Since4pass

Hey Sup Forums, I checked out that graphic like you guys told me to....

Other urls found in this thread:

census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-05.pdf
census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Whoops. Here is my pass date before I get called a "shill," whatever that means in this context.

nigger

Nigger shill

Believe it or not, I'm not a nigger!

Sup Forumsfags are idiots

Who would have guessed?

nigger in euro body

Do you think the creator of this graphic is a charlatan or a liar?

>claims to be a race realist
>behaves like a petulant child when presented with facts
interesting

So blacks commit more violent crimes but in a less disproportionate rate
Thanks OP

Uhhh no you are just retarded. Your math makes no sense. Your reaso ing is even morw fucked

you're introducing arbitrary standards that are at direct odds with clearly marked qualifiers listed in the image because your feelings are hurt by the image's conclusions. you're fucking stupid.

Less Blacks to be victims.
Less Blacks to victimise others.
However, more Blacks victimise Whites than vice versa.
It works both ways, so you multiply the numbers.
Comprende?

You start with percentage of population murdered, which is beyond missleading.

The purpose of the graphic is to investigate white-on-black violence compared to black-on-white violence. The method in the graphic is 1.) naive and 2.) the math in the latter part is flat out wrong. The standard isn't arbitrary at all, I checked how much violence is committed with respect to the population, which is exactly the same as the stated purpose.

Victimization rate is a fucking stupid way of measuring things. You should be dividing the crime by the population of the perpetrator race to get a per capita statistic. Instead you decide to put your pants on your head.

What you're saying is that ~0.15% of both blacks and whites will be victims of interracial crime. But if whites committed violent crime at the same rate that blacks did, a far higher percentage of blacks would be victims simply because there's a lot more white people.

Understand?

aye the edits, not the original, contain manipulative math

sorry dude, your edits are wrong, not the original

More whites committed less crime.
Fewer blacks committed more crime.

But there's a lot of white people so that's okay!

God damn this is stupid fucking logic.

Its always said best with fewer words

Nope, I start with the same number given by the original graphic.

I didn't choose to measure victimization, the graphic did.

How is crimes committed / demographic that commits the crime in any way manipulative? This is equivalent to a per capita analysis.

This is incorrect, whites commit assault against blacks at nearly the same rate as blacks against whites.

my friend and i are thirsty

his cock holds 1ml of semen, and mine holds 10liters

i sip 1% of the semen from his cock, my friend sips 1% of mine

who is the bigger faggot?

>it's you, OP

How much do share blue pay you?

>This is equivalent to a per capita analysis.
It was a per-capita analysis before you fucked it into some imaginary horseshit by changing the first panel

>I didn't choose to measure victimization
You literally fucking did. What the actual fuck is wrong with you? You, yourself, and nobody but you decided to divide total criminalty by the victim's race instead of the criminal's race. Nobody but you chose to do that.

Why the fuck would you lie about this? Do you think we're not going to read the fucking image you edited? Just fucking kill yourself, Christ.

Where do you live. What city.

Australia still best shit poster

If you live in any major city you must see that blacks commit more crimes than whites, if you live in small city you'll see the same, smaller black pop commits more crimes than larger white one.

Lmao

i need to stick around to see OP's response to this

Wrong, without account for population you are missing a massive amount of information. Consider a randomly occurring event in a town square with 2 equal populations, versus one with 1/4 population A vs 3/4 population B. Obviously the event will happen more frequently to population B.

I just used that word because it felt appropriate. I meant that I am using the same data as the original graphic, wish is also victimization data you blithering idiot.

wtf i love baboons now

>non-hispanic white population is 74%
I wish man

Apparently it was in 2010.
census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-05.pdf

Never change Australia.

eat my ass you fucking niggerlover you either stand with whites or fucking die

there wont be such thing as african cuz the world will get bored of apes inferior to fucking gorillas(who have 80 iq while niggers have around 60-50) getting rights, and they will be just genocided the fuck out

That is some Common Core math there
You fucking absolute retard

In the first part it doesn't make any goddamn sense to divide by the victim population. Divide by the attacker population so you get attacks per person. 25x

Sooo much of a nordcuck

go to sweden if you like to get brutally raped that much

>the absolute state of race """"""realists""""""
lmao. You nazis love to spout "facts" and studies when they support your ideology, but when they don't support your outdated ideology you scream how it's just jewish science or funded by (((them))) and is fake news.

This is a good point. I will include it in my corrections to this graphic which I will post later.

This is literally the most retarded thing I have ever seen. Your percentages mask the 25x disparity between black-on-white and white-on-black on purpose.

>62,593 blacks were victims of white violence
>320,082 whites were victims of black violence
>blacks commit crimes at the same rate as whites

Don't play semantics, obviously I mean with respect to population. I literally had no goal with this but to check this statistic out since some of the facts on the other graphic were wrong.

Your logic is retarded, its not about the victim, its about the perpetrator. Of course victims will be fairly porportionate to their respective population, however the perpetrators are not.
This is literally retard thought.

>counting on Sup Forums fall for your deliberate misinterpretation of data
saged faggot post is saged

How would that shit support any ideology?

Blacks are much less in numbers, yet they do more crime than the White """"majority"""" does
(oh and lets not even tlak about profiling by race that is not permitted)

What you cucks are doing is bending the information into this retarded mess ,just to make whites look like stupid, looting, robbing, criminal , cultureless inferior people , what niggers are , and everyone knows that .

>not hispanic or latino population is 69%
that sounds more about right spics need to stop LARPing

Go with this stat, it show everyone picks on Asians and that there is no real black on white or white and black crime.

>12% of the population commits 5 times as much assaults as 60% of the population
>it's the same bro. blacks dindu nuffin

Your first two calculations are misleading and wrong. We aren't calculating the percentage of said groups that are victimized. Blacks do commit 5.11x more violence against whites, even while being a significantly smaller portion of the population.

If scaled to the same sized population, blacks would commit 25x more violent assaults. The last statistic also scales the numbers to a uniform population, since the statistic it was derived from only accounted for rate per 1000. It doesn't adjust for pop. size.

You aren't really good at statistics, are you?

In your first calculations, what is the 42,020,743 and what is the 231,040,398? Why re they different?

This is low quality bait

What was the last math class you took op?

They aren't wrong, they could be misleading. The original graphic is also misleading. It says so itself.

Black and white populations.

Dividing the wrong population sizes dork

Reminder this guy is on the payroll for the SPLC.

OP is a nigger and a retard who can't do math (the retardation and race of OP are probably correlated)

No fucks given,

...

Either this is bait or you are actually legitimately retarded.
There are more whites, yet the number of whites commiting violence on blacks is 1/5 of the number of blacks attacking whites.
If you want to make it about percentage, you have to consider the percentage of the AGGRESSOR'S race, not the percentage of the victim's race, you fucking commie college dropout.

They way calculate basically says "there are more white people, so there are more white victims getting attacked by blacks". Excuse me, but how fucking dumb can one (1) single person be?! The number of crimes depends on the amount of fucking criminals and not victims.
You are fucking autistic, kys.

Also saged this gay ass thread.

There is nothing wrong with my math. The math is division. You might say the result is misleading or meaningless, but it isn't wrong.

...

HAHAHAHAHAHA, someone screencap this retard's failure at math. Trying to use population differences is the latest trend of mental gymnastics of the self-hating white cuck. He even put an F on the bottom, hahahahahahaha. What a collosal idiot.

The original graphic isn't misleading. Your calculations are misleading, and because if what you're doing with them throughout the graphic, they're wrong in this context.

The only thing that's even close to being wrong in the graphic is the population sizes, which is negligible since we're dealing with ratios, which remains the same between the two sets of populations.

Jesusfuckingchrist, no wonder Sanders want free colleges, I haven't seen such mental gymnastics since the 'Mohammed was THE first feminist' articles.

It's preferable for me to think you're being willfully deceptive with your statistics rather than think that the educational system has really failed you this severely.

In 320,082 instances a black perpetrated violence against a white.
In 62,593 instances a white perpetrated violence against a black.
There are ~5.11x as many violent attacks by blacks against whites as there are violent attacks by whites against blacks.
There are ~5.5x as many whites as blacks.

literally this.
OP eternally BTFO.
There is no logical way, except shilling, in which he can respond to this.

Just look at the cold hard facts.

>this original chart is misleading!
>I know! lets fix it by making it misleading!

This is actually a good breakdown of a bad stats. Think about how big the white population is compared to the black population.

OP simply shows that white on black and black on white violent crime occur at an equal rate but blacks commit twice the violent crime as whites do overall.

They are still criminally inclined its just that criminality is not as prevalent as the bad math tried to show.

The best way to solve our problems is through knowing the actual stats. A bad argument hurts us!

>According to the 2010 Census non_hispanic whites made up 74.8% of the population
>223,553,265
Shill detected.

>While the non-Hispanic White alone population increased numerically from 194.6 million to 196.8 million over the 10 year period [between 2000 and 2010], its proportion of the total population declined from 69 percent to 64 percent.
>Sauce
>Actual Census 2010 data.
>Page 3
>census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

>census.gov has crime stats.
Bullshit source, census.gov tracks prison population. Your graphic is too blurry to read the exact page, likely done on purpose.

Fake and gay, OP

hahaha
nice try
>compleatly miscalculates the first 2 palnels in his favor
>asumens and muscalculates everything else after.
you must be black or a woman by the way you do math

shut the fuck up you fucking faggot leaf

Just admit it. You though you were being smart and had found the answer. That's why you put the F down there like a self righteous cuck.

shia le bouf you're drunk, go home

Nah. You definitely are a nigger

It's not misleading at all, faggot.

The infographic is about perpetrators. You decided to talk about victims.
It IS an interesting take -- from the perspective of "why do blacks act like whitey is out to get them" -- but it's fucking stupid as hell if you're trying to place blame.

But consider the following:
Hypothetistan has a population of 100 people.
98 are white.
2 are black.
In one year, the 2 black people assault 20 white people each, while 1 white person assaults one black person.

So 50% of the black population has been assaulted by whites, while only 40% of the white population has been assaulted by blacks.
This is your analysis, which you somehow claim isn't fucking retarded

At the same time, individuals in Hypothetistan's black population are commiting interracial assault at a rate of about 20,000% of the white population (assault rate of ~0.01/yr for whites, 20/yr for blacks)
This is the infographics analysis.

I made it to get (you)s. I'm here on Sup Forums every day just like the rest of you. You might view me like an enemy simply because I questioned a graphic, but really I am just doing this .

I put the F and the original comment there to get (you)s.

Anons are now swarming because they were swayed by a comment, but the math isn't as insane as the original commenter is trying to make it. All I said is that it looks like X% of the black population is victimized by whites and ~X% of the white population is victimized by blacks.

The original fucking graphic says the 5x is misleading.

>at an equal rate
That's misleading too. It's an equal -proportion- of the victims populations. The rate is nowhere close to being the same.

Im from reddit and im embarrassed

oh so you're just a faggot
sage

Your math is so blatantly incorrect, I don't know how you fucked up this badly.
Also:
>Blacks make up less of the population than whites
>Black crimes make up a larger amount than white crimes
>QED White must commit a smaller amount of crime with a larger population, meaning a smaller percentage of their population commits violent crimes

Yeah, I mispoke. I should have said proportion. Do you notice how specific my language is in the edit? No where do I say blacks are less criminal prone or anything like that. I used to live in Florida, I know that this isn't true.

??
Does this change how the actual race relations in USA are, where blacks attack more outside their race, but always complain that its other way around.

>hey guys I was just pretending

It is what all of the college leftists do - they start with the conclusion, and then they explain everything else with regard to that conclussion as an infallible fact.
It is the same way that Marx wrote his books.

...

thx japan for steppin in

>I want nationalism so that when I go to a shitty country I can feel better about how great my country is and if I can't do that I'll join the KKK

The most retarded post I have seen on here in many years. Congratulations you fucking idiot.

>implying the "whites" who shot the blacks weren't named Juan

...

lmao

>not posting the expanded version

OP you're the type of person who can't solve the Monty Hall problem aren't you.

Pretending what? I included my tripcode and pass date for a reason. You can check my post history. Here is an example: I make graphics for tv, pol, and biz.

That's what got me interested since some of the facts on the bottom aren't from the source material they "cite."

ayy

>Victimization by population
Eh, why though? That means that 320k blacks commited hate crimes against whites, even though they have less numbers.
Stupid shit.

...