Im not real sure what a "twonk" is but I assume its none too good. I dont consider myself a racist, not in the traditional sense anyway. I have views on race and race relations but I've never held that to be a bad thing. I'm a white person, but I havent lived around white people for quite a long time. Sometimes I'll go a month or more without even seeing another white person. Right now Im in the Muslim provinces of southern Thailand and its not exactly popular as a tourist destination. The hotel I live in was bombed last month, along with the cafe down the street which still hasnt reopened. The comment I made about interracial crime is just the truth as I see it. I think in most western countries white people are more often the victim of an interracial crime than they are the person who committed it. I cant find any stats on the subject for the U.K. but a quick look at the U.S. dept of justice shows blacks are 92% more likely to committ an interracial crime than white people are. Im sure most of this is related to matters of poverty but it would be foolish to assume that race has nothing to do with it. It would also be foolish to maintain that the media covers the situation in a fair way. Im not a conservative or a liberal but Ive talked to both of them about this matter. Conservatives realize it and are angered by. Liberals realize and justify it. Neither of them deny its existence.So Adrale, do you just randomly post here to hint at being a racist twonk, or do you actually have a point and the balls to make it?
Share This Page:
Simply awful
.
You are correct, it is a bad thing, and out of interest, do you consider yourself racist in an, er, untraditional sense? Having views on race, I agree, doesn't exactly count...what those views are may well do.
I can't really comment on the Muslim provinces in Southern Thailand, but am quite interested in 'the truth as you see it' (how exactly, living in Thailand?) on interracial crime in the west. Seeing as you can't find any stats in the UK and seem to be American (please correct me if wrong), let's just leave Blighty out of it, as your claims about the US are amusing enough. First, I had a quick look at the US Dept. of Justice, and couldn't find ANYTHING even vaguely referring to what you said.
For a start, the phrase 'blacks are 92% more likely to committ [sic] an interracial crime than white people' is deeply, deeply flawed. The only statistics which include judgements such as 'more likely' are bullshit ones, such as polling statistics (which acknowledge this fact) or pseudo-science commissioned by shampoo companies. The translation of this would have to be some survey which showed 92% of interracial crime attributed to blacks, note not non-whites, specifically blacks as in African-American, and 8% attributed to white and all other ethnicities. Considering the vast number of different races in the US, and the large proportion of, for example, Latinos who make up the US population, even a cursory look at that 'statistic' by anyone with an ounce of common sense shows it to be crap. But please, you said you took it from the US DOJ, be good enough to link the page/document to us!
Oh, while vainly searching for the 92%-of-black-people-hate-whites-and-kill-them figure, I did manage to find this interesting real statistic from the US DOJ, under a page for 2002 national hate crime statistics, about as close as I could get to 'interracial crime', which doesn't seem to be listed anywhere, oddly enough.
Race of Known Offenders, 2002
Known offender's race
Total 7,314
White 4,517
Black 1,592
American Indian/Alaskan Native 43
Asian/Pacific Islander 87
Multiple Races 355
Unknown Race 720
I make that, by the way 22% committed by black offenders, and, er, 62% by white offenders...are you sure you didn't get your number the wrong way around? Before you use the typical defence of 'well you aren't an American, how do you know', actually I am a dual nationality US citizen, half my family live in and come from the US, and I have lived in various parts there myself at times, mostly in DC (which has it's fair share of racial problems).
By the way, if you are still wondering, a twonk - in this case - is someone who comes new onto the forums, makes three posts to whit: Repatriate all Muslims and end Islamic immigration to the West, Peace isn't part of Muslim culture and 75% of them admire Osama, This white-on-black racial crime is terrible but remember most interracial crime is by blacks! ...and then tries to defend his transparent racism with fake statistics and media conspiracy theories.
But please, post that DOJ report and prove me wrong!
I can't really comment on the Muslim provinces in Southern Thailand, but am quite interested in 'the truth as you see it' (how exactly, living in Thailand?) on interracial crime in the west. Seeing as you can't find any stats in the UK and seem to be American (please correct me if wrong), let's just leave Blighty out of it, as your claims about the US are amusing enough. First, I had a quick look at the US Dept. of Justice, and couldn't find ANYTHING even vaguely referring to what you said.
For a start, the phrase 'blacks are 92% more likely to committ [sic] an interracial crime than white people' is deeply, deeply flawed. The only statistics which include judgements such as 'more likely' are bullshit ones, such as polling statistics (which acknowledge this fact) or pseudo-science commissioned by shampoo companies. The translation of this would have to be some survey which showed 92% of interracial crime attributed to blacks, note not non-whites, specifically blacks as in African-American, and 8% attributed to white and all other ethnicities. Considering the vast number of different races in the US, and the large proportion of, for example, Latinos who make up the US population, even a cursory look at that 'statistic' by anyone with an ounce of common sense shows it to be crap. But please, you said you took it from the US DOJ, be good enough to link the page/document to us!
Oh, while vainly searching for the 92%-of-black-people-hate-whites-and-kill-them figure, I did manage to find this interesting real statistic from the US DOJ, under a page for 2002 national hate crime statistics, about as close as I could get to 'interracial crime', which doesn't seem to be listed anywhere, oddly enough.
Race of Known Offenders, 2002
Known offender's race
Total 7,314
White 4,517
Black 1,592
American Indian/Alaskan Native 43
Asian/Pacific Islander 87
Multiple Races 355
Unknown Race 720
I make that, by the way 22% committed by black offenders, and, er, 62% by white offenders...are you sure you didn't get your number the wrong way around? Before you use the typical defence of 'well you aren't an American, how do you know', actually I am a dual nationality US citizen, half my family live in and come from the US, and I have lived in various parts there myself at times, mostly in DC (which has it's fair share of racial problems).
By the way, if you are still wondering, a twonk - in this case - is someone who comes new onto the forums, makes three posts to whit: Repatriate all Muslims and end Islamic immigration to the West, Peace isn't part of Muslim culture and 75% of them admire Osama, This white-on-black racial crime is terrible but remember most interracial crime is by blacks! ...and then tries to defend his transparent racism with fake statistics and media conspiracy theories.
But please, post that DOJ report and prove me wrong!
-
- Member
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Sun 29 May, 2005 7:03 pm
- Location: Nottingham
not that i agree or disagree with either of you but sarcastro your working out is flawed
i believe he said "more likely"
which means you should take into acount how many black people live in the US and how many race crimes were commited and then see if they commit race crimes disproportionatly to their population enough to make it 92%
i doubt it would be 92% because the black population of the US is quite high, but still if your going to do it do it properly mate
sorry if i come across as trying to be a smart arse i dont mean it that way
i believe he said "more likely"
which means you should take into acount how many black people live in the US and how many race crimes were commited and then see if they commit race crimes disproportionatly to their population enough to make it 92%
i doubt it would be 92% because the black population of the US is quite high, but still if your going to do it do it properly mate
sorry if i come across as trying to be a smart arse i dont mean it that way
-
- Member
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Sun 29 May, 2005 7:03 pm
- Location: Nottingham
-
- Guest
Mark, I did address the 'more likely' bit mate, read it again. Also, I'm 99.9% sure that the US govt. doesn't release ANY statistics profiled as inter-racial because it would be a) pointless, b) extremely inflammatory. They certainly release profiling of offenders over all crimes, but they don't specify if these are racially motivated crimes; instead of showing the number of black/white people attacking whites/blacks because of their race, all they show is the breakdown by race of criminal offenders. Not quite the same thing. Hate crimes do, however, include racially motivated crimes, so that is the closest (if utterly imperfect) thing to seeing 'interracial crime' statistics.
Anyway, happy to argue about this later, but right now I'm off for a drink!
Anyway, happy to argue about this later, but right now I'm off for a drink!
.
I will post the rest of the links tomorrow cause it takes a bit of time to find them. Not the site itself but the part where my claim was written. You can have a look at this "study" though. Its just one of hundreds that reach the same sad yet unpopular conclusion. I would like to make clear that I dont have any personal problems with blacks what so ever. It just happens to be that they are more likely to commit interracial crime and for some bizarre reason that upsets you. Go figure.
http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/crime.htm
http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/crime.htm
And you are 100% wrong wrong wrong.Also, I'm 99.9% sure that the US govt. doesn't release ANY statistics profiled as inter-racial because it would be a) pointless, b) extremely inflammatory.
Last edited by Adrale on Thu 04 Aug, 2005 6:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
.
http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/hatecrimes.html
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A3321_0_2_0_C/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... sp?ID=3691
http://www.inthefray.com/200105/identif ... link2.html
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html ... -voice.htm
Note: Most of these articles refer to or were directly a result of the same DOJ study I mentioned. You can find it if you want but Im having a hell of a time locating it again.
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A3321_0_2_0_C/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... sp?ID=3691
http://www.inthefray.com/200105/identif ... link2.html
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html ... -voice.htm
Note: Most of these articles refer to or were directly a result of the same DOJ study I mentioned. You can find it if you want but Im having a hell of a time locating it again.
.
I still cant find the darn thing. I diddnt find it by going to the DOJ site directly it was a link on another article I read and now I cant find the same article. Im not the google gladiator that some people are though. Anyway I think its very clear that my previous statements are not entirely unfounded. I just dont understand why it pisses you off so much. I guess twonks have a habit of fraying the nerves.