>>68This one is by a white man, so I'll read it.
economic conditions explain the difference with white crime rates
This only means that blacks are more prone to being poor. Perhaps they choose a life of poverty in order to do crime all the time. Irrelevant to the question, at any rate.
when it comes to everyday threats to personal well-being, whites far and away lead the pack in all kinds of destructive behaviors: corporate pollution, consumer fraud, violations of health
Oh, so getting a diarrhea from polluted water or getting ripped off in a car deal are somehow worse threats than getting stabbed in the street or having your wife raped and performing an abortion as a result? This is just plain and misleading bullshit. Also, corporations and states are institutions, not people. They follow different decision-making procedures. Who's to say that the corporation polluting your town isn't black-owned? Then there are black factory workers and black soldiers killing people. By the way, black soldiers don't mean that blacks are more prone to kill people, but neither do white soldiers. It's a different process of making decisions and policies, a collective one rather than personal.
The next arguments from Tim Wise are self-contradictory:
meaning that whites were victimized by blacks less often than would have been expected by random chance, given the extent to which whites were available to be victimized
Because of ongoing racial isolation and de facto segregation, the two group’s members do not encounter one another at rates commensurate with their shares of the population
If there is racial isolation, then why are whites "more available" to be victimized? And vice versa, if whites are more widely available as victims, then what "racial isolation and de facto segregation" is he talking about? Bullshit.
the odds of a given white person (or white criminal for that matter) encountering a black person are only about three percent
More bullshit. With the modern diversity policies and "inclusion", blacks are everywhere, from offices to colleges to recreational spaces and all streets in all towns. The odds of meeting a black person simply cannot be as low as 3%, that would require all blacks to live in ghettoes and never leave them.
In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes
So if there are about 8 times more whites than blacks, why do whites commit only 2.5 more violent crimes? You can't bullshit us, Tim Wise: blacks are far more prone to commit violent crimes.
Criminologists estimate that seventy percent of all crimes are committed by just seven percent of the offenders (12): a small bunch of repeat offenders who commit the vast majority of crimes. Since blacks committed roughly 1.2 million violent crimes in 2002, if seventy percent of these were committed by seven percent of the black offenders
This is more diversity bullshit. If 70% of crimes are committed by 7% of offenders, that doesn't mean those 7% are evenly distributed by race. As follows from the data, blacks are several times more wont to commit violent crimes. Thus, those 7% might have
all been black, which would mean that the rate of repeated offenders within the black population would be higher. Tim Wise makes nothing to account this possible inaccuracy.
this means that whites are 4.7 times more likely to be victimized by another white person than by a black person
Which is less than the 8:1 population ratio, thus supporting the fact that blacks are more prone to committing violent crimes than whites.
If, as the Justice Department data suggests, blacks commit somewhere between 25-30 percent of violent crime in most years (23 percent in 2002), to profile blacks for crime will result in police being wrong, between 70-75 percent of the time
Another nonsensical outburst from Tim Wise. Profiling blacks means focusing more efforts on them, not ignoring crimes committed by other racial groups. And seeing that the relative crime rates are higher among blacks (yes, 25-30 percent is higher than the 10-15 percent of the population they make up), profiling them would be definitely rational.
The sad fact is that racism already enjoys plenty of legitimacy
Ah, but this is a joyous fact! It means that not everyone is fooled by liberal tolerance propaganda. A lot of people still have their own heads on their shoulders, which is encouraging.