This is why they kneel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

In this instance, corporations aren’t looking at black people as criminals. They are looking at areas which have high crime rates as too risky. This isn’t about race it’s about statistics. What advantage would putting a site in a high crime area have vs putting one in a low crime area?

---

Bro I'm speaking plain english, I dont get how you dont get what I'm saying.

The statistics in america have a correlation to race. You have pointed this out yourself. Thus, the race as a whole bears the burden of these statistics.

Initially you said its not skin color that people relate to bad economics, its crime. But you yourself have also argued for approaching blacks prejudicely based on crime statistics. So I am exposing your contradiction.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

Interesting... would you use this math when applying to something like gun deaths/murder?

Does the US have a high or low murder rate? If it’s low, no worries. You’re absolutely right. My bad. But if you consider the US to have a high murder rate, than 57% of murders by like 5% of the population is a lot...

---

The %’s are actually 52% of murders while being 14% of the population, but that’s irrelevant to the larger point.

I think our murder rate is a little higher than most industrialized nations (we are 55th worldwide, so not bad), but our gun death rate is massively higher than other nations.

I also don’t treat gun owners differently because our gun death rates are so high, because just as with black people, it’s still an extremely low % of gun owners involved in any firearm related death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

The %’s are actually 52% of murders while being 14% of the population, but that’s irrelevant to the larger point.

I think our murder rate is a little higher than most industrialized nations (we are 55th worldwide, so not bad), but our gun death rate is massively higher than other nations.

I also don’t treat gun owners differently because our gun death rates are so high, because just as with black people, it’s still an extremely low % of gun owners involved in any firearm related death.

---

What is the gun owner was a male wearing a FUBU shirt? You’d assume him a murder, no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

Admiration is given to gang members. In the area I grew up in, you were either an athlete, in which you had to do well in school, a gang member committing crime, in which school was for suckers, or a mark, which everyone took advantage of.

---

So gang culture? Why would that be applied to anyone beyond gang members?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

There’s a tweet that does a good job of explaining the insidiousness of using % of crimes committed by Black people as opposed to % of black people who commit crimes to stereotype them as criminals.

For instance, although a disproportionate number of violent crimes are committed by black people, the % of black people who commit a violent crime is minuscule, like fractions of a % of the overall black population.

So when Joey says 57% (or whatever the number is) of violent crimes are committed by black people so it’s ok to stereotype them, he should keep in mind what he’s actually saying is he is stereotyping black people based on .00046% of black people committing violent crimes.

---

.00046%!!!! Wow. That's pretty low.

Do you have a figure as to how what the same percentage is for the white population???

Just wondering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benny01

So gang culture? Why would that be applied to anyone beyond gang members?

---

We did have a period in this country where we did celebrate gang culture, it's a lot less now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES445

But crime is not the reason for these corporations leaving these areas, it's profit levels and their business model. Most if not all that have left are now facing bankruptcy. That has been over the last decade with the rise of online shopping. Please show us something that support your opinion.

---

Of course profits are the main reason. But losses from theft, robbery and additional costs such as insurance and possible lawsuits add to the lack of profits. This is obviously different if a company is going bankrupt due to technological advances. I’m specifically talking about corporations moving/closing a location, which happens often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

The %’s are actually 52% of murders while being 14% of the population, but that’s irrelevant to the larger point.

I think our murder rate is a little higher than most industrialized nations (we are 55th worldwide, so not bad), but our gun death rate is massively higher than other nations.

I also don’t treat gun owners differently because our gun death rates are so high, because just as with black people, it’s still an extremely low % of gun owners involved in any firearm related death.

---

14% of the population refers to the total number of black people in the US population. Most murders (by any race) are committed by males. In the black community, it’s mostly males between the ages of 18-40 which is closer to 5% of the population.

Where is gun death most prevalent? You can’t argue the gun death rate is so high in the US that we need additional laws to deter gun use but at the same time a small percent of the population commits half of those murders but it’s still just a small percent of that population. You can’t have both.

And yes, you do want to treat gun owners different. You want addition laws. Most liberals want no guns. Yet it’s a very small percent of the population....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benny01

So gang culture? Why would that be applied to anyone beyond gang members?

---

It’s not. It’s only applied to anyone living in an area which admires gang members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Bro I'm speaking plain english, I dont get how you dont get what I'm saying.

The statistics in america have a correlation to race. You have pointed this out yourself. Thus, the race as a whole bears the burden of these statistics.

Initially you said its not skin color that people relate to bad economics, its crime. But you yourself have also argued for approaching blacks prejudicely based on crime statistics. So I am exposing your contradiction.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

There’s no contradiction. I associate potential danger with anyone who looks and acts like a gang member. That’s different than a company analyzing data and determining an area has a high crime rate, so much so, it may no need profitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

14% of the population refers to the total number of black people in the US population. Most murders (by any race) are committed by males. In the black community, it’s mostly males between the ages of 18-40 which is closer to 5% of the population.

Where is gun death most prevalent? You can’t argue the gun death rate is so high in the US that we need additional laws to deter gun use but at the same time a small percent of the population commits half of those murders but it’s still just a small percent of that population. You can’t have both.

And yes, you do want to treat gun owners different. You want addition laws. Most liberals want no guns. Yet it’s a very small percent of the population....

---

First Bolded: If you’re hoping for it to be in largely black urban centers, you’re wrong. The highest per capita death rates are actually in rural states like Wyoming, Alaska, New Mexico, etc.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s...ty/firearm.htm

Second Bolded: And yes I can argue that, because our gun death rate is still MASSIVELY high compared to the rest of the world. We’re talking 10 to even 100x more than our contemporaries economically. Thus there is room for improvement.

And no, I don’t treat gun owners different on an individual basis, I don’t stereotype them (as you do with blacks) or become suspicious of them (as you do with blacks) because of the numbers. Treating them different on the individual level is different than wanting systemic changes to curtail gun deaths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

First Bolded: If you’re hoping for it to be in largely black urban centers, you’re wrong. The highest per capita death rates are actually in rural states like Wyoming, Alaska, New Mexico, etc.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s...ty/firearm.htm

Second Bolded: And yes I can argue that, because our gun death rate is still MASSIVELY high compared to the rest of the world. We’re talking 10 to even 100x more than our contemporaries economically. Thus there is room for improvement.

And no, I don’t treat gun owners different on an individual basis, I don’t stereotype them (as you do with blacks) or become suspicious of them (as you do with blacks) because of the numbers. Treating them different on the individual level is different than wanting systemic changes to curtail gun deaths.

---

So when you break down the numbers even more so, you find the most dangerous cities are in more urban areas...

https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gal...ca/1669467002/

If our gun death rate is MASSIVELY high compared to the rest of the world and 5% of our population commits roughly half of those murders, how would you not consider that portion of the population as potentially dangerous?

Treating someone different systemically isn’t always correct. How did that work during Jim Crowe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

Of course profits are the main reason. But losses from theft, robbery and additional costs such as insurance and possible lawsuits add to the lack of profits. This is obviously different if a company is going bankrupt due to technological advances. I’m specifically talking about corporations moving/closing a location, which happens often.

---

You still talking an assumption without back-up. Especially since you stated it happen often. My neighborhood is surrounded by these high crime areas to the north and west and I have never seen anything close to "have happen often" to support your statement. Once again, the ones who have left... By corp, meaning the big store's corp. All the major fast-food corp, using franchises owners, are all over the place.

We are spinning our wheels here without proof. Sure my proof is base on actually living around these areas, but my eye witness account trumps your assumption spun living far away in another community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

It’s not. It’s only applied to anyone living in an area which admires gang members.

---

When I was growing up and listening to Rock and roll, it was very leftist towards white establishment values. By your MO, since R&R is popular and predominantly white, this is the music that reflects white communities' attitudes. Meaning that all white communities love rampant sex, drug use, piss on what stood for American value of that time and wanted to kick the president out of oval office.

Of course I making this assumption on you thinking the popularity of Gangsta rap means these communities support gang members. For the life of me I can think of any other reason for your assumption that people would admire gang members. It is such a deplorable statment to accuse a ethnic group of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

There’s no contradiction. I associate potential danger with anyone who looks and acts like a gang member. That’s different than a company analyzing data and determining an area has a high crime rate, so much so, it may no need profitable.

---

I wouldn't trust your perception of who looks and acts like a gang member, no more than my momma ability to pick out a true hippie by how someone dressed and act during the sixties. Hell, southerners thought anyone with long hair was a draft-dodging, commie, pot smoking hippie back then.