder and aggravated battery in McDonald’s shooting. He was sentenced to six years in prison.
McDonald’s family sued for $16 million — a million for every bullet — but settled for $5 million.

FREDDIE GRAY

Six Baltimore officers were charged in the April 2015 arrest and in-custody death of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old Black man who died after being injured in a Baltimore police van, touching off weeks of protests.

Three officers were acquitted and prosecutors dropped all remaining charges in July 2016 following a hung jury. The U.S. Department of Justice decided not to bring federal civil rights charges.

Gray’s family agreed to a $6.4 million settlement with the city in September 2015.

PHILANDO CASTILE

Jeronimo Yanez, an officer in St. Anthony, Minnesota, was acquitted of manslaughter in the 2016 fatal shooting of Philando Castile.

The Black motorist had just informed the officer that he was carrying a gun. Yanez testified that Castile was pulling his gun out of his pocket despite his commands not to do so.

The case in suburban St. Paul garnered immediate attention because Castile’s girlfriend streamed the aftermath live on Facebook.

Castile’s mother reached a $3 million settlement and his girlfriend was paid $800,000 by the city of St. Anthony and others.

TAMIR RICE

Tamir Rice was 12 years old when he was fatally shot by a white Cleveland police officer in a recreational area in November 2014.

Officers were responding to a report of a man waving a gun. The boy had a pellet gun tucked in his waistband and was shot after the officers’ cruiser skidded to a stop just feet away.

A grand jury in December 2015 declined to indict patrolman Timothy Loehmann, who fired the fatal shot, and training officer Frank Garmback.

The city settled the Rice family’s lawsuit for $6 million.

AKAI GURLEY

Rookie New York City police officer Peter Liang was convicted of manslaughter in the November 2014 death of 28-year-old Akai Gurley.

Liang, an American of Chinese descent, said he was patrolling a public housing high-rise with his gun drawn when a sound startled him and he fired accidentally. A bullet ricocheted off a wall, hitting Gurley.

A judge reduced the conviction to negligent homicide and sentenced Liang to five years’ probation and 800 hours of community service.

The city settled with Gurley’s family for $4.1 million.

MICHAEL BROWN

Michael Brown, an unarmed Black 18-year-old, was fatally shot by a white officer, Darren Wilson, in August 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri.

A grand jury declined to indict Wilson, and the U.S. Justice Department opted against civil rights charges. Wilson later resigned.

The death of Brown led to months of sometimes violent protests and became a catalyst for the Black Lives Matter movement.

His family received $1.5 million.

ERIC GARNER

Eric Garner, 43, died in July 2014 in New York City after a white officer placed him in a chokehold during an arrest for selling loose cigarettes.

A grand jury declined to indict that officer, or any others involved in the arrest. The Justice Department declined to file civil rights charges after a yearslong investigation.

The city agreed to pay a $6 million civil settlement.

Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Ramshutu
I'm not going to spend an hour deconstructing your deconstructions involving petty grievances, nitpicks and random logical fallacy accusations:
How convenient, given the last post (and most of my posts) list the exact reasons all of the following points - which you have been making throughout - are wrong. 

Ignoring everything that shows that you’re wrong - only to restate the same conclusions that have already been disproven, is not a particularly reasonable strategy (and also covered by F5 above)
I just didn't want to waste my time with arguing that "most of the time" =/= "always", logical fallacy accusations for every 2nd word I wrote, and things of that petty nature.

I still don't.

(1) It's just a poll. It's not a perfect capturing of "racism". It's just evidence as to who is most racist
No - this is simply untrue. If you refer to my last post (which you ignored) - this poll is merely perception, that perception can only be used as an indicator of reality if that perception is not altered by any number of possible biases, or skews that can alter peoples perceptions. 

Without being able to show those biases are minimal or don’t exist - which you can’t possibly do - it’s not evidence of anything more than peoples perception
This is just you not understanding that perception has some value, even if it's not perfect. It doesn't have zero value because people don't suddenly think most people of x race are racist.

Unless you can show one polling group is wildly delusional, I don't need to show biases are minimal because all races and political alignments have a chance to be biased in the manner you've described.

(2) The limitations of the poll are built-in. All races and political parties have the same limitation issues you described, not just "White Republicans", so the poll is constructed on a level playing field.
Again - utter horsesh*t; in the post above (which you ignored) I listed many potential areas of skew that could absolutely change responses of different groups in very different ways. For example - how willing one group is to report their own race is racist - how good different groups are at recognizing different instances of racism.

What you’re doing here, is simply asserting that this poll is a level playing field, and simply assuming all the ways it clearly could not be don’t apply: this is assuming your own conclusion.
All groups have the capacity to fall for these issues. It's not reasonable to assume only White Republicans had these issues, and thus invalidates their response.

(3) Your statistical point doesn't have any impact and remains arbitrary. Watch me do it: the Democrat response was "extreme" because it was negative. The Asian response was "extreme" because it didn't fit cleanly into either the Democrat or Republican response. I can make arbitrary, numerical conclusions, too, and they generate as much impact as yours: zero
I am glad that you have now dropped the nonsense word haggling, and are now agreeing that I’m making a statistical point. Despite your repeated objections:

Neither the liberal nor Asian response can be considered extreme, as the difference between +/- weighting of racism was not significant compared to other groups. Their size and influence on the resulting polls is not significant compared to other groups.

The Republican responses had a +\- skew of +37, liberals had a skew of -6. This mean each republicans in the polls response had an impact on the top line numbers equivalent to 6 liberals.

I used an example (which you ignored), or colour preference that show why such an extreme response biases the overall results, because (as you also ignored)
Never dropped it lol. I think the double meaning is super obvious and you're a slimetoad for denying it. But I'm not going to harp on it forever because it's a waste of my time.

You just don't understand what I am saying. Your standard is still arbitrary lol. Unless you want to show the Republican response as being wrong or invalid, your big number gap has no impact.

(4) The poll didn't involve 25% of Whites being from the KKK and 51% Blacks being slightly annoyed with Whites, so this is not an issue (even if it hypothetically could be, that doesn't affect this poll).

You completely and utterly miss the point again - I literally spelled it twice for you in the previous two posts - I even pointed out and bolded.

If the poll was applied to a known population, using the same question, and your criteria - and gives an answer that doesn’t make sense (which it doesn’t) - it calls into question whether the inference is valid.

My point being is that how many racists is not a good measure without some inclusion of how severe the racism is - as the example you dismissed show
If your logic was applied to the population I describe to generate a poll result  - the results would be utterly absurd - showing the measure is meaningless.
Yeah they would be absurd, but that's not the poll we're dealing with LOL.

You needed to show that THIS poll was absurd.

(5) Most importantly: we don't need the precise levels of racism for any individual or group. People are judging based on their experiences, as flawed as they are (not completely as you've conceded), on an equally flawed playing field, and Blacks are voted as mostly racist most frequently, hence they are the most racist. 

No, we don't know whether Blacks are mostly racist (despite people thinking they know), but we do know they are the most racist
I have bolded your continued unsupported assertion - I have pointed this out multiple times, you just keep asserting it as if truth.

As listed in the last post; people are using their perception, the number of social and psychological factors plating into that perception are so complex, that it is impossible for you to make any claims about their overall accuracy; and there is every reason to believe that perception is skewed in various groups and not an accurate reflection of reality.

Like I said - if this unsupported assertion is false, you’re conclusions falls apart; and I have presented multiple reasons (all of which you keep ignoring), to presume this assertion is false.
Your standard of proof is ridiculous. You're basically arguing that human perception is so flawed that we can't conclude anything.

We could have a poll on 'do you like cats?'-, and you'd be deconstructing the poll by saying: 'how do we really know that people have perceived a cat correctly?'-, 'what if people's perception of cats is distorted through watching cute cat videos on Youtube?-, and other ridiculous controls that no one in their right mind would think is necessary to have a decent poll result.

If we used your standard for everything else, all studies, research, polls, surveys etc. would be invalid.

The OP's poll remains valid.
As a measure of perception - yes. Of anything more than that - no.

And frankly; given that you are unable to defend it; and have to resort to literally ignore everything I said in order to present this case, I think even you realize how shaky this point is.
Yeah shaky like Japan during an earthquake.

You haven't said anything new and you keep making the same mistakes. You made some good points in previous responses, mitigating the results of the poll somewhat, but everything you've posted here is tired and been addressed numerous times.

If people still agree with you that only the White Republican response needs to be discarded because big number gap, or that we need to control for a billion variables because human perception is "so complex", or that we should reject this poll because it would have had issues if different people took it, then oh well.

In my mind, the poll results stand.
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Shila
No, we don't know whether Blacks are mostly racist (despite people thinking they know), but we do know they are the most racist
Blacks are not racist, blacks are victims of racism.
Blacks cannot discriminate against people of  colour, they are black themselves.
Blacks cannot discriminate against white skin people because white people discriminate against blacks. Even if that was true it wouldn’t be racism. It would be called reciprocity.

When a white police officer shoots a black man. It’s racism.
When Bill Cosby raped 60 white women. The whites did not call it racism. He was not shot of convicted by the courts. It was neither a crime or racism.
Again, Blacks are not racist, blacks are victims of racism.
You are anti-White.

You hate White people.

Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Avery
--> @Shila
No, we don't know whether Blacks are mostly racist (despite people thinking they know), but we do know they are the most racist
Blacks are not racist, blacks are victims of racism.
Blacks cannot discriminate against people of  colour, they are black themselves.
Blacks cannot discriminate against white skin people because white people discriminate against blacks. Even if that was true it wouldn’t be racism. It would be called reciprocity.

When a white police officer shoots a black man. It’s racism.
When Bill Cosby raped 60 white women. The whites did not call it racism. He was not shot of convicted by the courts. It was neither a crime or racism.
Again, Blacks are not racist, blacks are victims of racism.
You are anti-White.

You hate White people.
I am white. I hate slavery so I am anti-white. Slave owners were white, so I must hate white people.
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Shila
--> @Shila
No, we don't know whether Blacks are mostly racist (despite people thinking they know), but we do know they are the most racist
Blacks are not racist, blacks are victims of racism.
Blacks cannot discriminate against people of  colour, they are black themselves.
Blacks cannot discriminate against white skin people because white people discriminate against blacks. Even if that was true it wouldn’t be racism. It would be called reciprocity.

When a white police officer shoots a black man. It’s racism.
When Bill Cosby raped 60 white women. The whites did not call it racism. He was not shot of convicted by the courts. It was neither a crime or racism.
Again, Blacks are not racist, blacks are victims of racism.
You are anti-White.

You hate White people.
I am white.
That has nothing to do with the fact that you hate White people.

I hate slavery so I am anti-white. Slave owners were white, so I must hate white people.
Slavery was practiced all around the world by various other races, not just White people. You have unfairly targeted Whites. 

Also, White people were the first race to push for the end of slavery.

Your hatred of White people is not only disgusting, but unfounded on total ignorance, you absolute buffoon. 
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Avery
--> @Shila
--> @Shila
No, we don't know whether Blacks are mostly racist (despite people thinking they know), but we do know they are the most racist
Blacks are not racist, blacks are victims of racism.
Blacks cannot discriminate against people of  colour, they are black themselves.
Blacks cannot discriminate against white skin people because white people discriminate against blacks. Even if that was true it wouldn’t be racism. It would be called reciprocity.

When a white police officer shoots a black man. It’s racism.
When Bill Cosby raped 60 white women. The whites did not call it racism. He was not shot of convicted by the courts. It was neither a crime or racism.
Again, Blacks are not racist, blacks are victims of racism.
You are anti-White.

You hate White people.
I am white.
That has nothing to do with the fact that you hate White people.

I hate slavery so I am anti-white. Slave owners were white, so I must hate white people.
Slavery was practiced all around the world by various other races, not just White people. You have unfairly targeted Whites. 
That makes whites as low as other races.
Also, White people were the first race to push for the end of slavery.
Whites ended slavery after sleeping with slaves became fashionable.

Your hatred of White people is not only disgusting, but unfounded on total ignorance, you absolute buffoon. 
Whites hate whites. Remember 2 world wars in Europe and now a third on the way. Whites killing whites is messy but necessary.
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Shila
Slavery was practiced all around the world by various other races, not just White people. You have unfairly targeted Whites. 
That makes whites as low as other races.
To include blacks/Africans. 

You do know (likely not) that Africans were enslaving their own and selling them off to Muslims (among others) long before America came into the picture. Also, the very first legally recognized slaver owner in America was a black African, a former slave himself, and he was notoriously brutal.


Also, White people were the first race to push for the end of slavery.
Whites ended slavery after sleeping with slaves became fashionable.
Does stupidity come naturally to you, or do you have to work at it?


Your hatred of White people is not only disgusting, but unfounded on total ignorance, you absolute buffoon. 
Whites hate whites. Remember 2 world wars in Europe and now a third on the way. Whites killing whites is messy but necessary.
The wars have nothing to do with skin color. 

Again, does being stupid come naturally or do you have to work at it. 
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TWS1405
--> @Shila
Slavery was practiced all around the world by various other races, not just White people. You have unfairly targeted Whites. 
That makes whites as low as other races.
To include blacks/Africans. 

You do know (likely not) that Africans were enslaving their own and selling them off to Muslims (among others) long before America came into the picture. Also, the very first legally recognized slaver owner in America was a black African, a former slave himself, and he was notoriously brutal.
Christianity’s role in African slavery and the Trans Atlantic Slave trade were demand for slaves in white countries.

Also, White people were the first race to push for the end of slavery.
Whites ended slavery after sleeping with slaves became fashionable.
Does stupidity come naturally to you, or do you have to work at it?
You were trained to remain stupid and in denial. I work to expose your limitations.

Your hatred of White people is not only disgusting, but unfounded on total ignorance, you absolute buffoon. 
Whites hate whites. Remember 2 world wars in Europe and now a third on the way. Whites killing whites is messy but necessary.
The wars have nothing to do with skin color. 

Again, does being stupid come naturally or do you have to work at it. 

Whites killing whites in 2 world wars. It’s all about skin colour. 
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Shila
I hate slavery so I am anti-white. Slave owners were white, so I must hate white people.
Slavery was practiced all around the world by various other races, not just White people. You have unfairly targeted Whites. 
That makes whites as low as other races.
You originally said: "slave owners were white". You've now implicitly conceded that other races also enslaved: "as low as other races".

Hence, you've demonstrated that you unfairly targeted Whites.

Also, White people were the first race to push for the end of slavery.
Whites ended slavery after sleeping with slaves became fashionable.
If you "hate slavery so I am anti-white", why would you hate Whites when they instigated the abolition of the thing you hate? Shouldn't you be pro-White because it's Whites attempting to end the thing you hate?
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,935
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Avery
All you are going to get is circular logic responses
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Avery
--> @Shila
I hate slavery so I am anti-white. Slave owners were white, so I must hate white people.
Slavery was practiced all around the world by various other races, not just White people. You have unfairly targeted Whites. 
That makes whites as low as other races.
You originally said: "slave owners were white". You've now implicitly conceded that other races also enslaved: "as low as other races".
That was your  claim. See #143.
“Slavery was practiced all around the world by various other races, not just White people. You have unfairly targeted Whites. ”
Hence, you've demonstrated that you unfairly targeted Whites.
Whites even tried to colonize the world. But two world wars among white nations but an end to this ambition.
Also, White people were the first race to push for the end of slavery.
Whites ended slavery after sleeping with slaves became fashionable.
If you "hate slavery so I am anti-white", why would you hate Whites when they instigated the abolition of the thing you hate? Shouldn't you be pro-White because it's Whites attempting to end the thing you hate?
Whites ended slavery after sleeping with slaves became fashionable. 
Slaves were exploited for several hundred years. Ending slavery by trafficking slaves as sex pawns is still slavery.
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Shila
Poly want a cracker??