MASSIVE censorship on /r/science in thread about welfare recipients...

Look, a faggot!

>Fairly equal at ~30% for white/black/hispanic
lolno, it's 61% white

The argument /pol/esmokers think they're making:
>61% of our welfare resources are going to white people
>b-but black people only make up 13% of the population so they only deserve 13% of the welfare.
The argument they're implicitly making:
>Black communities are disproportionately impoverished.

>reddit

Who gives a fuck?

People are coming after the blacks but what I want to know is why asians/pacific islanders are 18% of the welfare population but like 1-2% of the country's population.

statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

People should actually be imagining welfare recipients as asian.

Probably some form of affirmative action aimed at blacks (and any minority that claims it)

At least asians aren't notoriously violent and criminal

You're thinking of food stamps not welfare.

Actually they are. Asians are more likely to commit violent hate crimes like assault while blacks are more likely to commit acts of vandalism like robbing or property damage. White people are more likely to burn things, murder, commit property damage, and commit acts of hate towards individuals.

ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2015

So in reality, if you take this and couple it with the fbi violent crime statistics, you find that blacks are more likely to be involved in vandal type stuff and are most likely not to be inherently violent as most assume. In reality it is probably the result of gangsta culture permeating black society. Whites and Asians are more likely to turn to stronger acts violence and destruction when looking at the hate crimes.
Tl;dr- a black person is more likely to spray paint "fuck whitey" and rob an old lady because she's white and therefore must be rich in comparison, so they pick up a hate crime charge. A white person is more likely to burn someone's house down or murder them out of hate. An Asian person will catch you in an alley and beat your ass and keep it moving.

But in general blacks commit more violent crime than the other groups

Also, didn't know that about asians, no hijinks with the chinks!

In general among those violent crimes that black people commit, those crimes are more likely to be due to gang related activity rather than an individual acting alone like you see with other groups. Therefore it is best to avoid blacks in gangs, not black individuals. Black individuals are safer to be around than individuals of other races when it comes to violence.

>statistics
>muh "censorship" of a public website subject to its own moderation which you would have accepted by signing up for said website
>racial issue
>thinking the dindu nuffins and lazy niggers are going to ruin you
>thinking this is the correct board

Fuck off, go back to /pol/. You're a sheep who is easily mislead into thinking that statistical data is factual. This isn't the place for this discussion you inbred.

>Individual gang member takes a walk
>Theory collapses

American websites should support the American value of free speech, even though obviously it's not a mandate.

>it's about reddit inc. making money off of the ad profile you give to them for free.
>he thinks that's not the case with Veeky Forums too under newmoot

Nigga won't attack you without backup and overwhelming odds. Basic tactics

The website is not American, it is privately own. So, that dissolves your argument right there. You don't go into someone else's house, shit on their floor, and expect them to leave it there.

The internet does not belong to governments, it belongs to coorporations. There is no such thing as free speech on the internet, there's just far more leniency than what "free speech" is considered in America. Neither are actually free speech, and you're hopelessly myopic if you believe them to be so.

You're either an anarchist or you support censorship. Go back to /pol/ dipshit.

Why are you saying all this when I literally said I know it's not required by law?

You're so pretentious about yourself you don't even know what you're responding to

/r/science are a bunch of brainlet dilettantes.

You know what actually fucking triggers me about them?

/r/science fuckwads who discredit any study that doesn't have 50 million fucking participants as 'muh sample size is too low!!' if they don't like the results, completely disregarding any statistics. As if any scientist worth his salt wouldn't have noticed that.

Likewise, the braindead criticism of CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION
congratulations, you managed to add nothing to the discussion while exposing one of the most common problems in science so you could feel good.
go fuck yourself and your echo chamber

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reddit

You sound like the shite of the Earth.

Statistics is not science, it's something people use to make other people believe something is true. That's why anyone who remotely understands probability theory laughs at the notion of legitimacy in politically charged statistics.

Small sample size is indicitive of a potentially biased study, though. There are ways to resample with the sample you already have but it still wouldn't decrease bias as much as adding new participants. Especially since any study done with even a few thousand people is pretty fucking small given that population size for the US alone is over 300 million. It's pretty incorrect to draw conclusions about the country at large from super small sample sizes.

Statistics works this way if your sample is sufficiently random. A sample of 1000 is enough.