DonFerrari said:
Puppyroach said:
Isn't the whole situation in Oregon with the Bundy terrorists and their friends the very definition of "white privilige"? They were allowed to occupy a government building for, so far, three weeks without ANY intervention from FBI. Imagine if they would have been black or Muslim, we would've seen a shootout within minutes from them occupying that building. |
And are you assuming or have certainty? In Brazil those political occupations are usually made by very hot headed idiots (mostly whites) and are allowed a lot of time.
Puppyroach said:
A lot of people who were young and very opposed to black rights in the 60's are now owners of companies and other facilities. Anyone thinking all of them all of a sudden are open minded and tolerant, are naive. |
All of a sudden? You are talking about 50 years.
Scoobes said:
DonFerrari said:
Scoobes said:
Unfortunately, profiling usually isn't based on stats but ideology and inherent prejudices.
|
So isn't black gang members responsible for most violent crimes in USA? And prejudice is part of human being and won't ever stop (if we are talking about generalization on before knowing a person based on the general statistic of a population) the probably isn't exactly the prejudice, but why that population is seem like that.
|
I posted this link earlier:
http://www.jbwtucker.com/ultimate-white-privilege-statistics/
- In New York City, whites comprise 44% of the population; blacks and Latinos, 53%.[4]
- Between 2005 and 2008, 80% of NYPD stops were of blacks and Latinos. Only 10% of stops were of whites.
- 85% of those frisked were black; only 8% were white. (Blacks and Latinos were frisked 50% of the time; whites, only 34%.)
- Under the NYPD’s controversial “stop-and-frisk” program, in every year since 2009, 87% of those stopped-and-frisked were black or Latino. 10% were white.[5]
- 24% of blacks and Latinos had force used against them by the NYPD, compared to only 17% of whites.
- Only 2.6% of all stops (1.6 million stops over 3.5 years) resulted in the discovery of contraband or a weapon. Whites were more likely to be found with contraband or a weapon.
- Similar trends are seen in Department of Justice data from Los Angeles between July 2003 and June 2004.
- The stop rate for blacks was 3,400 stops per 10,000 residents higher than the white stop rate. The Latino stop rate was 360 stops higher.
- Blacks were 127% more likely to get frisked and 76% more likely to get searched than whites; Latinos, 43% more likely to get frisked and 16% more likely to get searched.
- And yet, frisked blacks were 42% less likely to be found with a weapon than frisked whites; Latinos, 32% less likely.
- Consensual searches of blacks were “37 percent less likely to uncover weapons, 23.7 percent less likely to uncover drugs, and 25.4 percent less likely to uncover any other type of contraband, than consensual searches of Whites.”
- Consensual searches of Latinos were “32.8 percent less likely to uncover weapons, 34.3 percent less likely to uncover drugs, and 12.3 percent less likely to uncover any other type of contraband than consensual searches of Whites.”
- Similar statistics can be seen across the U.S.
- A study in Arizona found state highway patrol 3.5 times more likely to search a stopped Native American, and 2.5 times more likely to search a stopped African American or Latino, than a white person. And yet, whites who were searched were more likely than all other groups to be transporting drugs, guns, or other contraband.
- A study in West Virginia showed black drivers 1.64 times more likely, and Latinos 1.48 times more likely, to be stopped than white drivers. After being stopped, non-whites were more likely to get arrested, even though police “obtained a significantly higher contraband hit rate for white drivers than minorities.”
- In Illinois, data showed the number of consent searches after traffic stops, for blacks and Latinos, to be “more than double that of whites”—even though “white motorists were twice as likely to have contraband”!
- Studies in Minnesota and Texas have yielded the same results, with blacks and Latinos being stopped more often, even though whites were more likely to have contraband.
- In another study, it was found that blacks are three times more likely to be stopped in California than whites.[6]
- A 2007 U.S. Department of Justice report on racial profiling found that blacks and Latinos were 3 times as likely to be stopped as whites, and that blacks were twice as likely to be arrested and 4 times as likely “to experience the threat or use of force during interactions with the police.”[7][8]
- Blacks are less than 13% of the U.S. population, and they make up only 14% of regular drug users, but they are 37% of those arrested for drug offenses, and 56% of those in state prisons for drug offenses.[9]
- Black kids are 10 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes than white kids [11]—even though white kids are more likely to abuse drugs[11].
- Blacks aged 18-25 are less likely than whites to have used marijuana in the last 12 months[12]:
Blacks of all ages are also more likely never to have used marijuana[12]:
And yet, black arrest rates for marijuana are astronomically higher—and the disparity is only getting worse[12]:
More at the link, but you get the idea. Basing decisions on ideology and prejudices instead of data is is just thick and horribly unproductive.
|
Thanks for the numbers. So you agree with me that profiling must be made, but they are showing to be very wrongly made. One issue I want to ask. In Brazil the statistics put the same person as white when talking about university and black in prison. Is any suspicion of making more black innocent/white guilty to distort data?
And on agreement term with you I would say that they probably pick whites when they see real reason (hence almost 2x more probability of they being guilty than blacks) while they pick blacks for being blacks or both having to do with posture and clothing? Most people (maybe even you) if seeing a black wearing thug like attire and white on suit would choose to screen the black guy (even if quite possibly the guy just like the clothe and is honest and the white dresses well to not be noted).
Sounding and acting "white" is a horrible way of putting it. But if you know certain attires and maneirism are more probable to give you problem wouldn't you avoid them?
|
