Nationwide, a Black person is 9.3x more likely to murder a White than a White person is to murder a Black. Someone at Twitter adjudicated this fact as "hateful conduct"
Can you do a breakdown by age? I think that would give a real idea of the disparity, assuming there is one. Average black age is 28 or something similar, average white age is 58.
May 12, 2023·edited May 12, 2023Liked by datahazard
Great work but IMO you need to dumb it down with analogies to a level that the absolute imbeciles on Twitter can understand.
i.e.
You put 5 pit bulls and 100 chihuahuas in a room, and the pit bulls kill 15 chihuahuas (average of 3 killed by each pit bull) but the chihuahuas manage to kill a single pit bull (average of 1/100 pit bull killed by each chihuahua.
Based on common sense which is more meaningful:
1) It's dangerous to be a pit bull, because pit bulls are more likely to be killed by chihuahuas than chihuahuas are to be killed by pit bulls
2) Pit bulls are more dangerous, because they are more likely to kill chihuahuas than chihuahuas are likely to kill pit bulls
This is a pretty good analogy. I've tried 10000 different ways explaining this since I first mentioned it 2 months ago. Even smart people have difficulty understanding this (because it's so stupid).
As frustrating as it is dealing with idiots, it's even more infuriating dealing with disingenuous people like Noah or one of the many 'data scientists' who are deliberately creating a false narrative. And then when pressed the goalpost will inevitably become 'gosh why are you all so obsessed with interracial crime anyway, it's only a small % of the total. You must be grand wizards of the kkk'
Yeah, a national average isn't a false narrative. It's just looking at the same data a different way. Y'all are talking past each other. You're both right.
Sounds like you're using "misleading" to mean "doesn't address the specific sub-issues that I'm grinding my ax about". Your favorite ax is not someone else's favorite ax. Many people think it's more significant that life is overall more dangerous in America for blacks encountering whites, than it is that each single inter-racial encounter is more dangerous for whites than blacks. Deal with it.
Deal with what? Tired apologists like yourself who desperately try to handwave over this issue by being deliberately misleading?
Datahazard has already explained why Noah's 'interpretation' is incredibly misleading; if you honestly can't understand then I'm afraid that's a you problem :)
Both statistics are correct, but #1 is misleading as many people will interpret it to mean chihuahuas are a serious danger to pit bulls which defies common sense.
There is a common narrative today that Black people are constantly being victimized by white people, being 'hunted every day', 'existing while black', etc. with some writers even going so far as to suggest Black people should self-segregate away from white people for their own safety, an absolute inversion of reality.
The chihuahuas ARE more dangerous, because there are so frickin' many of them. The analogy works. Think about it.
It's not much consolation to the dying pit bull that he could have kicked a single chihuahua's ass.
Each individual Black person IS victimized more than each individual white person, again because each Black encounters a white person far more often than each White encounters a Black. It's about the numbers dude. The numbers.
This is exactly why this 'interpretation' of the numbers is misleading to the point of dishonesty. This is also not how people think unless they're being deliberately dishonest or are just incomprehensibly stupid. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being honest.
The vast majority of violent interracial crimes between whites and blacks in the US have a black perpetrator and a white victim. That's a statistical fact. So to say that blacks, the race that make up the vast majority of perpetrators of interracial violence, are in more danger than whites, the race that make up the vast majority of victims of interracial violence, is absurd. Obviously in any given encounter between a white person and a black person, the white person is in much more danger of being victimized.
Also, there is no individual embodying the white majority walking down the street. In the real world, blacks and whites are segregated, and blacks are much more likely to meet other blacks than whites, and vice versa. Whites intentionally distance themselves from blacks to avoid crime and antisocial behavior, and yet not enough to avoid being more victimized by blacks.
Thanks. I plan to reference some of your data in an upcoming Substack article of mine that is primarily about how the Democrats grossly misrepresent (in the media) the dangers of being black vs. white, expresssly for the purpose of inciting a race war.
Its a cultural issue from fatherless homes to the promotion of a gangster style lifestyle to drugs and government dependency. All of these foster a culture destine to keep the black community modern day slaves of the government. Notice how rare it is you find group fight videos where its not black attacking either each other or some other ethic group.
What is culture? Culture is an expression of genes. Intelligent people establish organized family units. This is why we observe similar patterns worldwide, irrespective of climate or natural resources.
No it's note else all blacks around the globe would act the way as ones in American cities like Chicago act. Culture is more than race as Dean detailed before you.
Uh, they do act the same all around the world. Look at Africa, look at Haiti. The big difference in the U.S. is the availability of firearms that aren't as readily available elsewhere. Rwanda, Congo, South Africa, Somalia. The story is the same.
No the are not teh same globally In fact South Africa is worse than the your average American city likely Chicago. In South Africa the African National Council has effetely legalized the murder of whites. I cant' speak to every single nation that has significant black population but Nigeria is one example were immigrants often are hard workers seeking the American Dream. That's not to say there are no Nigerian gangster's or thugs only that they aren't all the same, not even the majority.
You can attribute some things to ethnicity like IQ but claiming that every nation with a lack population, has a black populate that behaves the same as the black population in American cities is just not accurate. Even if you truly believed they are you are doing yourself a disservice by proclaiming that because you'll get less support form others for doing something about teh issue with the ones in US Urban cities if you make that kind of claim and I would assume your goal would be to bring about change.
Sorry Bubbas, all of us whites have black ancestors. They are the mother race.
If we evolved to be more peaceful it was only by necessity, probably because you can't reproduce if you're too busy strangling each other because you're driving each other crazy cooped up together in your hut all winter up North :-)
Why does anyone come to America from whatever nation they are in? Because AMerica is the best nation on Earth despite the political Left's extensive efforts to destroy it
I just got my Medium account suspended for sharing facts like what you share. Apparently they don't like it when you share data about male/Female relationship like divorce rates and who initiates them the most on a story/post from a Feminist author complaining about how everything is men's fault.
Before the 2nd dark age, woke wars of the early 2020's, the North American content known at the time as the United States of America played host to numerous cultures. Before the great ideological indoctrination and purge that followed, America played host to numerous culture with varying beliefs but most shared a common broader culture called the American Dream; the belief that anyone regardless of background could achieve wealth and success if they applied themselves. A new age of enlistment was on the horizon as advances in technology, medicine and psychology propelled the people of America to make a great leap. Sadly nefarious actors both private and public worked to uproot and destroy America by destroying it's culture from within by attaching it on multiple fronts. From healthy hetrosexaul male/female relationships that produce families to twisting facts into lies and vice versa to where "The Science" replaced science and where factual data was labeled dangerous, harmful and hateful; hate speech. By tearing down the family, logic and reasoning and a public education system that the vast majority had come to depend on they caused a controlled self-destruction of teh American society so they can sweep in with their plan to save all but only if all were willing to give the rights, freedoms and liberties that were a founding part of the nation.
It's taken 10's maybe 100's of millions of lives and many years to wrestle back some form of control from the post woke war tyrants so listen well my fellow citizen's when I say we must never allow Logic, Reason and teh Facts to ever be trumped again by ideological propaganda no matter the source or the cause.
Let me just create an exaggerated example to make sure that I understand. Take a place with a very small minority. Group A is 100,000 and Group B is 1000. There are 10 murders of group A by group B and 5 murders of group B by group A. For simplicity assume 1 victim per murderer each way. This makes group B 1% intergroup murderers. Group A is 0.005% intergroup murderers. But members of group B were murdered by group A at a rate of 0.5% while members of group A were murdered by group B at a rate of 0.01%. So, even though the likelihood of a member of group B being an intergroup murderer is 200x that of a member of group A, it's still 50x more likely that any member of group B will be the victim of intergroup murder.
How about this example to help people understand. No numbers involved!
"A White encounters a Black. Which of the following 2 outcomes is more likely?
a) White murders Black
b) Black murders White
The correct answer is b.
But! Any given Black encounters Whites more often than vice-versa, because there's lots more Whites. Since each encounter carries risk, the cumulative risk to each Black is greater than the cumulative risk to each White."
You and Noah are both right. You can debate which data is more important, but no one's lying and no one deserves a Twitter ban.
That is only accurate if there's an even distribution of people. If blacks mostly live with other blacks and whites with whites then the journo is wrong.
This is why it's important to break down the numbers in detail by locality. And when we do that, the black on white rates skyrocket while the "encounter rate" so to speak would be significantly less since the local population is much greater % black than the national avg.
Eh, the journo wasn't saying it was true in every single place, just that it was true as a national average, which is correct. You may not like averages, you can argue that they aren't relevant, but you can't argue that they're wrong. You're justifiably scared of the inner city, Blacks are justifiably scared of the White suburbs and White rural areas.
Being true as a national average doesn't mean that it's actually true anywhere, and would require something silly like blacks to encounter far more people on a daily basis than whites do.
Sure, that is true that it's an average, but that average doesn't mean anything to anyone. It's like saying poverty is not an issue because the average person makes so much a year.
Well, that's partly why scientists sometimes use median as well as or instead of mean. I'm not going to try to explain that sentence to you, look it up if you're curious.
It's not about numbers of daily encounters with people in general, it's about numbers of encounters with the opposite race. And that happens to Blacks much more often than it happens to Whites, on the average. You are fixated on lower-income neighborhoods in cities. I agree that the cumulative risk to Whites is greater there, but not anywhere else.
Can you do a breakdown by age? I think that would give a real idea of the disparity, assuming there is one. Average black age is 28 or something similar, average white age is 58.
In 2021:
Males Age 15-24: Blacks commit murder at 26x the rate of Whites
Males Age 35-64: Blacks commit murder at 11x the rate of Whites
Sounds about right. You'll like my upcoming article, which additionally uses Justice Department data from 2021, regarding non-homicide violent crime.
Great work but IMO you need to dumb it down with analogies to a level that the absolute imbeciles on Twitter can understand.
i.e.
You put 5 pit bulls and 100 chihuahuas in a room, and the pit bulls kill 15 chihuahuas (average of 3 killed by each pit bull) but the chihuahuas manage to kill a single pit bull (average of 1/100 pit bull killed by each chihuahua.
Based on common sense which is more meaningful:
1) It's dangerous to be a pit bull, because pit bulls are more likely to be killed by chihuahuas than chihuahuas are to be killed by pit bulls
2) Pit bulls are more dangerous, because they are more likely to kill chihuahuas than chihuahuas are likely to kill pit bulls
This is a pretty good analogy. I've tried 10000 different ways explaining this since I first mentioned it 2 months ago. Even smart people have difficulty understanding this (because it's so stupid).
As frustrating as it is dealing with idiots, it's even more infuriating dealing with disingenuous people like Noah or one of the many 'data scientists' who are deliberately creating a false narrative. And then when pressed the goalpost will inevitably become 'gosh why are you all so obsessed with interracial crime anyway, it's only a small % of the total. You must be grand wizards of the kkk'
Yeah, a national average isn't a false narrative. It's just looking at the same data a different way. Y'all are talking past each other. You're both right.
I disagree. There are ways of looking at data that are misleading, can you acknowledge that?
If so the question is whether Noah's interpretation is misleading, and the analogy I used in my other comment sums up my thoughts on the matter.
Sounds like you're using "misleading" to mean "doesn't address the specific sub-issues that I'm grinding my ax about". Your favorite ax is not someone else's favorite ax. Many people think it's more significant that life is overall more dangerous in America for blacks encountering whites, than it is that each single inter-racial encounter is more dangerous for whites than blacks. Deal with it.
Deal with what? Tired apologists like yourself who desperately try to handwave over this issue by being deliberately misleading?
Datahazard has already explained why Noah's 'interpretation' is incredibly misleading; if you honestly can't understand then I'm afraid that's a you problem :)
Is it b/c they are smart or because they are college indoctrinated?
Good point.
Nice analogy! To continue it, Noah is saying #1, and datahazard is saying #2. They're both right.
Both statistics are correct, but #1 is misleading as many people will interpret it to mean chihuahuas are a serious danger to pit bulls which defies common sense.
There is a common narrative today that Black people are constantly being victimized by white people, being 'hunted every day', 'existing while black', etc. with some writers even going so far as to suggest Black people should self-segregate away from white people for their own safety, an absolute inversion of reality.
The chihuahuas ARE more dangerous, because there are so frickin' many of them. The analogy works. Think about it.
It's not much consolation to the dying pit bull that he could have kicked a single chihuahua's ass.
Each individual Black person IS victimized more than each individual white person, again because each Black encounters a white person far more often than each White encounters a Black. It's about the numbers dude. The numbers.
Sorry if that isn't your preferred narrative.
I think this adequately sums up your argument:
"chihuahuas ARE more dangerous" (than pit bulls)
This is exactly why this 'interpretation' of the numbers is misleading to the point of dishonesty. This is also not how people think unless they're being deliberately dishonest or are just incomprehensibly stupid. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being honest.
You really aren't grasping that a group's level of dangerousness depends in part on how many of them there are.
No, it's not that you're not grasping it, it's that you're denying it. Bad look for you.
The vast majority of violent interracial crimes between whites and blacks in the US have a black perpetrator and a white victim. That's a statistical fact. So to say that blacks, the race that make up the vast majority of perpetrators of interracial violence, are in more danger than whites, the race that make up the vast majority of victims of interracial violence, is absurd. Obviously in any given encounter between a white person and a black person, the white person is in much more danger of being victimized.
Also, there is no individual embodying the white majority walking down the street. In the real world, blacks and whites are segregated, and blacks are much more likely to meet other blacks than whites, and vice versa. Whites intentionally distance themselves from blacks to avoid crime and antisocial behavior, and yet not enough to avoid being more victimized by blacks.
Thanks. I plan to reference some of your data in an upcoming Substack article of mine that is primarily about how the Democrats grossly misrepresent (in the media) the dangers of being black vs. white, expresssly for the purpose of inciting a race war.
Its a cultural issue from fatherless homes to the promotion of a gangster style lifestyle to drugs and government dependency. All of these foster a culture destine to keep the black community modern day slaves of the government. Notice how rare it is you find group fight videos where its not black attacking either each other or some other ethic group.
What is culture? Culture is an expression of genes. Intelligent people establish organized family units. This is why we observe similar patterns worldwide, irrespective of climate or natural resources.
Culture is also irrespective of skin color. While most cultures do share a similar skin tone the re are cultures with a variety of ethnic groups.
Culture is downstream from race, in other words black violence is a biological issue rather than a social issue.
No it's note else all blacks around the globe would act the way as ones in American cities like Chicago act. Culture is more than race as Dean detailed before you.
Uh, they do act the same all around the world. Look at Africa, look at Haiti. The big difference in the U.S. is the availability of firearms that aren't as readily available elsewhere. Rwanda, Congo, South Africa, Somalia. The story is the same.
No the are not teh same globally In fact South Africa is worse than the your average American city likely Chicago. In South Africa the African National Council has effetely legalized the murder of whites. I cant' speak to every single nation that has significant black population but Nigeria is one example were immigrants often are hard workers seeking the American Dream. That's not to say there are no Nigerian gangster's or thugs only that they aren't all the same, not even the majority.
You can attribute some things to ethnicity like IQ but claiming that every nation with a lack population, has a black populate that behaves the same as the black population in American cities is just not accurate. Even if you truly believed they are you are doing yourself a disservice by proclaiming that because you'll get less support form others for doing something about teh issue with the ones in US Urban cities if you make that kind of claim and I would assume your goal would be to bring about change.
Why do Nigerians come to America? Because Nigeria is full of their fellow Nigerians. blacks are a disaster wherever they are found.
Sorry Bubbas, all of us whites have black ancestors. They are the mother race.
If we evolved to be more peaceful it was only by necessity, probably because you can't reproduce if you're too busy strangling each other because you're driving each other crazy cooped up together in your hut all winter up North :-)
Why does anyone come to America from whatever nation they are in? Because AMerica is the best nation on Earth despite the political Left's extensive efforts to destroy it
I just got my Medium account suspended for sharing facts like what you share. Apparently they don't like it when you share data about male/Female relationship like divorce rates and who initiates them the most on a story/post from a Feminist author complaining about how everything is men's fault.
They don't like incels over there, 'tis true.
A voice from the future screaming to the past:
Before the 2nd dark age, woke wars of the early 2020's, the North American content known at the time as the United States of America played host to numerous cultures. Before the great ideological indoctrination and purge that followed, America played host to numerous culture with varying beliefs but most shared a common broader culture called the American Dream; the belief that anyone regardless of background could achieve wealth and success if they applied themselves. A new age of enlistment was on the horizon as advances in technology, medicine and psychology propelled the people of America to make a great leap. Sadly nefarious actors both private and public worked to uproot and destroy America by destroying it's culture from within by attaching it on multiple fronts. From healthy hetrosexaul male/female relationships that produce families to twisting facts into lies and vice versa to where "The Science" replaced science and where factual data was labeled dangerous, harmful and hateful; hate speech. By tearing down the family, logic and reasoning and a public education system that the vast majority had come to depend on they caused a controlled self-destruction of teh American society so they can sweep in with their plan to save all but only if all were willing to give the rights, freedoms and liberties that were a founding part of the nation.
It's taken 10's maybe 100's of millions of lives and many years to wrestle back some form of control from the post woke war tyrants so listen well my fellow citizen's when I say we must never allow Logic, Reason and teh Facts to ever be trumped again by ideological propaganda no matter the source or the cause.
tl;dr
No worries, I understand for some it's pictures only and few if any words.
Let me just create an exaggerated example to make sure that I understand. Take a place with a very small minority. Group A is 100,000 and Group B is 1000. There are 10 murders of group A by group B and 5 murders of group B by group A. For simplicity assume 1 victim per murderer each way. This makes group B 1% intergroup murderers. Group A is 0.005% intergroup murderers. But members of group B were murdered by group A at a rate of 0.5% while members of group A were murdered by group B at a rate of 0.01%. So, even though the likelihood of a member of group B being an intergroup murderer is 200x that of a member of group A, it's still 50x more likely that any member of group B will be the victim of intergroup murder.
How about this example to help people understand. No numbers involved!
"A White encounters a Black. Which of the following 2 outcomes is more likely?
a) White murders Black
b) Black murders White
The correct answer is b.
But! Any given Black encounters Whites more often than vice-versa, because there's lots more Whites. Since each encounter carries risk, the cumulative risk to each Black is greater than the cumulative risk to each White."
You and Noah are both right. You can debate which data is more important, but no one's lying and no one deserves a Twitter ban.
That is only accurate if there's an even distribution of people. If blacks mostly live with other blacks and whites with whites then the journo is wrong.
This is why it's important to break down the numbers in detail by locality. And when we do that, the black on white rates skyrocket while the "encounter rate" so to speak would be significantly less since the local population is much greater % black than the national avg.
It really paints a grim picture.
Eh, the journo wasn't saying it was true in every single place, just that it was true as a national average, which is correct. You may not like averages, you can argue that they aren't relevant, but you can't argue that they're wrong. You're justifiably scared of the inner city, Blacks are justifiably scared of the White suburbs and White rural areas.
Being true as a national average doesn't mean that it's actually true anywhere, and would require something silly like blacks to encounter far more people on a daily basis than whites do.
Sure, that is true that it's an average, but that average doesn't mean anything to anyone. It's like saying poverty is not an issue because the average person makes so much a year.
Well, that's partly why scientists sometimes use median as well as or instead of mean. I'm not going to try to explain that sentence to you, look it up if you're curious.
It's not about numbers of daily encounters with people in general, it's about numbers of encounters with the opposite race. And that happens to Blacks much more often than it happens to Whites, on the average. You are fixated on lower-income neighborhoods in cities. I agree that the cumulative risk to Whites is greater there, but not anywhere else.
You don't have to explain it, it's very clear that you're trying to portray an average to mean something it doesn't.
If you'd like to explain how an innercity black person encounters far more white people everyday than they do other black people feel free.
datahazard's post isn't about black-on-black or white-on-white, just about inter-racial. So black-black encounters don't get counted.
It's not ok to be white and I condone this.
Do you have any analysis of the comparative rates of child molestation?
You racist cunt you knew what you're doing, what's the point of only posting negative data about Blacks if not to make people hate us?