As per Zach Goldberg, a politics researcher at Georgetown State:
Now to be sure, they may just about be right about Hispanics; at least Ron Unz argues so – while I used to be convinced, others have made good counter arguments, so I don’t really know. But they’re certainly at the same order of magnitude, anyway.
And to be fair this is, actually, very probably for Muslims in the US.
But if you say that whites are more violent than blacks, then you are living in some kind of alternate reality.
There are many other “powerful” highlights from Goldberg’s/The NYT’s report from Wesley Yang’s thread, e.g. 79% of white liberals think “racial discrimination is the main reason why many blacks can’t get ahead these days.”
Which would be fine, except:
Audacious Epigone found that almost half of 18-29 y/o’s with college degrees agree that violent acts are acceptable to achieve my ideal of a better society.
Not only that, but I reckon the delusion is higher with university students.
IQ + ideological zealotry + bloodlust is a dangerous combination.
Maybe they are projecting.
The argument I’ve heard before, which is partly right, is that the historical record indicates that whites are more prone to organized violence. The error, of course, is mistaking superior white capability at organized violence for a greater inclination towards it.
Nonetheless, to play Devil’s advocate, it’s important to remember that the memory of European imperialism still looms large, even if it’s basically irrelevant to present circumstances. Many Russians would say that Russia is justified in seeking a larger buffer in Eastern Europe, given memories of 1941, which isn’t too different from the sort of thinking that regards whites as an ongoing threat.
Mistaking Christians for being more violent than Muslims is the greater error. My guess would be that they’re looking at events like the conquest of Jerusalem in the First Crusade and the interwar British domination of the Middle East and ignoring basically everything else.