Para que Sócrates hable mierda

El negro critica al blanco que defiende que hay racismo contra negros, ''cuando la mitad de los 7000 asesinados son cometidos por negros, que son solo el 12% de la población, y si quitan a los viejos y enfermos resulta que el 3% de la población comete la mitad de los asesinatos y son negros''.

A la vista de lo expuesto, conclusión que al parecer saca el Cala:

Los negros son malvados por naturaleza. Por eso hay muchos más presos negros que blancos, o mayor porcentaje, no sé si sólo es el porcentaje. No hay otra razón.

Es cierto Cala, he visto varias entrevistas que participant negros, y dicen lo mismo..los he visto diciendo incluso que por estarlos manteniendo han perdido "el suelo"...que es malo que papa estado los mantenga..

Socrates tu n puede debater nada seriamente, lo tuyo es la panfleteria baratona.

Las estadisticas no mienten, es un hecho, la soclucion no es ir rompiendo vidrieras.

Ajá, por tanto, para el Cala y Azali, valga la redundancia, los negros son malos por naturaleza. El Ku-Klus-Klan tiene razón.

Donde se dice que los negros son malos por naturaleza? eso lo tienes en la mente tu...

Si en tu barrio hubiera una etnia de chinos y fueran una pandilla de criminals, por ser chinos y para que no te diga racist hay que decir que no tienen problemas???

Anoche mismo veia una entrevista donde participaban negros y decian lo que basicamnete hemos comentado aqui..

No es racism admitir problemas, racism es que los problemas sigan y ovbiarlos ...los crimenes son crimenes los cometa quien los cometa...racism es tratar diferente a unos de otros.

Uno de los negros anoche decia que en Ferguson no haria pasado nada, si el joven hubiera acatado las ordenes del policia que estan para poner orden...

Ya estás tergiversando mis palabras.

Y quien vive en USA , sabe que la policia esta para poner el orden y que debes acatar sus ordenes , pues estan entrenados para eso.. es cierto que algunos abusan del poder, pero hay tribunals que los ponen en su justo lugar..no son la mayoria que lo hacen , aqui se respetan.

El Cala ha dado a entender claramente que si hay muchos más negros que blancos en la cárcel es porque lo merecen, porque los negros son peores.

Sócrates escribió:Ya estás tergiversando mis palabras.

Aqui el unico que lo hace eres tu, que siempre tienes el animo de mentir y manipular.

No estábamos hablando específicamente por ese chico negro liquidado por la policía, hablábamos y yo respondía al primer mensaje.

Sócrates escribió:El Cala ha dado a entender claramente que si hay muchos más negros que blancos en la cárcel es porque lo merecen, porque los negros son peores.

No es el Cala , es el negro quien lo dice y las estadisticas lo corroboran...

Sócrates escribió:No estábamos hablando específicamente por ese chico negro liquidado por la policía, hablábamos y yo respondía al primer mensaje.

Tu eres idiota eh!!

Los delitos, o más concretamente los delitos más perseguidos y más sencillos de ver, los suele cometer gente pobre o relativamente pobre, porque la necesidad empuja a ello o porque ante una situación más o menos precaria es más fuerte la tentación de delinquir, robar, etc. Y en Estados Unidos hay mayor porcentaje de pobres entre los negros que entre los blancos, debido a su origen esclavo. Eso, unido al racismo, determina un porcentaje mucho mayor de negros que de blancos condenados.

Este es el planteamiento correcto del problema y lo contrario es muestra de ignorancia, pereza mental, prejuicios o propio de fachas o fanáticos del sistema, fuente racismo.

Azali escribió:

Sócrates escribió:El Cala ha dado a entender claramente que si hay muchos más negros que blancos en la cárcel es porque lo merecen, porque los negros son peores.

No es el Cala , es el negro quien lo dice y las estadisticas lo corroboran...

El Cala pone la opinión del negro para apoyar esa manera de pensar. El negro no por ser negro va a tener razón. Lo de las estadísticas ya te lo expliqué, burrita.

Sócrates escribió:Los delitos, o más concretamente los delitos más perseguidos y más sencillos de ver, los suele cometer gente pobre o relativamente pobre, porque la necesidad empuja a ello o porque ante una situación más o menos precaria es más fuerte la tentación de delinquir, robar, etc. Y en Estados Unidos hay mayor porcentaje de pobres entre los negros que entre los blancos, debido a su origen esclavo. Eso, unido al racismo, determina un porcentaje mucho mayor de negros que de blancos condenados.

Este es el planteamiento correcto del problema y lo contrario es muestra de ignorancia, pereza mental, prejuicios o propio de fachas o fanáticos del sistema, fuente racismo.

Vaya, vaya...los pobres por ser pobres son criminals...y despues hablas de racistas.

Tu no sabes nada de USA, tu hablas por hablar, el Cala vivio aqui, yo vivo aqui, lo tuyo es papagayerismo..

Azali escribió:
Vaya, vaya...los pobres por ser pobres son criminals...y despues hablas de racistas.

Tu no sabes nada de USA, tu hablas por hablar, el Cala vivio aqui, yo vivo aqui, lo tuyo es papagayerismo..

¿Eres incapaz de poner un párrafo sin decir estupideces?

Quien las dice eres tu, no te atienes a la noticia, a los casos, no te atienes a la realidad.

Lo que queda demostrado con toda evidencia y claridad es que tú y el Cala, el Cala y tú, que sois una misma cosa, creéis que los negros son peores, mucho más delincuentes.

O sea, sois RACISTAS puros. No tenéis ya ninguna careta, se os ve demasiado el plumero, así que no debe ya extrañar las muchas frases tuyas y del Cala de contenido racista que de repetidas parecían no tener importancia. Sobre todo del Cala, de manera casi continua, pero tuyas también ("india de mierda"... etc.).

Sócrates escribió:Lo que queda demostrado con toda evidencia y claridad es que tú y el Cala, el Cala y tú, que sois una misma cosa, creéis que los negros son peores, mucho más delincuentes.

O sea, sois RACISTAS puros. No tenéis ya ninguna careta, se os ve demasiado el plumero, así que no debe ya extrañar las muchas frases tuyas y del Cala de contenido racista que de repetidas parecían no tener importancia. Sobre todo del Cala, de manera casi continua, pero tuyas también ("india de mierda"... etc.).

No hijito, tu crees que los negros son peores, que no tienen cerebro por ser pobres y etc etc , todo eso que has dicho...tu crees que son unos individuos diferentes a los que hay que tratarlos diferentes....la igualdad conlleva a que todos tenemos reglas que cumplir , y no por el color de la piel podemos excusarnos de ello, cuando alguien vive  en sociedad mas una de derechos , tenemos valga la redundancia, DERECHOS , PERO TAMBIEN TENEMOS DEBERES!! 


Desde que se planteo el tema, lo unico que has querido decir es que somos racistas, porque estamos opinando lo que dijo un negro...estamos opinando sobre las palabras que dijo el negro, esty opinando que anoche vi a negros decir casi lo mismo...LAS ESTADISTICAS LO ESTAN DICIENDO Y A TI LO UNICO QUE TE INTERESA ES DECIR QUE NOSOTROS SOMOS RACISTAS, .

Decirle a alguien mierda, aunque sea indio o blanco o negro, no es racismo, tu si que eres racistas, dices que los negros fan gusto verlos como corren o bailan , tambien dices que  los cubanos estamos todavia subidos a los arboles y demas , PERO SABES? ERES UN ASCO DE PERSONA, POR DONDE QUIERA QUE SE MIRE.

así que no debe ya extrañar las muchas frases tuyas

A VER SO' BLANCO D'MIERDA, DONDE CARAJOS VOY DICIENDO FRASES RACISTAS? GALLEGO HP!!.

("india de mierda"... etc.).

Donde dije eso mariconazo?? .

Y estas equivocado si crees que me voy a cohibir de decir LO QUE ME SALE DE MIS ENTRAN~AS, PORQUE TU Y EL CALA SE PELEAN, SI CREES QUE NO VOY A DECIR LO QUE PIENSO, CON TU MARICONIL MACHISMO Y PELEITAS CON EL CALA, ESTAS EQUIVOCADO DE MEDIO A MEDIO..

QUE TE QUEDE CLARITO , DIGO Y DIRE LO QUE PIENSO, ACHACARME QUE LO DIGO A  DETERMINADO NICK, ES MUESTRA DE TU MACHISMO DE MIERDA, ESTOY HARTA DE TUS MANIPULACIONES!.

Azali, por mucho que vociferes no vas a tener más razón.

"Vocifero"  cuando estime conveniente, para hablar con alguien tan rastrero y mentiroso como tu.

Ya estás confundiéndome con tu "alter ego"...

A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries


By Max Fisher May 15, 2013  


Click to enlarge. Data source: World Values Survey

Update: A professor who studies race and ethnic conflict responds to this map.

When two Swedish economists set out to examine whether economic freedom made people any more or less racist, they knew how they would gauge economic freedom, but they needed to find a way to measure a country's level of racial tolerance. So they turned to something called the World Values Survey, which has been measuring global attitudes and opinions for decades.

Among the dozens of questions that World Values asks, the Swedish economists found one that, they believe, could be a pretty good indicator of tolerance for other races. The survey asked respondents in more than 80 different countries to identify kinds of people they would not want as neighbors. Some respondents, picking from a list, chose "people of a different race." The more frequently that people in a given country say they don't want neighbors from other races, the economists reasoned, the less racially tolerant you could call that society. (The study concluded that economic freedom had no correlation with racial tolerance, but it does appear to correlate with tolerance toward homosexuals.)

Unfortunately, the Swedish economists did not include all of the World Values Survey data in their final research paper. So I went back to the source, compiled the original data and mapped it out on the infographic above. In the bluer countries, fewer people said they would not want neighbors of a different race; in red countries, more people did.

If we treat this data as indicative of racial tolerance, then we might conclude that people in the bluer countries are the least likely to express racist attitudes, while the people in red countries are the most likely.




Compare the results to this map of the world's most and least diverse countries.

Before we dive into the data, a couple of caveats. First, it's entirely likely that some people lied when answering this question; it would be surprising if they hadn't. But the operative question, unanswerable, is whether people in certain countries were more or less likely to answer the question honestly. For example, while the data suggest that Swedes are more racially tolerant than Finns, it's possible that the two groups are equally tolerant but that Finns are just more honest. The willingness to state such a preference out loud, though, might be an indicator of racial attitudes in itself. Second, the survey is not conducted every year; some of the results are very recent and some are several years old, so we're assuming the results are static, which might not be the case.

Here's what the data show:

• Anglo and Latin countries most tolerant. People in the survey were most likely to embrace a racially diverse neighbor in the United Kingdom and its Anglo former colonies (the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and in Latin America. The only real exceptions were oil-rich Venezuela, where income inequality sometimes breaks along racial lines, and the Dominican Republic, perhaps because of its adjacency to troubled Haiti. Scandinavian countries also scored high.

• India and Jordan by far the least tolerant. In only two of 81 surveyed countries, more than 40 percent of respondents said they would not want a neighbor of a different race. This included 43.5 percent of Indians and 51.4 percent of Jordanian. (Note: World Values’ data for Bangladesh and Hong Kong appear to have been inverted, with in fact only 28.3 and 26.8 percent, respectively, having indicated they would not want a neighbor of a different race. Please see correction at the bottom of this post.)




• Wide, interesting variation across Europe. Immigration and national identity are big, touchy issues in much of Europe, where racial make-ups are changing. Though you might expect the richer, better-educated Western European nations to be more tolerant than those in Eastern Europe, that's not exactly the case. France appeared to be one of the least racially tolerant countries on the continent, with 22.7 percent saying they didn't want a neighbor of another race. Former Soviet states such as Belarus and Latvia scored as more tolerant than much of Europe. Many in the Balkans, perhaps after years of ethnicity-tinged wars, expressed lower racial tolerance.

• The Middle East not so tolerant. Immigration is also a big issue in this region, particularly in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which often absorb economic migrants from poorer neighbors.

• Racial tolerance low in diverse Asian countries. Nations such as Indonesia and the Philippines, where many racial groups often jockey for influence and have complicated histories with one another, showed more skepticism of diversity. This was also true, to a lesser extent, in China and Kyrgyzstan. There were similar trends in parts of sub-Saharan Africa.

• South Korea, not very tolerant, is an outlier. Although the country is rich, well-educated, peaceful and ethnically homogenous – all trends that appear to coincide with racial tolerance – more than one in three South Koreans said they do not want a neighbor of a different race. This may have to do with Korea's particular view of its own racial-national identity as unique – studied by scholars such as B.R. Myers – and with the influx of Southeast Asian neighbors and the nation's long-held tensions with Japan.




• Pakistan, remarkably tolerant, also an outlier. Although the country has a number of factors that coincide with racial intolerance – sectarian violence, its location in the least-tolerant region of the world, low economic and human development indices – only 6.5 percent of Pakistanis objected to a neighbor of a different race. This would appear to suggest Pakistanis are more racially tolerant than even the Germans or the Dutch.

Update: I've heard some version of one question from an overwhelming number of readers: "I've met lots of Indians and Americans and found the former more racially tolerant than the latter. How can these results possibly be correct?" I'd suggest three possible explanations for this, some combination of which may or may not be true. First, both India and the U.S. are enormous countries; anecdotal interactions are not representative of the whole, particularly given that people who are wealthy enough to travel internationally may be likely to encounter some subsets of these respective populations more than others.

Second, the survey question gets to internal, personal preferences; what the respondents want. One person's experiences hanging out with Americans or Indians, in addition to being anecdotal, only tell you about their outward behavior. Both of those ways of observing racial attitudes might suggest something about racial tolerance, but they're different indicators that measure different things, which could help explain how one might contradict the other.

Third, the survey question is a way of judging racial tolerance but, like many social science metrics, is indirect and imperfect. I cited the hypothetical about Swedes and Finns at the top of this post, noting that perhaps some people are just more honest about their racial tolerance than others. It's entirely possible that we're seeing some version of this effect in the U.S.-India comparison; maybe, for example, Americans are conditioned by their education and media to keep these sorts of racial preferences private, i.e. to lie about them on surveys, in a way that Indians might not be. That difference would be interesting in itself, but alas there is no survey question for honesty.




Correction: This post originally indicated that, according to the World Values Survey, 71.7 percent of Bangladeshis and 71.8 percent of Hong Kongers had said that they would not want a neighbor of a different race. In fact, those numbers appear to be substantially lower, 28.3 percent and 26.8 percent, respectively. In both cases, World Values appears to have erroneously posted the incorrect data on its Web site. Ashirul Amin, posting at the Tufts University Fletcher School’s emerging markets blog, looked into the data for Bangladesh and discovered the mistake. My thanks to Amin, who is Bangladeshi and was able to read the original questionnaire, for pointing this out. His analysis is worth reading in full, but here’s his conclusion:

The short answer is, yes, someone did fat finger this big time. "Yes" and "No" got swapped in the second round of the survey, which means that 28.3% of Bangladeshis said they wouldn’t want neighbors of a different race – not 71.7%.
26K Facebook likers and 2.5K Tweeters, take note.

Amin adds, “Bangladeshis are a tolerant bunch — it’s ok to come visit.” The error in the Hong Kong data, first discovered by Chinese-speaking users on Reddit, was flagged by Engadget Chinese editor Richard Lai. Ng Chun Hung, a University of Hong Kong professor who was the principal investigator on World Values' survey there, confirmed via e-mail that the data had been transposed on the survey company's Web site. He added that he has written the World Values Survey team to alert it to this and ask it to remove the faulty data. My thanks to him, as well as to Lai and the Reddit users who dug through original Chinese-language survey forms to demonstrate the error.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries?utm_content=bufferf5085&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer