i don't see any evidence that the confrontation had to do with abuse or violence. it's simply a demand to not touch her, which could be referring to anything. he's also using very strong racial language. note that the woman in the corner is white. without context, it strikes me as equally likely that the confrontation was entirely race driven. it's revealing that the premise has not been challenged, that everybody is willing to sentence the accused without any context or evidence. and, this is likely not independent of his skin colour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtyNUf_5iok
(deleted)
there's more blacks in prison because it's where the system wants them. it's a continuation of the jim crow laws, a lot of it through the drug war. a large percentage are there on marijuana possession.
(deleted)
it's not, actually. assault is assault. some people are just too dipshit macho to press charges.
(deleted)
you'll tend to find that the types of men that see physical violence towards women as some kind of uncrossable red line are exceedingly patriarchal, almost without exception. it comes out of this archaic idea of protecting one's property, and is really the mirror-reflection of using violence as a means of control. it's also rooted in the idea that one sex is inherently weaker.
equality means beating the shit out of each other as much as it means not beating each other up at all. we'll know we've actually made some progress when this discourse evaporates entirely.
(deleted)
you may wish to cite nearly 100 year-old statistics if you'd like, but you have to understand that they speak in averages. they're of little value in day-to-day usage, where we see wide variability. further, things have changed dramatically since those statistics were tabulated. today, women tend to (on average) attach a certain value to physical strength. it's quite normal for women to participate in, and excel at, the same physical activities that made men stronger in the past.
on a random sample, in 2015, i wouldn't expect much of any kind of "measurable" difference to assert itself - except that the extreme ends of the spectrum are likely predictable.
subbing in the "protective nature of men" for patriarchal dominance is a type of mra political correctness.
(deleted)
lol. i see you live in canada, where the laws aren't enforced. they're enforced very violently in the united states, and disproportionately on blacks. the statistics may shock you. iirc, around 80% of blacks in jail are there on drug charges, and the vast majority is marijuana related. it's not because the society is anti-drug, exactly. it's just an excuse to continue slavery. the amendment that abolished slavery in the united states specifically states except for people in jail. fun fact: the united states prison system has a monopoly on paint products in the united states. if you buy paint in the us, it's made with prison labour.
there's a lot of scholarly literature on the topic. chomsky is a good source for this. but, i'd actually suggest dave chappelle to start off with.
(deleted)
i repeat: assault is assault. unfortunately, lingering dumb macho attitudes tend to convince people to "man up" rather than seek legal solutions.
(deleted)
the video itself provides absolutely no evidence that there was a violent exchange in the first place. the supposed victim simply appears to be embarrassed by the situation.
(deleted)
the difference is that we know the white guy attacked the black guy. we have no evidence that the black guy attacked the white woman.
(deleted)
it's not a question of whether we're identical. it's a question of whether we deserve equal treatment under the law.
(deleted)
scientifically speaking, race isn't even real. talking about race in a scientific context is like talking about unicorns. the raising part is more to the point than the genetics. but it's not an important factor in any kind of meaningful discussion.
almost all black people in the united states are more than 30% caucasian. and you're looking at around 30% of whites in america that are part african and don't even realize it.
in such conditions, the genetics can't even be studied, let alone used to draw conclusions from.
(deleted)
it's one thing for white people to jump to all these conclusions without the slightest bit of evidence, it's another for blacks to mimic it without the slightest bit of critical thinking. it really shows how deep the institutional racism is in our society, when you can throw a youtube video up like this and have virtually everybody think it's obvious that he must be guilty, based on nothing but an accusation in the title.
(deleted)
in the end, we get the society we want. and, if we want vigilante mob justice based on spurious accusations, then that's what we'll get. just don't blame me when i don't want to leave my basement and deal with all the fucking brownshirts.
(deleted)
the link pulls up a 404, but the statistic cited is correct and can be found using google. it also states that people in prison for violent offenses are most likely to be white (which is stated carefully to deny a causal inference from skin colour to violent behaviour), which is the well known reality that dina is attempting to defend.
however, stats like that are of limited value. it's the old stats lie story.
to begin with, there's little consistency in determining who is "white" and "black". the 13% number rises to as high as 35% when you include "interracial" people, which are more likely to be categorized as "black" than "white" in a prison survey. if you find the original document, it doesn't include "interracial", while the census you're getting "13%" from does. when you adjust for this, you're looking at something more like "40% of domestic violence, 30-35% of the population". the remaining 5-10% is then no longer so glaring, and explained by a combination of factors, including randomness. the point is the imprecision in these categories.
second, other factors are glaringly apparent. when you have a society that is racially tilted like america's is, you get results like that. the basis of the statistic is that equality exists under the law. but, equality does not exist under the law. it's consequently unrealistic to expect anything different.
third, humans are individuals. the idea that skin colour has any causal effect on individual, violent behaviour is bluntly comically absurd. it's not even generalizing the specific. it's just a category error. and a pretty dumb one, at that.
(deleted)
believe it or not, it was largely about the triviality of greek v roman forms of christianity. they're both slavs. racism isn't the right term; it was religious intolerance.