Limbaugh v StewartFollow

I'd hope you understood a tactic you employ on a near constant basis. You don't particularly understand how to do it with any degree of subtlety, though.

Are all presidents profiteers, or only the black ones?

I'm not wrong. Saying it over and over doesn't change that fact. By far the most significant determinant of whether someone living in the US will be the victim of a criminal act is their economic condition. The poorer the neighborhood you live in, the greater your odds of being a victim of crime. Period. There is literally no one (except you apparently) who refutes this.



Um... You linked to the staring BJS page. I guess technically that's "data", but that's like pointing at a stack of encyclopedias and saying "the proof is in there, go find it".



By all means, do! Why not actually link to the exact publication which contains the information that supports your claim that a rich black man is more likely to be the victim of a crime than a poor white man, and then actually quote the portion of that publication that says this.

I'll wait.


While we're all waiting for the "data" that you'll never provide, here's an interesting read that's relevant to the subject at hand. Paper focuses on homicide rates for different racial groups, but has some interesting insight into why, and how living environments almost perfectly account for the differences between those rates for each group (latinos actually have a lower adjusted rates than whites when adjusted for socio-economic factors, while blacks have a higher rate).

Note though, that at no point do the authors even speculate that race alone comes anywhere close to offsetting environment as the primary factor. They're examining differences between poor whites and poor blacks/latinos and finding that when the environment is similar enough, the differences by race nearly disappear. Point being that social condition matters most. Economic status, education, employment, and other factors all matter more than the skin color of the person. As I mentioned above, no one claims otherwise.

Which leaves me still scratching my head as to why you'd not just think that this was true, but be so argumentative about the subject. I mean, I get that you have a need for people to believe this, but you can't possibly actually believe it yourself, right? Right?

Ugh, I'm failing to find decent stuff on that BJS page.

I searched their data and product finder for "income" (after realizing that their basic summary thing I found didn't have that information) and there were 6 documents from them. Three of them were simply for burglary or identity theft, and two of the others were over 20 years old. The only remaining thing (LINKY) was fairly relevant, but was pretty aged itself, from 1993-2001. Page #6 has a little graphic in the upper left hand corner that has black/white/hispanic weapon violence statistics also broken down by income level. I would invite everyone to view it for themselves and interpret the data how they feel best suits them (because that's what ya'll were going to do anyway. ).

That's as close as I could get. If there's other stuff there it has deftly eluded me, or was at least buried deeper than I could find in 15 minutes (which isn't saying much I'm sure...).

Edited, May 23rd 2014 6:49pm by someproteinguy

Yup. And that data clearly shows that for both the "all weapons violence" and the "all firearm violence", poor whites had a higher victimization rate than the rich blacks. And let's be honest here, $50k/year and higher isn't really giving us an exclusive look at "rich blacks" either. I think it's very safe to assume that if we were looking at say the $100k/year and higher range the results would not even be close.

I honestly didn't think anyone would attempt to refute this. But I guess I should have known better.

Um... *cough*. You were the one making a claim. You claimed that rich black men were just as likely to be the victims of violent crime as poor white men. I said that this was ridiculous, and you supported your claim the linking to the BJS page and insisting that I look through there and find the proof of your position. Which I kinda found ridiculous.

You're making the claim Smash. You provide the proof. I know you want to pretend otherwise, but myself and every other person on this thread is aware that the normal assumption is that crime and environment are linked directly, with race at best being a secondary adjustment to that basic relationship. Everyone else accepts the starting position that people in poor neighborhoods suffer higher crime rates than people in wealthy neighborhoods. I mean, that's why wealthy people move.

You're making a claim that flies directly in the face of the "norm". So yeah, it's on you to prove your ridiculous claim. So no excuses. No backpedaling. No hand waving. You provide a link and a quote that supports your claim that a rich black man is more likely to be the victim of crime than a poor white man.

Can you do that? I mean, I know you can't, because no such data exists. But are you freaking man enough to actually admit this? Or are you going to continue to lie when every single person reading this knows that you are utterly and completely wrong about this? It's not even a matter of speculation or opinion. There's no room for interpretation. You are just plain 100% wrong. Why the hell do you keep arguing this?

Edited, May 23rd 2014 7:29pm by gbaji

Yup. And that data clearly shows that for both the "all weapons violence" and the "all firearm violence", poor whites had a higher victimization rate than the rich blacks. And let's be honest here, $50k/year and higher isn't really giving us an exclusive look at "rich blacks" either.

Yeah, that's not very much money, unless you're an engineer or something and then you're dying to take that level of pay, you just don't have the skills that Rajiv does.

You're the guy who claimed both that $50k/year was such a low salary that only some cheap laborer from India would be willing to work it *and* that people making that much qualified as "rich". Not sure why you'd want to bring this up, unless you really enjoy making yourself look foolish.

Edited, May 23rd 2014 7:39pm by gbaji

You're the guy who claimed both that $50k/year was such a low salary that only some cheap laborer from India would be willing to work it *and* that people making that much qualified as "rich". Not sure why you'd want to bring this up, unless you really enjoy making yourself look foolish.

Well, to be fair, you did no research and found no data. The ****ing bar graph you chose to piggy back on happened to establish the highest quartile at $50k. That data-set includes billionaires, so I think it's fair to say that every single "rich black guy" who was assaulted is included in that quartile. The data broken down by groups including $250k+ yr is lying there. Did you want to look at it and get back to me?

Hahah just kidding. Let's just play pretend that this is some sort of "gotcha" moment for you and then you declare victory and move on. I mean we'll all laugh at you about it, but CLEARLY that's not a concern for you at this point.

Because racism is purely a black and white (ha!) matter, right? No effect outside of the here and now, no historical effect at all.

Nope, try again.

I have a better idea, since I'm obviously missing your point, why don't you clarify it for me? It seemed to me that you were saying that racism caused blacks to be disadvantaged and this explains the violence, but apparently I'm mistaken.