Probably all black, but somehow not a significant fact worth reporting

So... the word "black" doesn't appear in this entire article. Assuming most of the 100 people shot in Chicago over the holiday were black, doesn't this seem like a significant fact the media is failing to report?

chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-july-4-weekend-shootings-violence-20170705-story.html

Only to racists.

What about whether they liked Coke or Pepsi better? That's a statistical fact, too. Why is there no mention of it? It must be a media conspiracy.

They were Americans. That's the stat the rest of us care about.

the media only mentions race when it's a white cop who shoots a black man

if 100% of murders were committed by black people, this would be a significant fact. So how low do we go before it become insignificant? 90, 80, 75...?

>this would be a significant fact.
No, it wouldn't. Why would it? Because you have decided it's relevant?

What if 100% preferred Pepsi? Would that, therefore, be relevant?

What if 100% had brown eyes? Or 100% had 10 fingers? Or 100% had arm hair? What if 100% were wearing shoes at the time?

You focus on race. But that's just a narrative you'd like to push. It isn't inherently relevant, just because you want it to be.

...

live in your disneyland dream world all you want. If 100% of murders were black, this would be a significant fact. particularly for homicide detectives and the justice system.

No, friend. It is relevant when a marker can be used to predict an action. If I want to sell pepsi, I'm going to look for where the market is more favorable, if I'm going to live somewhere, it's far from niggers.

Black lives matter though, so you'd figure that people would care that over a hundred black people just died in one tragic weekend. I mean, unless you feel like they don't matter.

Incorrect.

You have committed a fallacy, making a claim that is neither logical nor sound.

It is invalid to claim that because a correlation exists, a causal relationship likewise does. And it is unsound to claim that correlations are inherently significant.

Your claims are false in every respect. They are reflective of you. Nothing else.

But it can't be. You haven't demonstrated that your marker s predicting anything. You have not created a repeatable experiment controlling other factors than skin color. Your predictive "marker" is equivalent to saying "it rained the last times that I was angry. My anger controls the rain!"

The shills are out in force today.

>logic and facts are "shilling"

>Your predictive "marker" is equivalent to saying "it rained the last times that I was angry. My anger controls the rain!"


Nope, more blacks, more violence. It's nearly universal and a good rule of thumb to follow.

if 100% of murders were committed by black people with a gun, this fact would be highly significant because avoiding black people altogether would guarantee you could never be murdered. You sir should not use the word "logic" in public.

It is not a good rule to follow. It is "rule" you have invented based on your perception of a correlation between two events.

But if I am angry three days in a row, and it rains, then happy two days in a row, and it does not rain, I have no more demonstrated a causal relationship between anger and rain than you have between black people and violence.

Also incorrect. 100% of murders committed by people in 1998 were committed by people born before 1999. If I avoid people born before 1999 for the rest of my life, is it therefore impossible that I will be murdered?

No. Because correlation does not demonstrate causation.

Go look at the thread in /r/chicago, liberals really don't fucking care. They feign empathy for blacks merely for political power.

I almost feel bad for blacks but then I realize that they really don't care either, which is why they abandon their children, they're a cursed people really.

Just let them kill each other in their misery, if they want to be governed by corrupt politicians and nepotism that doesn't give a shit about them then so be it.

Nah OP, that black lives only matter when it's a shitlord pig officer who pulled the trigger.

>That's the stat the rest of us care about.

You care about stats, eh? Good to hear, I do too.

For example...

>race and culture are irrelevant factors with consistent trends in violent crime

lmaoing at your empty head user.

Some were Hispanic.

oh sry my bad.

Die in a fire, cocksucker, liberals do care.

It's not two events, it's two constants. Sage

>I can't refute your logical, factual argument
>b-b-but my feelings on the topic!
>q-q-quick, insults!

i know that you're just a shit stirrer with a rotten dog turd where your brain should be, but I'll bite, let me put it in terms you could understand.
if 100% of people in town a drank pepsi, that would be significant fact to pepsi.
if 100% of people in town B drank coke, that would be significant to coke.
if 100% of black people were muderers in town C, this would be a significant fact to everyone who lives and breaths in town c.

do you understand now? or are you going to keep shilling your stupid bullshit?

>race is NOT relevant

>waaah blacks are more likely to be arrested than whites the police are rayciss

you are not making factual argument, you have convinced yourself to IGNORE significant fact. have fun with that!

They don't care because they die at age 40 anyways nice genes

You don't know that. There could have been some illegal immigrants in those numbers.

>correlation does not demonstrate causation.

it gives something to work with. how about getting rid of the racial omerta in academia and letting academics do the research?

funny how the murder rate in black america is bang in line with the murder rates of subsaharan african countries

It would only be significant to the media if they were shot by whites.

>numbers, math, stats and facts
>the enemy of the nigger
you guys fear this shit more than the deep end of a swimming pool

bump