Blaming the Jews for your problems, problems you yourself have caused and continue to cause, precisely what Musk is doing here, is the very dictionary definition of antisemitism
Exactly. I don’t know why anyone listens to racists’ definition of racism, or antisemites’ definition of antisemitism.
Or anything coming out of the mouths of obvious bad faith actors.
It's also a page out of the conservative playbook. A classic.
We really, really need to be okay with punching nazis in the face again.
Also unrepentant Afrikaners and their descendants.
Daarsy
And taxing the everloving jesus out of billionaires.
Wait? When were we not ok with punching Nazis in the face?
My great uncle shot Nazis during WW II, and didn't seem too broken up about it.
Reddit will ban you for mearly suggesting it's an option
Because they don't want to be punched in the face.
So pretty much blaming Jews for it.
Seems like he’s missing a little mustache and some nice high boots.
What an asshole.
Desantis has a nice tall pair of white boots he could borrow. Although I'm not sure if it would clash with the Hugo Boss suit.
So is Elon just prepping Twitter to be the next hate based social media site? Looks like truth social might be out of money soon so I guess those folks need somewhere to go.
That was always the point. This all started because he was trying to use his influence to shame Twitter into platforming the far-right and then accidentally ended up comitting to buy it.
Everything he has done since has either been to benefit far-right racists and reactionaries or try and mitigate the massive loss he is going to take with the purchase.
All at the expense of trashing a carefully cultivated image of a wise technocrat and revealing himself to instead be one of the largest idiots alive. Conservatism is a helluva drug.
Out of money soon on purpose. A bunch of people will take the loss, carry it forward on their taxes, and now that Trump is allowed back on Twitter, truth social has served its actual purpose.
those DWAC cultists are a whole other level of crazy
Still convinced he's showing his true colours and tanking Twitter intentionally so that he and his buddies post multi-billion dollar losses on their investment and get tax free gains for years.
But they are still out 40 Billion Dollars. I don’t think there is a master plan. He’s an idiot.
Oh he's an idiot. But he can pay for people to plan things for him.
I don't doubt there was an original plan to gut the staff, sit back and profit from it while also having full control of the platform. So some of his investors, like the fucking Saudi crown, could benefit from that.
But when that failed they went this way. He didn't finance it himself, he certainly could have. Instead he got a group of wealthy investors involved, so maybe each is only on the hook for a billion or two; which to them is nothing. Hell, Musk himself grew his net worth from 150 to over 200 billion in that time.
Also there is precedent in what Trump(a bigger idiot for sure) did with the Atlantic city casino failure. Worked it so that he could use its losses as a tax write-off for years after.
He's a real Nazi dong
Even if he smokes the bong
Being Nazi still is wrong todaaay
Doesn't know what free speech is
Buys and trashes Twitter biz
Hates you if you're queer or trans or gaaaay
Elon Musk, stop sucking
We don't care who you're fucking
Elon Musk, I fear that your brain is merely a husk
Fuck mate. You’re the real John Lennon of Lemmy….John Lemmon
"Pointing out my antisemitism is making me more antisemitic! It's your fault!"
Funny how he also said he's transphobic because his kid is trans. Seems like it's just everyone else making him a bigot.
I mean, if other people force you to be a bigot, aren't you the real victim?
Someone linked to a substack full of screenshots of antisemitism on Shitter from the weekend. I scrolled and scrolled and scrolled and I wasn't at the halfway point when I closed the tab. It was a bummer. A real lose-hope moment.
i think it shows a lot of weakness.. he's probably pretty worried about legal troubles.. maybe very worried, so naturally he lashes out at a legal organization..
it's an old tactic.. blame the victims for their oppression.. imply that if they would just behave, things wouldn't be so bad for them..
All the money in the world clearly can't buy class, 'cause all he'll ever be is pure fascist trash.
That is lyrical.
his only defense is always just "no u"
I wouldn’t be surprised if Elon shows up at the “eugenics” conference in Austin, TX at this point.
Why does this city attract the worst Californians, smh.
Because they hear "getting tech hub" and see dollar signs 🤑
As a Texan, it just seems like Austin combines the worst parts of Cali and the worst parts of Texas.
Then again, I've only driven through Austin, and if I stopped it was just to pee or grab fast food or something.
Care to elaborate on “worst parts of Texas” despite only driving through the area to “pee or grab fast food”?
I live in Texas and have since I was a baby, and was saying I had spent little time in Austin itself.
I've driven through Austin on the way visit family further south.
Worst parts of Texas mostly stems for the state level politics, but roads and other infrastructure suck, the power grid is a nightmare, having worked in a public school education is sorely lacking (and it isn't the fault of the teachers).
Can't forget the racism, anti-intellectual attitudes, and the fact that most people would be happy to have the orange fascist in charge for the rest of his life.
Austin has more leftist ideals than the rest of the state, and their goal to stay weird or whatever, is very gimmicky compared to the rest of the state.
Houston is just massive, Dallas has businesses, Ft. Worth has the stockyards, all their own niche and Austin is just the weird kid eating crayons for attention.
But hey, if the state flips blue in my lifetime I'll certainly celebrate.
It's awfully interesting that so many members of the "liberal media" are still using that Nazi site.
....did I say "interesting"? I meant to say - predictable.
The media isn’t liberal. They are capitalist. In a world where the Conservative Party wasn’t bonkers, they’d be center-right due to their for profit nature. People are still on Twitter so that’s where they engage. It’s as simple as that.
Gunna be pedantic a sec and point out that "liberalism" is by it's foundation capitalist because it uses capitalism as it's default assumption. The high level of afforded consideration on personal property rights outside of government interference and emphasis on an unrestricted market are features of that philosophy. Conservative ideology is actually also by it's nature based on libralisml as its base and the American Liberal party is actually... Still on the whole basically the same ideology just with a socialist coat of paint.
A lot of the regulations on capitalist functions come from socialism. The branch of it that embraces a sort of mixed system where regulations keep the public safe from unchecked capitalism while still keeping the structure of capitalist architecture is "market socialism"
However since Americans treat the Liberal party like it is socialist, Conservatives derogatorily because they equate socialism as a slippery slope to communism (despite a history of market socialism causing a great deal of stability in the past) and Liberals as something to be weeded out because it's idealism threatens the internal kickbacks of supporting unfettered capitalism... Hence why socialist friendly candidates are usually turned into backseaters through the Democrat's process of elimination for the big ticket seats.
So it actually benefits the media to treat liberals as the far left and occasionally be in their corner and treated as the only other valid share of the political "marketplace" of ideas. Because liberal ideology and the Liberal party are not nessisarily a hazard to capitalism. Everything to the left of that gets little air time.
All fair points, but it's a little involved of an explanation to easily digest.
There still isn’t an alternative. Talk about Mastodon all you want, but the majority of users can’t be reached there. Twitter is still full of “normal”/non-techie people and those are the ones they’re trying to reach.
Until something has the critical mass of the Twitter userbase it’d be stupid of them to abandon the platform.
I feel like the ADL, a group of lawyers who come from a community of people who literally devote their lives to arguing over interpretations of texts, is pretty capable of defending themselves against this hairless apes attacks.
I really hope this goes to a trial LoL. Musk will continue to self own until he immolates.
How stupid.
Do you want lawsuits? Because this is how you get lawsuits!
How ? I just don't see it.
Based on the current flutterings about the social media site formerly known as Twitter it would presumably be because virtually anything seen as pro-white is a hate symbol, as well as various seemingly innocuous things. The most notorious being the OK hand sign, largely because it being pushed as a white supremacist hand sign was literally started as a 4chan prank (dubbed "Operation OKKK") whose purpose was to make the sort of media types actively looking for hidden crypto-fascist signaling from people look like absolute loons by just bathing them in false positives.
For example, the numbers in your username manage not to be a hate symbol, but had they been 2316 instead of 2215 they would be a hate symbol according to ADL because W is the 23rd letter and P is the 16th, therefore 2316=WP=White Power.
Numbers that are hate symbols include: 100%, 109/110, 1-11, 12, 13, 13/52, 13/90, 14, 1423, 1488, 18, 211, 21-2-12, 23, 23/16, 28, 311, 318, 33/6, 38, 43, 5, 511, 737, 83, 88, and 9%.
I keep waiting for some modern neo-Nazi group to use the ASCII codes instead of position in the alphabet so that list can suddenly be much longer.
I mean, 88 is actually a hate symbol... they're are plenty of tattooed white guys on google images with it.. the rest I'm not so sure about.
Not always though. It's also for example the number of keys on a piano, which led the Flintstones to create a character called 88 Fingers Louie, a piano thief. Then many years later, a Chicago hardcore band took the name for themselves. They're not coded racists, they just didn't know. I love the number 88, I think it's aesthetic, it divides nicely, it's not square or a 10- factor but it's even and an 11-factor so it stands out. I'm damned if I'm going to let neonazis take away fucking numbers.
Sure. It and the other numbers I listed are literally the list of hate symbols that start with a number per the ADL database of hate symbols.
I've always found the 13/52 and 13/90 ones particularly interesting because they fall into the rare category of "hate facts" - that is things that by our best measurements are true, but are also hate speech.
If you group that same data by sex instead of race however it ceases to be hate speech and becomes entirely valid to base views on broad swaths of people based on their immutable characteristics using the data.
There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics.
Well, let's think on that one.
Consider the counterfactual - that homicide perpetration is evenly distributed and thus actual homicide perpetration should match share of general population. How then do we arrive at FBI UCR stats being what they are?
The easiest possibility would be the FBI disregarding what is reported to them and just making up numbers, but then you'd need a reason why bean counters tallying crime stats would bother and also it would be straightforward to test with a FOIA request.
Maybe the FBI is accurately reporting the numbers they are given, and a large number of police departments are simply reporting a bunch of black folks committing homicide when that's not happening? That could also be tested using public records (comparing numbers reported to FBI against actual cases), but would be a more involved process unless you have particular districts that you feel are more likely to be fudging the numbers.
Maybe it's racially biased over/underpolicing? Except we're talking about homicide, and it's hard to overpolice homicide (you've only got so many corpses to work with), which means underpolicing when white folks commit homicide. But by the same stats 4 in 5 homicides have killer and victim of the same race, which would mean police just ignoring it when white people are killed, which doesn't sound very white supremacist of them.
Maybe there are white people killing black people and successfully framing other black people for the crime? That could happen, I guess. It would require massive incompetence or overt racism on the part of police, and have to stay secret, and have to be happening at a truly massive scale (we're talking thousands of cases every year for as long as we've been keeping the stats). Which feels unlikely just in sheer scale.
You know what I think is likely? That the stats gathered are accurate, and more homicide is done both by and to black folks because a lot of homicide is gang violence and at a national scale the prime gang recruiting demographic is poor young black men. There are statistical methods by which this too could be tested, but it would be more of an ordeal than the others, and merely admitting that law enforcement statistics regarding race might be accurate probably denies you funding outright.
I think your approach is decent but you've perhaps downplayed a thing or two in your analysis of the counterfactual.
The rate goes from 50% to 40% when the "race: unknown" cases are removed included.
A black person is 7 times more likely than a white person to be wrongly accused of homicide.
The US police force (including the FBI) are unfortunately, institutionally, foundationally racist.
Most crucially, the 50% refers only to arrests made, not convictions. This is especially interesting when taken with the above points (though coming up with corrected figures is too much hard work for me today)
Finally, if we were to assume the numbers are true and accurate, what would that actually tell us? White supremacists would have you believe it's proof of some kind of genetic inferiority. I could get into why that argument is utterly retarded but it would be a wall of text so, unless you ask. I think what it points to are two things: systemic racism in policing and crime reporting, and a race-biased wealth gap causing greater crime in African-American communities.
White supremacists would have you believe it’s proof of some kind of genetic inferiority. I could get into why that argument is utterly retarded but it would be a wall of text so, unless you ask.
Of course it's utterly retarded. Like I said, I would predict it's due to the largest target demo for gang recruitment being young black men. Combine endemic fatherlessness with poor socioeconomic options and you have a demographic that is ripe for recruitment by groups that offer money, male bonding and a kind of sex appeal but also results in being a root cause for a lot of violent crime. It's basically the black version of tradcon alt-lite recruiting - you offer pseudo-paternal figures, a route to money, and a claim to be able to attract women and fatherless, sexless young men with no real purpose will flock. The main difference is that the alt-lite groups for the most part aren't dealing drugs and shooting at each other, their game is marginally more subtle and longer term.
The rate goes from 50% to 40% when the “race: unknown” cases are removed.
How does that work? If a category is some share of the whole, and I remove some number from the whole but not from that category, how can the share go down? Or am I misunderstanding what you are getting at? It's not like UCR numbers count anything with an unknown race perpetrator as having a black perp.
A black person is 7 times more likely than a white person to be wrongly accused of homicide.
I'd be curious of this: Out of cases where a person is wrongly accused of homicide and arrested, how often is the correct person later identified and more importantly, how frequently is the correctly identified person a different race than the wrongfully arrested one? Because (ignoring the injustice of wrongful arrest for a moment), arresting the wrong person for a crime done by a person of the same race isn't going to have an impact on your racial breakdown of perpetrators.
How does that work?
Sorry, I meant "included", not removed. Edited.
I'd be curious of this
Here is a secondary source, with info to link to the primary.
Sorry, I meant “included”, not removed. Edited.
That makes a lot more sense. I tried to figure out what you were doing math wise to make that happen and I couldn't come up with anything coherent.
Here is a secondary source, with info to link to the primary.
Interesting, nothing I'm really surprised by (the criminal justice system in general fucks you over if you are poor, black or male and the effects of all three compound) but it doesn't hit the million dollar question, which is how often wrongfully convicted people are convicted in place of an actual perp of a different race? I don't know if the data even exists to answer that one, though I suspect the set of cases where both the wrongly convicted killer and the actual killer are both known is probably too small to do anything useful with.
If you don't see what I'm getting at, if a black man is wrongfully convicted of a murder committed by another black man, that doesn't impact the racial breakdown because it doesn't change what group the perpetrator belonged in. Is the implication that there is a number of black men wrongfully convicted of homicide where the actual killer was white large enough that it would have a meaningful impact on the stats?
EDIT: Fixed formatting.
I see what you're getting at. Cleaning up the statistics, researching the answer to your question and finding upper and lower bounds for actual figures is beyond what I've got time or patience to do though. There also remains the problem that the FBI stats are self-reported by officers working in a fundamentally racist institution, so it would be likely a biased (and therefore useless) sample and therefore a pointless waste of time.
Blaming the Jews for your problems, problems you yourself have caused and continue to cause, precisely what Musk is doing here, is the very dictionary definition of antisemitism
Exactly. I don’t know why anyone listens to racists’ definition of racism, or antisemites’ definition of antisemitism.
Or anything coming out of the mouths of obvious bad faith actors.
It's also a page out of the conservative playbook. A classic.
We really, really need to be okay with punching nazis in the face again.
Also unrepentant Afrikaners and their descendants.
Daarsy
And taxing the everloving jesus out of billionaires.
Wait? When were we not ok with punching Nazis in the face?
My great uncle shot Nazis during WW II, and didn't seem too broken up about it.
Reddit will ban you for mearly suggesting it's an option
Because they don't want to be punched in the face.
So pretty much blaming Jews for it.
Seems like he’s missing a little mustache and some nice high boots.
What an asshole.
Desantis has a nice tall pair of white boots he could borrow. Although I'm not sure if it would clash with the Hugo Boss suit.
So is Elon just prepping Twitter to be the next hate based social media site? Looks like truth social might be out of money soon so I guess those folks need somewhere to go.
That was always the point. This all started because he was trying to use his influence to shame Twitter into platforming the far-right and then accidentally ended up comitting to buy it.
Everything he has done since has either been to benefit far-right racists and reactionaries or try and mitigate the massive loss he is going to take with the purchase.
All at the expense of trashing a carefully cultivated image of a wise technocrat and revealing himself to instead be one of the largest idiots alive. Conservatism is a helluva drug.
Out of money soon on purpose. A bunch of people will take the loss, carry it forward on their taxes, and now that Trump is allowed back on Twitter, truth social has served its actual purpose.
those DWAC cultists are a whole other level of crazy
Still convinced he's showing his true colours and tanking Twitter intentionally so that he and his buddies post multi-billion dollar losses on their investment and get tax free gains for years.
But they are still out 40 Billion Dollars. I don’t think there is a master plan. He’s an idiot.
Oh he's an idiot. But he can pay for people to plan things for him.
I don't doubt there was an original plan to gut the staff, sit back and profit from it while also having full control of the platform. So some of his investors, like the fucking Saudi crown, could benefit from that.
But when that failed they went this way. He didn't finance it himself, he certainly could have. Instead he got a group of wealthy investors involved, so maybe each is only on the hook for a billion or two; which to them is nothing. Hell, Musk himself grew his net worth from 150 to over 200 billion in that time.
Also there is precedent in what Trump(a bigger idiot for sure) did with the Atlantic city casino failure. Worked it so that he could use its losses as a tax write-off for years after.
And his sycophants will still apologize for him.
(To the tune of "Nowhere Man")
He's a real Nazi dong
Even if he smokes the bong
Being Nazi still is wrong todaaay
Doesn't know what free speech is
Buys and trashes Twitter biz
Hates you if you're queer or trans or gaaaay
Elon Musk, stop sucking
We don't care who you're fucking
Elon Musk, I fear that your brain is merely a husk
Fuck mate. You’re the real John Lennon of Lemmy….John Lemmon
"Pointing out my antisemitism is making me more antisemitic! It's your fault!"
Funny how he also said he's transphobic because his kid is trans. Seems like it's just everyone else making him a bigot.
I mean, if other people force you to be a bigot, aren't you the real victim?
Someone linked to a substack full of screenshots of antisemitism on Shitter from the weekend. I scrolled and scrolled and scrolled and I wasn't at the halfway point when I closed the tab. It was a bummer. A real lose-hope moment.
i think it shows a lot of weakness.. he's probably pretty worried about legal troubles.. maybe very worried, so naturally he lashes out at a legal organization..
it's an old tactic.. blame the victims for their oppression.. imply that if they would just behave, things wouldn't be so bad for them..
All the money in the world clearly can't buy class, 'cause all he'll ever be is pure fascist trash.
That is lyrical.
his only defense is always just "no u"
I wouldn’t be surprised if Elon shows up at the “eugenics” conference in Austin, TX at this point.
Why does this city attract the worst Californians, smh.
Because they hear "getting tech hub" and see dollar signs 🤑
As a Texan, it just seems like Austin combines the worst parts of Cali and the worst parts of Texas.
Then again, I've only driven through Austin, and if I stopped it was just to pee or grab fast food or something.
Care to elaborate on “worst parts of Texas” despite only driving through the area to “pee or grab fast food”?
I live in Texas and have since I was a baby, and was saying I had spent little time in Austin itself.
I've driven through Austin on the way visit family further south.
Worst parts of Texas mostly stems for the state level politics, but roads and other infrastructure suck, the power grid is a nightmare, having worked in a public school education is sorely lacking (and it isn't the fault of the teachers).
Can't forget the racism, anti-intellectual attitudes, and the fact that most people would be happy to have the orange fascist in charge for the rest of his life.
Austin has more leftist ideals than the rest of the state, and their goal to stay weird or whatever, is very gimmicky compared to the rest of the state.
Houston is just massive, Dallas has businesses, Ft. Worth has the stockyards, all their own niche and Austin is just the weird kid eating crayons for attention.
But hey, if the state flips blue in my lifetime I'll certainly celebrate.
It's awfully interesting that so many members of the "liberal media" are still using that Nazi site.
....did I say "interesting"? I meant to say - predictable.
The media isn’t liberal. They are capitalist. In a world where the Conservative Party wasn’t bonkers, they’d be center-right due to their for profit nature. People are still on Twitter so that’s where they engage. It’s as simple as that.
Gunna be pedantic a sec and point out that "liberalism" is by it's foundation capitalist because it uses capitalism as it's default assumption. The high level of afforded consideration on personal property rights outside of government interference and emphasis on an unrestricted market are features of that philosophy. Conservative ideology is actually also by it's nature based on libralisml as its base and the American Liberal party is actually... Still on the whole basically the same ideology just with a socialist coat of paint.
A lot of the regulations on capitalist functions come from socialism. The branch of it that embraces a sort of mixed system where regulations keep the public safe from unchecked capitalism while still keeping the structure of capitalist architecture is "market socialism"
However since Americans treat the Liberal party like it is socialist, Conservatives derogatorily because they equate socialism as a slippery slope to communism (despite a history of market socialism causing a great deal of stability in the past) and Liberals as something to be weeded out because it's idealism threatens the internal kickbacks of supporting unfettered capitalism... Hence why socialist friendly candidates are usually turned into backseaters through the Democrat's process of elimination for the big ticket seats.
So it actually benefits the media to treat liberals as the far left and occasionally be in their corner and treated as the only other valid share of the political "marketplace" of ideas. Because liberal ideology and the Liberal party are not nessisarily a hazard to capitalism. Everything to the left of that gets little air time.
All fair points, but it's a little involved of an explanation to easily digest.
There still isn’t an alternative. Talk about Mastodon all you want, but the majority of users can’t be reached there. Twitter is still full of “normal”/non-techie people and those are the ones they’re trying to reach.
Until something has the critical mass of the Twitter userbase it’d be stupid of them to abandon the platform.
I feel like the ADL, a group of lawyers who come from a community of people who literally devote their lives to arguing over interpretations of texts, is pretty capable of defending themselves against this hairless apes attacks.
I really hope this goes to a trial LoL. Musk will continue to self own until he immolates.
How stupid.
Do you want lawsuits? Because this is how you get lawsuits!
How ? I just don't see it.
Based on the current flutterings about the social media site formerly known as Twitter it would presumably be because virtually anything seen as pro-white is a hate symbol, as well as various seemingly innocuous things. The most notorious being the OK hand sign, largely because it being pushed as a white supremacist hand sign was literally started as a 4chan prank (dubbed "Operation OKKK") whose purpose was to make the sort of media types actively looking for hidden crypto-fascist signaling from people look like absolute loons by just bathing them in false positives.
For example, the numbers in your username manage not to be a hate symbol, but had they been 2316 instead of 2215 they would be a hate symbol according to ADL because W is the 23rd letter and P is the 16th, therefore 2316=WP=White Power.
Numbers that are hate symbols include: 100%, 109/110, 1-11, 12, 13, 13/52, 13/90, 14, 1423, 1488, 18, 211, 21-2-12, 23, 23/16, 28, 311, 318, 33/6, 38, 43, 5, 511, 737, 83, 88, and 9%.
I keep waiting for some modern neo-Nazi group to use the ASCII codes instead of position in the alphabet so that list can suddenly be much longer.
I mean, 88 is actually a hate symbol... they're are plenty of tattooed white guys on google images with it.. the rest I'm not so sure about.
Not always though. It's also for example the number of keys on a piano, which led the Flintstones to create a character called 88 Fingers Louie, a piano thief. Then many years later, a Chicago hardcore band took the name for themselves. They're not coded racists, they just didn't know. I love the number 88, I think it's aesthetic, it divides nicely, it's not square or a 10- factor but it's even and an 11-factor so it stands out. I'm damned if I'm going to let neonazis take away fucking numbers.
Sure. It and the other numbers I listed are literally the list of hate symbols that start with a number per the ADL database of hate symbols.
I've always found the 13/52 and 13/90 ones particularly interesting because they fall into the rare category of "hate facts" - that is things that by our best measurements are true, but are also hate speech.
If you group that same data by sex instead of race however it ceases to be hate speech and becomes entirely valid to base views on broad swaths of people based on their immutable characteristics using the data.
There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics.
Well, let's think on that one.
Consider the counterfactual - that homicide perpetration is evenly distributed and thus actual homicide perpetration should match share of general population. How then do we arrive at FBI UCR stats being what they are?
The easiest possibility would be the FBI disregarding what is reported to them and just making up numbers, but then you'd need a reason why bean counters tallying crime stats would bother and also it would be straightforward to test with a FOIA request.
Maybe the FBI is accurately reporting the numbers they are given, and a large number of police departments are simply reporting a bunch of black folks committing homicide when that's not happening? That could also be tested using public records (comparing numbers reported to FBI against actual cases), but would be a more involved process unless you have particular districts that you feel are more likely to be fudging the numbers.
Maybe it's racially biased over/underpolicing? Except we're talking about homicide, and it's hard to overpolice homicide (you've only got so many corpses to work with), which means underpolicing when white folks commit homicide. But by the same stats 4 in 5 homicides have killer and victim of the same race, which would mean police just ignoring it when white people are killed, which doesn't sound very white supremacist of them.
Maybe there are white people killing black people and successfully framing other black people for the crime? That could happen, I guess. It would require massive incompetence or overt racism on the part of police, and have to stay secret, and have to be happening at a truly massive scale (we're talking thousands of cases every year for as long as we've been keeping the stats). Which feels unlikely just in sheer scale.
You know what I think is likely? That the stats gathered are accurate, and more homicide is done both by and to black folks because a lot of homicide is gang violence and at a national scale the prime gang recruiting demographic is poor young black men. There are statistical methods by which this too could be tested, but it would be more of an ordeal than the others, and merely admitting that law enforcement statistics regarding race might be accurate probably denies you funding outright.
I think your approach is decent but you've perhaps downplayed a thing or two in your analysis of the counterfactual.
removedincluded.Finally, if we were to assume the numbers are true and accurate, what would that actually tell us? White supremacists would have you believe it's proof of some kind of genetic inferiority. I could get into why that argument is utterly retarded but it would be a wall of text so, unless you ask. I think what it points to are two things: systemic racism in policing and crime reporting, and a race-biased wealth gap causing greater crime in African-American communities.
Of course it's utterly retarded. Like I said, I would predict it's due to the largest target demo for gang recruitment being young black men. Combine endemic fatherlessness with poor socioeconomic options and you have a demographic that is ripe for recruitment by groups that offer money, male bonding and a kind of sex appeal but also results in being a root cause for a lot of violent crime. It's basically the black version of tradcon alt-lite recruiting - you offer pseudo-paternal figures, a route to money, and a claim to be able to attract women and fatherless, sexless young men with no real purpose will flock. The main difference is that the alt-lite groups for the most part aren't dealing drugs and shooting at each other, their game is marginally more subtle and longer term.
How does that work? If a category is some share of the whole, and I remove some number from the whole but not from that category, how can the share go down? Or am I misunderstanding what you are getting at? It's not like UCR numbers count anything with an unknown race perpetrator as having a black perp.
I'd be curious of this: Out of cases where a person is wrongly accused of homicide and arrested, how often is the correct person later identified and more importantly, how frequently is the correctly identified person a different race than the wrongfully arrested one? Because (ignoring the injustice of wrongful arrest for a moment), arresting the wrong person for a crime done by a person of the same race isn't going to have an impact on your racial breakdown of perpetrators.
Sorry, I meant "included", not removed. Edited.
Here is a secondary source, with info to link to the primary.
That makes a lot more sense. I tried to figure out what you were doing math wise to make that happen and I couldn't come up with anything coherent.
Interesting, nothing I'm really surprised by (the criminal justice system in general fucks you over if you are poor, black or male and the effects of all three compound) but it doesn't hit the million dollar question, which is how often wrongfully convicted people are convicted in place of an actual perp of a different race? I don't know if the data even exists to answer that one, though I suspect the set of cases where both the wrongly convicted killer and the actual killer are both known is probably too small to do anything useful with.
If you don't see what I'm getting at, if a black man is wrongfully convicted of a murder committed by another black man, that doesn't impact the racial breakdown because it doesn't change what group the perpetrator belonged in. Is the implication that there is a number of black men wrongfully convicted of homicide where the actual killer was white large enough that it would have a meaningful impact on the stats?
EDIT: Fixed formatting.
I see what you're getting at. Cleaning up the statistics, researching the answer to your question and finding upper and lower bounds for actual figures is beyond what I've got time or patience to do though. There also remains the problem that the FBI stats are self-reported by officers working in a fundamentally racist institution, so it would be likely a biased (and therefore useless) sample and therefore a pointless waste of time.