Black Lives Matter: an incoherent and moronic movement.

Scroll to see replies

past=/=present
You can't justify some black people being violent today by saying that some white people were violent in the past. EVERY ethnicity was violent in the past, what's the point of even bringing this up? Some people in this thread really need to go back to school.

It's not just the past; civil wars, international armed conflicts, terrorism and genocide are still very relevant today. If we're going to compare body counts, it would be fair to say that Blacks are not "the most violent".

And if one were to claim that Blacks are biologically more prone to violence (as some are implying), the past would absolutely still apply.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 61

QE2

Original post by loveleest

Lol and who has a massive history of enslaving, killing, torturing and raping people for many, many years?

There are quite a few groups who fit this description.
The Romans probably were the first to do it on a global scale (I'm still waiting for my apology from the Italian government). Then pretty much anyone with an empire had a go. The one that academics cite as lasting the longest and having the largest number of victims was the "Islamic slave trade" (still waiting for my apology from the Turkish government). The "Atlantic slave trade" is probably second. Some of the African states were pretty active - many of the Atlantic Trade slaves were sold to European traders by other Africans, as well as by Arabs.

Reply 62

viffer

Original post by WBZ144

If you believe that one race is more intelligent than another, you believe that that race is superior. There is no other way of putting it.

The extent of any 'superiority' would depend on what you are measuring. People with a low(er) IQ can very easily be much better citizens. Conversely, people with a higher IQ can be complete and utter {insert word of choice} and a nightmare to all around them.

I know which ones I would regard as 'superior' but their so called intelligence is irrelevant.

Reply 63

QE2

Original post by WBZ144

It still does not compare with regards to the body count and destruction that resulted from these wars.

The Rwandan genocide ranks fifth in the all-time charts.
In fact, only two of the top 8 genocides were perpetrated by white folk.
Personally, I think these stats are irrelevant, but you brought it up.

Reply 64

QE2

Original post by WBZ144

So "what if" applies when I point out that Blacks have waged far less wars, but doesn't when another user makes that points that African Americans have committed more gun crime?

But your argument is a non sequitur.
On the one hand, we have statistical evidence that certain communities within a country are more likely to be involved in certain behaviour. (These are hard facts - eg. white people are more likely to go to university, black people are more likely to be involved in crime, in relative terms). The reasons and causes are complex but reasonable well understood.

On the other hand, you are claiming that - well, actually I'm not really sure what you are claiming. That wars fought between advanced industrial nations cause more destruction and are wider-ranging than wars fought between pre-industrial tribal states? Duh!

Reply 65

QE2

Original post by loveleest

Repped by accident but no, this is stupid. Someone said that blacks are statistically more violent but I disagreed

You can't disagree with hard facts. And it is a hard fact that in the US, black people are more statistically likely to be involved in violent crime than white, asian or hispanic people. That is not open to debate.

However, this does not mean that black people are inherently more violent, otherwise the statistical likelihood would extend over all black demographics, including the university graduates, lawyers, academics, presidents, etc. The statistics are due to socio-economic factors, not a racial predisposition.

Reply 66

viffer

Original post by QE2

I interpret Weebs' take on it is that he thinks white man advanced laser-guided WMDs are more effective* than the black or brown man clubs/spears/machetes.

I could be wrong though < shrugsshoulders >

* aka destructive

Reply 67

QE2

Original post by alexschmalex

OP who took a dump in your breakfast? Must've been a massive one if you're so desperate to waste everyone's time putting down a group that I could bet has never affected you in any way 🤔

I have never been affected by famine or drought. Does that mean that I should not be concerned about it?

I have never been into space. Does that mean I shouldn't be interested in the history of the space programme?

Reply 68

QE2

Original post by loveleest

So why did you make an entire thread talking about how violent black people are when I can bring up a bunch of violent things that white people have done. So no, you make no sense.

It is not about "how violent black people are". It is about the statistical likelihood of people being involved in violence.

Why not make a thread explaining how white police men are careless racist idots that kill black people at an unfair alarming rate compared to white peple?

But this is the whole point of this argument. This is simply not supported by the evidence.

Reply 69

username471863

Original post by QE2

I was not referring to Whites only, but non-Blacks as a whole, as the argument some are trying to display is that Blacks are more violent than other races.

Reply 70

QE2

Original post by WBZ144

Intelligence is genetic, so if you want to say that Blacks are dumb then just say it.

"Intelligence" and "academic achievement" are two very different things. Black people in the US are less likely to finish school or go to university because of socio-economic factors, not because they are racislly less intelligent. You are just attacking poorly constructed straw men, for reasons best known to yourself.

Reply 71

username471863

Original post by QE2

That isn't the point. I called the OP out on saying that Blacks are generally less intelligent and more violent than other races in a different thread. Other users tried to "prove" that he was was right by quoting US crime stats. How is it that US crime stats enough to prove that an entire race that resides in various parts of the world is more violent than other races, but pointing out that other races have perpetuated far more violence on an international scale is a "non sequitur"?

Reply 72

QE2

Original post by WBZ144

I don't believe that any race is more violent, but if you want to quote crime stats to show that Blacks are more violent, it's fair play to quote historical and modern day atrocities to show that non-Blacks have in fact committed more violence.

Have you not been followinbg the argument, or are you simply attempting to force an agenda?

The claim of BLM is that innocent black people are being deliberately killed by racist police at a disproportionate rate.
The statistics show that this is not the case. One specific reason is that although blacks make up 13% of the population, they commit over 50% of violent crime. Therefore they are statistically far more likely to be involved in armed confrontation with the police.
Therefore the central claim of BLM is demonstrably false.
It does not show that black people "are more violent", it merely shows that they are "more likely to commit violent crime". This is a hard fact.
When the demographics of US blacks are broken down, it shows that the likelihood of committing violent crime is far higher amongst poorly educated, inner city youths than amongst suburban graduates and professionals.
I really can't understand why you don't get this.

That is not to say that there are no racist police officers who illegally kill black people. There are, and some of them are serving time for murder. But that is not the issue here.

Reply 73

username471863

Original post by QE2

If you read the posts of the user I was quoting, you will see that he claimed that Blacks are generally less intelligent.

Reply 74

username471863

Original post by QE2

And one is currently on paid leave.

Like I said, I was calling this user out for saying on another thread which has been deleted that Blacks are generally less intelligent and more violent than other races. This argument erupted when other users tried to "prove" that he was right. I was not arguing for or against the BLM claims, as I did not feel like getting into something that long and drawn-out (ironically, that is exactly what trying to refute racist claims turned out to be).

Reply 75

QE2

Original post by WBZ144

It's how StormFront would look if its users attempted to sophisticate their arguments and veil their prejudice.

Statistics from the US Bureau of Justice show that blacks commit over 50% of violent crime, and that police are more likely to be shot by blacks than by whites, hispanics or asians, therefore refuting the claim that blacks are being disproportionately targeted by police.

But somehow, stating this is displaying white nationalist prejudice?
*SMH*

Reply 76

username471863

Original post by QE2

Saying that Blacks are more violent and less intelligent that Whites certainly is "displaying white nationalist prejudice". That's what they say at StormFront, but with the N word and monkey pictures.

Reply 77

QE2

Original post by WBZ144

They weren't referring to specific communities, but an entire race as a whole.

It seemed to me that they were specifically referring to statistics relating to blacks in the US.

"Blacks in the US are statistically more likely to commit violent crime" is not saying "blacks are more violent".

Whites are statistically more likely to commit financial and sexual offences. No one would claim that all white people are frauds and rapists.

I think your ability to understand concepts is being clouded by your "blacks are always victims" agenda. This kind of thing has happened before, hasn't it?

Reply 78

username471863

Original post by QE2

I already responded to this. I suggest you read my later posts before replying, as that would save us both a lot of time.

Where is your evidence of my so-called "blacks are always victims" agenda? And no, I neither know nor care about what you are talking about.

Reply 79

QE2

Original post by WBZ144

If we are looking at the recent past, it could be argued that the most violent races are black and Arab. I'm still not sure what this is supposed to prove in this context.

And if one were to claim that Blacks are biologically more prone to violence (as some are implying), the past would absolutely still apply.

The only person who is using that argument is you. People have been explicit in stating that the reasons for the statistical likelihood of violent crime are socio-economic. I have not seen anyone (apart from yourself) who has connected it to biology.