The Rise of Far Left Extremism

[Singu]

As I already mentioned, the comment was merely alluding to the fact that blacks are significantly more likely to commit hate crimes than whites, which is 100% true based on the FBI figures I cited.

This is likely because as you've said, the number of hate crimes are low compared to the overall population, which is 6370. So statistically it tips the scale of the total percentage more easily.

This is the actual number of hate crimes by race:

Blacks: 1356 (21.3%)
Whites: 3299 (50.7%)

adjusted for population size:

Blacks: 802 (12.6%) -554
Whites: 3866 (60.7%) +567

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017/...ages/offenders

So adjusted to actual population, it's an error margin of ±500. Now 500 could be significant, or it could not. But the fact is that 500 cases could change as much as 10%.

Your claim that "blacks are significantly more likely to commit hate crimes than whites" is simply not true.

[Deprecator]

Now 500 could be significant

Your claim that "blacks are significantly more likely to commit hate crimes than whites" is simply not true.

Do you read your own posts before posting? Again, I don't mean to be condescending or patronizing with this question. I previously asked if you had bothered to read your own sources that you took upon yourself to cite, and conveniently you've neglected to answer the question. I daresay that this isn't all that surprising -- you literally went from struggling immensely with citing accurate numbers (suggesting you're either incapable of reading your own sources that you've taken upon yourself to cite or otherwise simply are not capable of understanding what the numbers mean) to harping on what the the word significant might mean.

You can keep trying if you want but like I said before.... at this point I envision a lot of friendly X D's from my end if you wanna keep this up.

[Singu]

Do you read your own posts before posting? Again, I don't mean to be condescending or patronizing with this question. I previously asked if you had bothered to read your own sources that you took upon yourself to cite, and conveniently you've neglected to answer the question. I daresay that this isn't all that surprising -- you literally went struggling immensely with citing accurate numbers (suggesting you're either incapable of reading your own sources that you've taken upon yourself to cite or otherwise simply are not capable of understanding what the numbers mean) to harping on what the the word significant might mean.

Nice cutting off the quote, I also said:

Now 500 could be significant, or it could not.

I must say that your tactics are very childish. If you think that differences in 500 cases mean "blacks are significantly more likely to commit hate crimes than whites"... then either you're an idiot or a liar.

I didn't bother with the other point, because it seemed not worth going over, but if you must:

"Eighteen percent of race-based hate crimes reported to the FBI last year were anti-white, while whites make up 77 percent of the U.S. population. Compare that to black Americans, who make up 13 percent of the country, but suffered 49 percent of reported race-based hate crimes."

Okay, so 18% of race-based hate crimes were "anti-white", and not necessarily black-on-white. 49% of race-based hate crimes were "anti-black".

This obviously means that blacks suffer way more of race-based hate crimes than whites.