0
90

[–] degenerate7 0 points 90 points (+90|-0) ago 

>"demonstrably untrue"

>doesn't demonstrate its untrue

0
37

[–] RibDibs 0 points 37 points (+37|-0) ago 

That's not how this works. He said it was racist, which is bad. Something being untrue is also bad. Therefore, Racist=Bad=Untrue.

0
7

[–] Sitnikoff 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

That's not how that works either. He himself is a racist Jewish supremacist spreading the most ridiculous of lies. His kike mentality cannot allow self-incursion of guilt, so he is forced to project/impute everything he is onto others who are the exact opposite. It's the Jewish scapegoat effect; an integral component of the antichrist Jewish religious mind.

0
20

[–] iTSSOGRiM 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

https://i.imgtc.ws/okyWjdr.png (borrowing a posted pdf page)

2
7

[–] 40KFTAGLView 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago  (edited ago)

FBI under Obama probably ended data collection and publication of data like this. FBI is pure corruption now!

0
3

[–] satisfyinghump 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Holy fuck. Even in super duper government reports from the FBI, when they deal with race they use the word "perceived" instead of just acknowledging that a victim is very very unlikely to mistake the color of their attackers skin when it's so clearly black vs white.

0
0

[–] 20985067? ago 

So it's actually demonstrably true?

0
1

[–] recon_johnny 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Been looking for exactly this.

0
6

[–] Alhambra 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

don't look at that! look at this other jew who also agrees with my jew-theory!

0
19

[–] VicariousJambi 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

Oh hey I just posted about this

https://i.imgtc.ws/okyWjdr.png

1
21

[–] shifty_pete [S] 1 point 21 points (+22|-1) ago 

Not only that, but no other races raped blacks either. Yikes. That's a problem, sweatie.

0
6

[–] TwoNiggersandaHonky 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

It's debatable they're datable, let alone rapeable.

1
0

[–] xenoPsychologist 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

blacks are unrapeable. thats really all there is to say on the matter.

0
12

[–] Crikes 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

Maybe he was confused on whether or not "Jews" were included in "white"?

0
12

[–] samwisekoi 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

Everybody deserves their own opinion. No one deserves their own facts.

Now at https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf page 55 of the pdf. (This is for 2008.)

Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2008 - Statistical Tables

* United States Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

* March, 2010

.

Table 42. Personal crimes of violence, 2008:

Percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, by type of crime, race of victim, and perceived race of offender

Rape/sexual assault (Includes verbal threats of rape and threats of sexual assault.)

* Victim was White, perceived race of offender was Black: 19,292.96 (117,640 x 16.4%)

* Victim was Black, perceived race of offender was White: 0*

*Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases.

0
3

[–] recon_johnny 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

What the fuck sample size?

And sure as shit, Blacks raping White women wouldn't have decreased by 1/2 (35% in 2005).....

0
0

[–] Damnpasswords ago 

The sample size of white on black rapes was too small, get it? They didn't ask ten random black female rape victims if their rapists were white, they simply couldn't find enough victims of white on black rape

0
0

[–] ordinarymike ago 

Well done

1
9

[–] JacobJaredKenworthy 1 point 9 points (+10|-1) ago  (edited ago)

"In 2017, Langton wrote, the BJS will release a new report, based on firmer data gathered over the last eight years."

OK, let's hear the new report. I'm very confident that Rafi won't like the data, no matter how firm it is. The data is based on reality.

Edit: The 2017 report can be found here. It does not include racial data like the 2008 one does. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6466

0
8

[–] recon_johnny 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Gee. They took that out.

I fucking wonder why.

0
7

[–] VicariousJambi 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Here's another one

https://i.imgtc.ws/okyWjdr.png

0
2

[–] 40KFTAGLView 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

We need a saveable copy of this data.

0
5

[–] shifty_pete [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Very interested in the follow up report. I bet raciss white guys are definitely doing most of the raping and I bet they prefer the melanin queens. When will this tyranny stop!? OY VEY!

0
4

[–] Shotinthedark 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

If I was a rapist I'm definitely not raping a nigger. Rape is mainly a power thing and I already know I have more power that a she boon.

0
9

[–] Acerphoon 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago  (edited ago)

So the criticism is that the BJS sample size is too small.

Great, but it also seems to confirm other crime statistics, etc. So it seems to be true.

Also - At what point would the sample size become big enough? I fear this will be the same problem that we had with FST distance. where Lewontin or whatever his name was, found the FST distance between races to be at around 5-6% and said "it's too small to recognize subspecies".

When it was found that it was actually 12%, Lewontin obviously didn't change his stance. And frankly, no fst distance would ever be big enough to convince a race denier otherwise. So it's impossible.

And I think we have the same problem here. They will use the sample size as an argument, they will claim that it's too old, whatever. They will find any excuse they can, but at the end of the day, they won't change their stance anyway. I don't think any new, modern study with a big sample size would change their minds. It's really just an excuse.

0
0

[–] squishysquid ago 

I remember back in the elections I tried to suggest to someone 50 people sounded like a small number to extrapolate how a state would vote. Apparently that was a major thought crime.

Also - At what point would the sample size become big enough?

there's this confidence variable you jam into the equation, most people who talk about statistics on the internet don't know this.

0
1

[–] Acerphoon 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

See, I get this. I get the point they're trying to make.

But I don't think it actually matters to them. They're just using it as a convenient excuse in my opinion. The new BJS statistic doesn't even show race and ethnicity. - And I think that's for a good reason.

2
4

[–] DeadFox 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

You had to go to his Twitter page to see he's Jewish? The surname Cohen didn't give it away?

[–] [deleted] 1 point 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
10

[–] Hyst 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

What are the chances with them only being 2% of the population. That's quite the cohencidence.

0
0

[–] lord_nougat ago 

OY FUVKING VEY!! I derped on that point as well. Oops!

0
7

[–] Purged 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Lol, Why would anyone want to fuck a nappy monkey? Gross.

0
4

[–] 40KFTAGLView 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Hard to get past the smell!

0
3

[–] lord_nougat 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

And the AIDS!

load more comments ▼ (22 remaining)