UV student says 'too many white people' at new multicultural center

The disproportionate amount of black crime is not limited to cities.

 

It looks like it's grossly exaggerated ... not the amount of crime but the perception.

 

Can't you get rid of a group of while people by tossing them a Hacky Sack?

 

Crime reports in this country are quite clear. I live in a small town and it's not different here than in cities.

 

My point is that hate groups routinely present crime stats in a biased way to make it appear that there is more crime than really exists. For instance, they purposely cite rates disengenously, instead of raw numbers, which put the stats into better perspective.

 

You are absolutely free to ignore the rates and wander into the areas with "disingenuous" high rates. I wish you the best of luck with that. For those who value their own lives I would suggest one of the "flyover" counties where murder is nonexistent.

 

I grew up in Detroit and was fine and happy. The presentation of stats is quite disingenuous. There were two hundred seventy murders in Detroit last year, a city of 677,000 thousand people. That gives great odds. I also lived in DC for many years. Never experienced gun violence in any manner and I've lived or worked in inner cities for most of my life ...

 

Well you’ll never hear me say I’m the most compassionate person. You will hear me say that I’m logical. But I believe truth is more important than compassion. When you base your ideology on compassion you end up doing illogical things because compassion is based upon emotion and emotions can be very dangerous. Policies based on emotion even more dangerous.

There are times and situations where compassion is called for and necessary. But look around you. You talk about the slaves children loved this country... heck a large swath of the black population TODAY doesn’t like our country. Just as important they hate our history. They hate who we are, who our ancestors were, what we built, what we created and more importantly the fact we created it. And they are trying to tear it away from us. I could provide you an innumerable amount of sources where they’re attempting to rewrite history in order to minimize our accomplishments, maximize theirs and demonize is all for the actions of people who died before we were ever even born.

There is a time and place for compassion. But when they’re attempting to appropriate what we have then it’s the time and place for truth. Cold, hard, brutal truth.

 

It’s not poppycock. It’s basic logic and human history. I’ll explain my reasoning.

We all know that at one point we were ALL living in a Hunter-gatherer society. In said society the attributes which you needed to survive was more based upon physical prowess moreso than a superior intellect. We all had to be able to hunt for our food, survive against man and beast and protect our tribe. We needed strength, size, endurance, a high constitution and a very aggressive nature with a propensity towards violence. These were the traits that kept us alive and these were the traits that our sexual partners were looking for in a mate. And so these are the attributes which were overwhelmingly passed down to our progeny at the exclusion of traits like meekness, intelligence and a diplomatic nature.

Eventually we transitioned into a agrarian society. In an agrarian society physical prowess is not as necessary. Yes we had to have strength and endurance but our need for an aggressive, violent nature was minimized. We grew our food. We didn’t need to hunt as much and take as many risks. We built towns with walls and eventually cities and depended upon our fortifications as opposed to our brute strength to defend ourselves. In such a society our mates valued intelligence, meekness and diplomacy moreso than they valued strength and aggressiveness. So those are the traits that got passed down to our progeny.

The issue is that the Negroid race did not come into an agrarian culture for thousands of years after the mongoloid and caucasoid races did so. Furthermore the negroid population sustained the hunter gatherer paradigm for MUCH longer than the mongoloid and caucasoid races did so. Which means that for THOUSANDS of years longer, the negroid race was passing along genetic traits which were based more upon aggression and violence than the caucasoid and mongoloid races did so.

To compound this issue, the African race had the unique position of engaging in a systemic institution of slavery from the beginnings of recorded human history all the way up until today. This was partially because of their system of tribalism for so long. Furthermore the Negroid population in the us continued to be enslaved here.

When you engage in slavery what happens? You kill the intelligent ones because you don’t want them organizing revolt. You desire the big, strong stupid ones who can work all day long and never question why or be intelligent enough to revolt. You INTENTIONALLY breed out traits for intelligence and breed in traits for strength and physical prowess.

This is why today we see blacks dominate in sports and whites and mongoloids dominate in areas of intellectual pursuit. It’s also the same reason why the black population has such an egregiously disproportionate level of violence and the caucasoid and mongoloid races do not.

 

If you don’t understand how less than 13% of our total population committing 52% of our total murder and 30% of our total rape is a problem then you’re just being disingenuous.

 

How did she make them feel unsafe — she specifically said she doesn’t feel comfortable...

 

I produced several studies that you ignored.
Furthermore in counting 5-10% of the population, then taking a group of only men who’s population using the same metric would be 5-8%.
You attempted to cut it in half which should be basic math.

Only idiots believe being white is bad. I agree that programs that benefit or penalize individuals for the color of their skin (or any other personal characteristics) should be removed. I know you disagree with this just on your stance of homosexuality though, like most people — you are only irate at policy that impacts you directly.

I am minimizing nothing. She is absolutely a racist or have had some poor interactions with white people. I agreed that the university made the statement they did and rebuffed her statement.

You are pointing out skewed information which I have already explained both how and why it is skewed. Your “statistical fact” is based on flawed assessments. I agree that blacks as a population group are more prone to violence as it is an observable metric, your statement that homosexuals are more prone to child molestation is an outright lie based on numerous assumed variables — which is why you fled the thread when this was pointed out to you.

Because you do not seem to be able to grasp relatively simple metrics. Furthermore, no one that is discussing this with any integrity is blaming an entire population group because of the actions pf others — that is the definition of racism and bigotry. People should be judged on their own actions — not lumped into the larger group and especially not lumped into the larger group when you are using flawed and outright false narratives to do so.

 

Numerous museums and spaces are planned for and by minorities — as long as groups are not told they are not welcome here by administrators or owners then I have no issue with it.

Now if they have a no whites allowed, no women allowed, no straight people allowed — then I take issue with it and they should be barraged with lawsuits until they are either forced to close their doors or open them to everyone.

 

Your theories about evolution have quite a few holes in them. Slave owners systematically tortured and killed the violent slaves, those who had the gall to rebel. Those who had the self-control to restrain themselves, in spite of abuses, were able to survive. So, if I believed your logic, they were "bred" to be meek and passive, traits that you claim are desirable in the modern world.

In contrast, the slave owners were free to be brutes who raped, pillaged, tortured and murdered. Again, using your logic, since they were aggressive and allowed to reproduce, the slave owners, who were by and large not black, would have passed their violent tendencies through their genes to their offspring.

Your evolutionary theories are unpersuasive as well since 99 percent of blacks don't murder and 99 percent of whites don't murder. If there is some supergene that was passed down, it wasn't very effective, since it's manifested so rarely. A difference of less than 1 percent in the U.S. is statistically insignificant and not evidence of an "egregious" difference in crime.

There is only a tiny difference in murder rates (less than half a percent as I have already shown!) between blacks and whites in this country, and that infitessimal difference can easily be explained by by socio-economic factors. This negates your evolutionary theories.

Finally, Malawi, one of those hunter gatherer countries for thousands of years, and multiple other countries with populations that are nearly 100 percent black have lower rates of violence than the U.S., a country that is only 14 percent black. Clearly, your theory is incorrect.

 

There are small differences in proportions in some countries, that hate groups intentionally blow out of proportion as a recruitment tool. They also spread unproven theories that are scientific racism, to explain the small difference. Bodies of literature have been written about this disingenuous tactic.

 

Truth is slippery and elusive, and everyone who has developed a very defined set of opinions believes they have found The truth with a capital "T". But then we become divided as to whose truth is correct. Obviously, not everyone's personal truth is correct else we'd all live in joyous harmony based on some known truth. Instead, we're bombarded with information and propaganda from all sides with dissimilar "truths", and we do our best to pick one or some "logical" combination of "truths". I question what I "know" because all humans are susceptible to bias, and I can't exclude myself from that vulnerability.

In my opinion, you are looking at trees and not seeing the forest. You are stereotyping "they" as if they are minorities, based on skin color. Yes, history is being revised and "they" are trying to destroy national sovereignty in the name of "social justice" and "environmental justice". But "they" are not black and brown people. They are the U.N Agenda 2030 globalists, the world's leaders, who wish to equalize and control the masses of civilization. In order to do that, they have to destroy the wealth of the middle class in 1st world countries. "They" don't care what color we are; we are like worker ants to them. They need us to have a collective hive mind where the good of the group takes priority to the needs and desires of personal achievement for each individual. Instead of celebrating unique heritages and cultures, they need to rewrite unique histories and smash those cultural values. "They" are the world leaders, the global banks, the consortium of corporations, the fascists who are propagandizing how wonderful the world will be when we are all equal.

The world had a GWP value of $87.265 Trillion in 2019. That is what the world is worth in monetary terms. Divide that by 8 Billion "equal" humans under the United Nation's plans for "social justice", and each human would live on about $10,000 per year in U.S. dollars. Of course, our future global leaders (the dictators, bankers and corporate heads) will need to take a cut to cover their global administrative costs. Will they "need" 25%, 50%, 75% off the top to manage the world? They will be voting on how much to pay themselves and the staff. A caste system will still exist. When we are under the authority of global governance and the people of the world decide that "This is worse, not better," there will be nowhere to run. We'll be captives. The people planning this "on our behalf" are not altruists. They know how we think, but they don't think like us.

The "race war" is a political construct, and is there to divide and distract us. The POC versus "white people" rhetoric is part of a Fascist global plan disguised as "Socialism". They have to tear down wealthy countries to raise the 3rd world. It's coincidental, and maybe convenient, that the immigrants storming the borders in America and Europe happen to be mostly brown. On the other side is a fight for individual freedoms under national sovereignty, regardless of skin color. The former does mean that we achieve equality for the masses who will be subservient to the extraordinary wealthy ruling elites, and more of us here will live in austerity. The latter does mean that there will be rich countries and poor countries depending on how much or how little freedom each country allows its citizens.

I would encourage you to look at the global forest rather than counting varieties of trees and even more narrowly, looking at the color of the leaves.

So, that is my "truth"....and I am open to the concept that I could be wrong. Successful "social justice" installed forcibly by an authoritarian government requires that leaders are benevolent sheep herders over a well-tended flock. History indicates that political leaders who gain exclusive power are anything but benevolent.

 

I didn’t ask you to restate how many studies you provided or do your invalid math again. I asked you to source them. Again produce a study that shows most men who have sex with boys are heterosexual.

And your assertion no one is blaming an entire population is patently absurd and inherently dishonest given that we have government policies and programs in this country that discriminate explicitly against the entire white race.

 

I have sourced numerous organizations — both medical and psychological that you just skip over.
“We do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse from the data that we have right now ... It's important to separate the sexual identity and the behavior. Someone can commit sexual acts that might be of a homosexual nature but not have a homosexual identity.” [1] “Although the majority of clergy abuse victims are males, homosexuality cannot be blamed. First, many of the pedophile priests report that they are not homosexual. This is also true of many non-clergy sex offenders who victimize boys. Many report that they target boys for a variety of reasons that include easier access to boys ... pregnancy fears with female victims ... homosexuals in general have not been found to be more likely to commit sexual crimes against minors compared to heterosexuals. Sexual orientation is not predictive of sex crimes” [1][2]
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...onflicts-with-catholic-leaders/1#.Xk616i9OmfA
http://jaapl.org/content/42/4/404

Another study from decades ago came to the same conclusion
“Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978 ) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..."[3]

And another:
To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).


As an aside, just because you do not understand basic statistical relevancy or data composition does not mean the math is invalid. This is evidence by you being unable to remain in that conversation because you had zero retort of the data and flaws within your own narrative.


Going back on topic, I agree that race based policies need to be made illegal — they serve no purpose. If someone is given a hand-up because they are disadvantaged then they should be required to prove that disadvantage, it should not be assumed because they have a different skin tone.
People should be treated equally, across the board and measured according to their individual efforts.

 

First of all the first study you cited was EXCLUSIVELY a study about priests and is in NO WAY a representative sample. The likelihood a priest would admit to being homosexual in the 80’s and 90’s was essentially nil.

Second of all, you rejected all three of my sources for NO other reason except the most recent one was 2002 and they were too old. Even though ALL of mine were later that the ones you just talked about except the priest study. You’re not going to reject mine out of hand because of their age and then use studies from the same period or earlier to justify your position. I don’t know what kind of clown show you’re trying to pull there but it’s not going to fly. Either the studies are valid regardless of age or they’re not.

I do understand basic math. Which is why I understand when you’re attempting to increase the homosexual population rate to 10% (which you never sourced by the way) and then compare it to a study on MALE homosexuals, you can’t use the entire 10% rate which includes females. You also neglected to acknowledge that even WITH your “math” homosexuals in that study were overrepresented.

Anyway I’m not going to continue this discussion in here as it’s not relevant to the topic.

As for the actual topic, I guess it would be nice to see as much outrage over explicit, blatant, systemic and institutionalized government sponsored discrimination against whites as everybody seems to be when a black person gets called a racist name.

 

That is the problem with all of these studies — they rely completely on self identification which is a major uncontrollable variable.
I am glad you finally see this! Wonderful

And here goes the backtracking — all of the studies are flawed because... they rely completely on self identification which is a major uncontrollable variable.

First, if the general population has 10% of a population group that means 10% of males and 10% of females if you split it down the middle. 5% of males and 5% of females would be 5% of the general population. Your assertion that you understand basic math is refuted By you not understanding this. Here is a collection of several studies that place male homosexual relations from 1.7% all the way to 20.8% showing just how impossible it is to arrive at an accurate number. Currently Gallup has 8%+ for Millennials and acknowledge this is for self assessment only — showing it is still not accurate.

You likely will not continue it anywhere with basic logic because your narrative has been completely demolished — that you have doubled down to this level places you in an elite few of the anti-gay posters on this forum.

Above, you sate, “[Whites] INTENTIONALLY breed out traits for intelligence and breed in traits for strength and physical prowess.”

That would create some severe animosity.

If what you state is true, don’t you believe the government that sanctioned and allowed this has some responsibility to correct it or at minimum ease the damage of these practices?

 

It’s like when Forrest Gump apologizes for disrupting the black panther “party” after punching a white guy for slapping Jenny

 

Re-read what i said...

 

Maybe rephrase what you stated as it is close to being incomprehensible. I also don’t believe you understand the meaning of grandstanding.

 

My point was clear you just did not read it correctly.

Former mods should not be here insulting peoples intelligence...

Keep it up.

 

I am not or have I ever been a mod here — I don’t know where y’all keep getting this.
Being ignorant on a subject or definition is not related to intelligence.