02-17-2016, 11:47 PM
(02-17-2016, 05:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Of course he does. Do you know what freedom of speech means? The government didn't fire him, a private employer did.
Right, freedom of consequence is what he didn't have due to the public backlash. Yet there was no public backlash for the calling of the killing of white people. That is the point. You asked who was fired for saying or doing something perceived as racist. Here you go. He was. Now you sit and try to justify why he is fired and why Grundy is not.
I guess this guy's company cares more than Boston University does about maintaining a positive public image.
It could also be that apathetic white people allow this to continue. You see in Mizzou, when there was a perceived slight against blacks and the University didn't appear to move fast enough, it received national attention, with celebs, the football team, multiple protest and rallies, BLM, Concerned Student 1950, a hunger strike by a rich affluent black man all weighing in. The result was 2 innocent white men where removed. Sure they resigned, however they were more than likely going to be terminated anyway.
When Grundy's statements were made public, it was "Meh, she has free speech". The calls to action where by so little people that there was no pressure on Boston College to do anything about it. No pressure on the College means no pressure on the person, resulting in her not being removed, even though she was the offending person.
That's very responsible of them with so little details surrounding an ongoing investigation. It's like not calling a shooting terrorism as soon as it happens because the guy was Muslim or the victims were at Planned Parenthood.
Oh sure, like they were responsible when they made George Zimmerman white and not Hispanic mixed? Reported Martin as a little 13 year old boy? C'mon, you can't tell me that the media is responsible. Just look at the Charleston shooting, within hours of the attack the headlines read "Possible Hate crime" - there was just a bit of a dispute as to what type of hate crime it was. Many saw it a hate crime against Christians, but then they decided it was a hate crime for against blacks. No, you don't get to call them responsible for not calling this crime a hate crime and expect me not to be laughing at the absurdity of the claim.
What is happening in UK is beyond irrelevant to what is happening here. Different countries with different population and different governments and different protections with different histories and different cultures.
Well we have different states and different cities here, so if you want to go that route, I could easily change course. Different states and different cities all have different governments and different protections and different histories and different cultures. By your logic what happens in California has no bearing on what happens in Tennessee.
You're clearly bad with numbers and that's ok. I am not, so here I am explaining how statistics works to you. Whites are underrepresented in police killings while blacks are overrepresented. Whites should account for 62% while Blacks should account for only 13%.
You're clearly not any good with them either. You can manipulate them all you want, it is still manipulation. You continuing to cling to this even after I have told you that it is inaccurate is sad. The police kill more whites than they do blacks.
Never heard of him.
Well, you could check out his books or his YT videos. He has some commentary, I don't like his voice, about different cases of attacks that are largely absent from the media. However he is extremely one sided in his commentary.
I did not. I stated that with regards to those stopped, we have statistics on 1) percent of population that they make up (demographics), 2) likelihood to be possessing contraband (as in we know the likelihood of any group to be using and possessing these things and 3) the minority status of those who are stopped. For example, FBI statistics show us that in 2010, 14% of black people used pot and 12% of white people used pot. Black people were 350% more likely to be arrested for possession than white people are.
Black people account for 25% of NYC's population and 50% of the random stops from the stop and frisk program.
Half of all homicide victims are black, but the majority of people on death row are there for killing white victims.
White people account for 70% of arrests but 40% of those sentenced to Prison. Black people account for 28% of arrests and 40% of those sentenced to prison.
The average sentence for a violent crime is a year longer for black people than white people.
All statistics that exists. One explanation that rejects a racial bias is a poverty bias. If you're poor, you're less likely to have a good lawyer. If you're black, you're more likely to be poor. Is that your belief?
No, I don't believe that being black automatically makes you poor. There are plenty of rich black people in our country.
I am not getting into a stat war with you.
