I'll skip right to this since the other stuff was just me asking you for clarification. [quote]Neither is race? It's not racist. It's literally about opposing criminals. You can have a problem with a person or group and not care about the characteristics. [/quote] I suppose I forfeit this since it turns out I misunderstood what racism is, which I'll visit later in this post. As long as we can agree that there are a variety of factors at work here I think on this point we're done. [quote]I know, I said it was. But so was the link you provided. Individuals shouldn't matter and even if they did, it wasn't a good one to provide. Most (and I mean nearly all) "crimes" rich blacks get punished for though related to drug possession. Which can be debated if that's a worthy crime or not. [/quote] The link I provided was to dissuade the "lol whites are mass shooters so it's the same" train of thought, not to prove a point. Individuals however should and matter, at least somewhat since it is they after all who are the ones forming a collective. [quote]There's a fault in your own logic. You used the word "thug"...that already implies the fucker ain't on the up and up. It would be like using the word "rapist" implying men and telling me it less likely to happen because that rapist is a women. But the word you used was already a negative connotation. So how does that really make any logical sense? [/quote] I meant a thug as in the cultural thing, gold grillz, blasting boom box, etc. [quote]Poverty is still a large factor of crime. I'd argue more so than race. In almost all cases of various crimes. [/quote] It is, but like I said in my π world shithole of a home country I experienced very little criminality apart from that which I brought upon myself. Admittedly this was when I was only in my home village and the nearest city, I haven't been to the whole country for a reasonable amount of time but I doubt it's too different. [quote]People living in households in the US that have an income level below the Federal poverty threshold have more than double the rates of violent victimization compared to individuals in high-income households.[/quote] I'm not sure what this means or more precisely if I understand it right, considering the meaning of victimization. [quote]Individuals who live in poverty are more likely to report a crime than those who do not live in poverty, but more than half of all crime is believed to go unreported to local law enforcement.[/quote] If you're trying to assert that the more wealthy strata do as much crime as the lower classes then you're plain wrong. At most, they do more crime of the sort like you mentioned, drug use and such that (supposedly) doesn't hurt anyone and is """"""victimless."""""" [quote]When people live in households that are struggling with poverty, they also have a higher rate of violence that involves a firearm at 3.5 per 1,000 people compared to 0.8-2.5 per 1,000 people in middle-to-high income families.[/quote] Interesting considering you'd think they can't afford one. Not all that pertinent though. [quote]For both whites and blacks/African-Americans in the US, the overall pattern of being in poverty with the highest rates of victimization was consistent. For Hispanics and Latinos, violent victimization is relatively equal across all income levels.[/quote] This is largely to do with hispanics making quite often their wealth off of stuff that is quite simply illicit. [quote]Hispanics in the US who are living in poverty have nearly half the rates of violent victimization when compared to poor whites. Even poor blacks/African-Americans have a lower rate of violent victimization in poverty compared to whites.[/quote] Once again, clarify since I'm not sure what you mean by victimization, if it is to make another person a victim or to become one. [quote]Urban poverty increased the risks of violence and crime for US households, but did not change the racial risk factors. Whites are the most at risk in an urban poverty household to experience crime, at a rate of 5.64%. Blacks/African-Americans had the second highest level of risk for experiencing crime in urban poverty at 5.13%.[/quote] That's probably because they get targeted and don't really commit crime on their own part making others see them as weaker and more opportune targets, which is not wholly untrue. [quote]Now I'm not sure where you get this from exactly...[/quote] History? [quote]Well again, you say definitely but it's to be debated by people still to this day. :/ [/quote] Can't be a debate if one side isn't really allowed to speak up. [quote]I feel like generalizations aren't practical on a pure logical standpoint and the more people that think in those ways, take one step towards suggesting shit like eugenics. Not saying you in anyway. But admitting your "racist" and just being aware of differences between bodies and cultures etc. aren't the same... Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race (or someone else race) is superior.[/quote] I think eugenics is pretty autistic yes, but generalisations do have their purpose and use. When I look at someone for the first time I can always draw conclusions that I should act accordingly to and are up to the other person to be proven right or wrong. I searched up the definition of racism again and yes, you're right. I didn't read it through properly and just saw the "key words" of prejudice against a different race. Since I know that superiority is more or less impossible I suppose I can remove the label of racist from myself. I admit I was wrong to use it, though this probably won't stop others from applying it to me. [quote]I sort of doubt it. (the help of being prejudiced) Though I guess people perceive things differently all around.[/quote] It's sure helped me here. It helped me pick what was, I'm sure absolutely coincidentally the nicest neighbourhood to be around, knowing simply the ethnic composition. [quote]But you call yourself a racist, without a hint of hesitation? I feel like the only reason to do that is to be provocative...[/quote] As said earlier, I guess I was wrong. I thought it meant to only be prejudiced which I am, I don't believe in superiority of any sort though, but people will call me racist anyways. [quote]It's like people on youtube, young blokes in their 20's starting to outright post sympathizing remarks to pedophiles. It's just a little worrying that people like that don't seem to even be aware of why that's a problem in the first place.[/quote] TOLERANCE IS THE WAY TO GO!!!1! WHY CAN'T YOU BE MORE TOLERANT OF SOME PEOPLE"S SEXUAL CHOICES??//? [quote]Not to get off in the weeds, but I assume you're an atheist? (Just curious.)[/quote] Reconciled Old Believer. EDIT: [@SleepingSilence] since you might have not seen it because of your post and notifications being wonky and the display and all and whatever and yeah....