"The majority of the crimes are by blacks" is not a fact. At best it's unproven at worst it's patently false. Anyone whose done any formal research can tear that comment apart in two seconds.

Depends on where.

facts?
The only actual "fact" (as in something that can be proven or disproven by data) is your first sentence (and as TW put it, you're likely quoting an incorrect "fact"). The rest is just your opinion or point of view you are calling a "fact".

Second, you did it again. One black woman writes an opinion saying blacks deserve reparations and you've now expanded that to "The black community has a ton of balls asking for reparations"..... since when does her opinion represent the entire black community? second, you're now of the opinion that a protest group who's entire plank is "blacks being killed by cops in situations where whites wouldnt' be normally killed is a bad thing"... and you've decided thats equivalent to the KKK?

No one perpetuates the racism between black, white, or brown, more than the black community.It's just not s single woman's or my opinion.This is the problem. Mo one will accept it for what it is.

Mhmm... That's your "fact"? Care to show where this" fact" was proven? You know... Other than "everyone knows this"

And that doesn't even take into account that you're neatly trying to ignore that you clearly extrapolated one woman's writing about reparations into "the black community" demanding reparations... Does that mean that "the entire white community" likes to make sweeping judgements about entire races based on a single individual, just because you do?

Curiosity got the best of me...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States 

Breakdown:

White (non-hispanic) 39%
Hispanic: 19%
Black: 40%

Keep in mind, this doesn't prove that blacks do more crime, but what it does prove is that they're more likely to get caught.

Never heard of "white priviledge" until Obama became elected.

Not until the black community quits blaming whites in the US for slavery (and not other countries) and everything they feel is wrong with how their community is treated, instead of looking at how their "community" acts nothing will change. Reparations "for labor, for loss of culture and of humanity" as Robert Brock puts it. In 1988, the United States agreed to pay $20,000 to more than 100,000 ... Robinson argues that blacks today still bear the scars of slavery and the decades of discrimination. Where are the reparations for the Italians, Poles, Jews, Irish, and native Americans? Ironic that the native Americans are now allowed to own Casinos while Indian Reservations are still in action.

http://www.crf-usa.org/brown-v-board-50th-anniversary/reparations-for-slavery-reading.html 
After the passage of the 13th Amendment following the Civil War, should the former slaves have been granted reparations?
How are reparations for black slavery similar and different from the following:
a. reparations paid by the U.S. government to the Sioux Indians for lands illegally confiscated in 1877?
b. reparations paid by the West German government to Jewish survivors of Nazi concentration camps?
c. reparations paid by the U.S. government to Japanese Americans interned unconstitutionally in prison camps during World War II?

Many people and groups have voiced their opposition to the whole idea of slavery reparations. Major arguments against reparations include:
- There are no black slaves living today. Slavery ended more than 160 years ago at the cost of several hundred thousand lives lost in the Civil War. It is unfair to ask American taxpayers, many of them from families that came to the United States after slavery ended, to pay for the wrongs of slavery.
- The problems faced by African Americans today are not the "legacy of slavery" or even racism. Many blacks have succeeded very well in American society. The problems of poor African Americans are caused by social ills within the inner city, such as the breakdown of families, high crime rates, and dependence on welfare. Welfare is a form of submissive slavery to the guberment.

.... none of which has anything to do with answering any of my statements.

New DOJ Statistics on Race and Violent Crime
http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/ 
First, we find that during the 2012/2013 period, blacks committed an average of 560,600 violent crimes against whites, whereas whites committed only 99,403 such crimes against blacks. This means blacks were the attackers in 84.9 percent of the violent crimes involving blacks and whites. This figure is consistent with reports from 2008, the last year DOJ released similar statistics. Perhaps not coincidentally, that was the year Mr. Obama was elected president.

What percentage of crimes are committed by black?
Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks committed half of homicides in the United States for nearly 30 years. DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, black people committed 52% of homicides. In 2013, black criminals committed 38% of the murders. Whites accounted for just 31 percent.

The 2013 FBI Uniform Crime Report, a compilation of annual crime statistics, also shows similar data: 83 percent of white victims were killed by white offenders; 90 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders; 14 percent of white victims were killed by black offenders; and 7.6 percent of black victims were killed by white offenders.

Homicide
According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. (It should be noted that Hispanics are considered White in the statistics). The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of black victims killed by blacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States 

Cacman why don't you put together your hypothesis then support and prove it with those statistics LMAO. You will drop the Mike and walk away so right that everyone in the room will be laughing. You are missing some very simple concepts which is sort of fun.

we can say the numbers are skewed all we want
but the above is the most damning statistic


the truth of the matter is very sad as no one treats blacks worse than blacks.

if you are a black person lucky enough to make it out of your mothers womb and then lucky enough to make it out of the exploitative black on black crime in your neighborhood...

heck if you can do that then you can do anything

One of my projects in my undergrad statistics course was race and crime. It was decades ago but I still remember it pretty clearly. It's a very complex data set riddled with issues to account for in the data, the collection of the data, gaps in the data and what the data really means (how do you define crime, what's included/excluded etc). Abrig could tell you some of the issues with data collection (reporting) alone. Way too many issues to deal with in this format. It was fascinating and would have been fun to keep working with but didn't fit my path.

I remember a cacman type project that "proved" religion caused crime because there was a direct relationship between an increase in the number of churches and the increase in violent crime. Real study.....really flawed.

Cacman your statement, as you specifically worded it, at best has never been proven at worst is patently false. Many have tried. If you can prove it you should do so and collect some coin. Maybe you can get it published in skinhead weakly.

Gummy that same stat is used to prove they are disproportionally criminals or disproportionally targeted or oppressed and either side is so sure the proved it.

The black on black thing is a very real issue to be addressed but it isn't either or. Until you stop this, that other thing is acceptable. It's used as a red herring. There are attempts to address black on black violence (which may reflect another numerical concentration or proximity issue). It is not simply being ignored by those communities or anyone else. From a socioeconomic standpoint it may not get the resources or attention from the people that could make a difference however. Meh.

To use that (not suggesting you are) to justify something else (like they need to clean their own house before I listen to their grievances) is simply convenient and unrelated. It's not mutually exclusive and both can be addressed.

All that aside it's probably good cacman moved in an attempt to avoid black people driven by his perception of their genetic predisposition for certain diseases. While I'm not big on segregation there are segments of both races that are probably better off separated. Those segments are more similar than different.

IMO the problem has been jobs and culture. Both of which, if you look deep enough, have been from one source.

breakdown of the family unit

Please provide cliff note version for this entire thread. 😣 😣 😣 😣

[-o<

cacman hates black people

tw is always right in the court of tw

victor is a troll, but an accurate one

That pretty well sums it up LOL