Green Lantern Script Review

[ShadowBoxing]

Unless Hector starts using the Meth Dealer as a sock puppet and mimes him saying "Aye, Pappi, yo quero Taco Bell" I think we'll be alright.

 

[IDrawDeadPeople]

I swear I mean absolutely no disrespect with this, but...

For all of the back and forth over this topic, I don't know how "diverse" the audience for this film is actually going to be.

I know he's a highly regarded character, and I know that a lot of people will see this, but I'm just not convinced that a film of this sort is going to be pulling in a random "general" audience in the same manner that The Dark Knight or Iron Man did. It's too "sci fi" (and not household recognizable enough) a concept to attract varying ethnic groups to the box office. Possibly. I emphasize possibly. It could become a hit, worldwide, but I think "offending" a group of people over a non-character who has no lines and won't be talking in a stereotypical manner (such as Shadow Boxing just pointed out) is the opposite of an issue. What I'm gently trying to say is that I cannot, for the life of me, picture a theatre full of sensitive Latino mothers... let alone a theatre full of sensitive Latino mothers sobbing to Holy Mary over a cameo appearance by a dead guy on a slab.

But, I'm callous, anyhow.

I suffered watching my own people be maliciously handled by a comic book film...

I had my heart ripped out by Daredevil, when they showed an Irish Catholic falling asleep drunk in front of the tv.

 

[Keyser Soze]

My God, we're all still talking about this?

As ShadowBoxing alluded to, it's unlikely this will even feature in the movie. It says in the script that the dead meth dealer who has no lines and whose only purpose is to be autopsied to introduce the guy cutting him up is Latino. It's a piece of description in the script. Unnecessary description? Probably. But it's not like Hector Hammond's going to be saying, "Oh look! A Mexican! Did he die while watching Ugly Betty?" In the actual movie itself, this will have ZERO significance. If it even remains in the final draft, the character could be cut out of focus altogether by the choice of camera angle, making his color impossible to distinguish, and with no reference to the dealer's ethnicity outside script description, it could turn out we're all arguing about a hypothetical Latino drug dealer.

God, I hope we get another script review, or new developments in the "Green Lantern" movie soon. Because El Mayimbe's racism rant - and the response to it - has pretty much killed discussion of the film and the script stone-cold dead on this board.

 

[IDrawDeadPeople]

I agree.

For my part in this drama... I'm simply trying to get to the part where we discuss the Eskimo people's negative response to PieFace.


You should have been in the Spirit forums for the Ebony/Eisner-Was-A-Nazi-Except-He-Was-A-Jew debate(s).

 

[Keyser Soze]

I agree.

For my part in this drama... I'm simply trying to get to the part where we discuss the Eskimo people's negative response to PieFace.


You should have been in the Spirit forums for the Ebony/Eisner-Was-A-Nazi-Except-He-Was-A-Jew debate(s).

It seems like Berlanti and co. have already gone the route of Geoff Johns. According to the original IESB script review, in the script PieFace is called by his real name, Tom Kalmaku.

 

[IDrawDeadPeople]

Yeah, I know. I can only wonder if they would even bother to toss the nickname out in a scene as a nod to readers, but I'm not caring either way on that.

Next order of business with Politically Correcting Pieface will be to find out whether or not they'll give him the bowl cut with the straight bangs that Kane used to illustrate him with.

 

[The Major]

I know he's a highly regarded character, and I know that a lot of people will see this, but I'm just not convinced that a film of this sort is going to be pulling in a random "general" audience in the same manner that The Dark Knight or Iron Man did.

GL has many interesting subjects to draw the public in.

Its a space opera with heavy CGI. Your typical person who enjoys Star Wars or Star Trek would be immediately hooked.

The people who want to see money shots in action sceens will go crazy if the CGI can capture the GL constructs and the movie uses them in formitable ways.

It's a wish fulfillment fantasy. Anyone would love the idea of getting the most powerful weapon in the universe which lets them do whatever they want.

Sinestro would allow them to go into the power corruption angle. How much power would you need before you impose your will on others for their own good? Where would the line be drawn on where your power starts and the rights of others ends?

It's too "sci fi"

No such thing.

(and not household recognizable enough)

A movie would give it that recogition.

a concept to attract varying ethnic groups to the box office.

It's a concept which could appeal to any race.

 

[Evil Twin]

Yeah, I don't get the "too sci-fi" aspect either. Heck, it's not like GL is particularly "hard" sci-fi anyways. It's intergalactic cops with a ring that can create impressive constructs, not 2001: A Space Odyssey or Blade Runner. There's a lot more in common between GL and Star Wars than with those two examples.

I also think the intergalactic corps is a nice multi-cultural shorthand metaphor. Why shouldn't that appeal across race lines?

 

[dnno1]

No, it isn't.

Hammond has a history behind him many people know where his name is not Hammond. I wouldn't care if he was played by an Hispanic actor, though.

The drug dealer character is more like a prop for Hammond to talk about from what I've heard about the script. Does he even have a name beyond Hispanic drug dealer? He's going to be in a scene then never seen again IIRC.

The only people who care would be Hispanic's but it would be unclear if they would do anything about it when the film is released. This hasn't been the first time Hispanic's have been either corpses or drug dealers in films and it won't be the last.

We've just heard one reviewer be upset by it. His own site is polarized over his reaction, too.

I do agree that the should change it to another race or not mention their ethnicity altogether if the Hispanic community does get vocal about it but it would have to be more then this single critics negative reaction before they have cause for alarm.

I asked the question "How would you feel if that certain drug dealer was nor dead and his name was Hector Jamón (pronounced hammon) and was the second villain in the film?" Your answer doesn't fit the question. And as far as the name change, he is/was a con-man so this could be easily written in as an alias. I am glad you agree that there should be a change, though.

Only the Hispanic audience is more then one movie critic. They have had no huge negative reaction to this that I'm aware of.

That is because hardly any of them are aware (those comments at is website are not all from Hispanics). Just to let you know, the Hispanic (at least a subset of it) was able to remove this character from the air and from Fritos bags over 37 years ago:


The Frito Bandito
(click image to read history)

[YT]aWhjl5NaLq4[/YT]

 

[dnno1]

Did you actually read what I said? I just explained that "rogue" is not synonymous with villain--which means that describing him as a rogue does not mean I am describing him as a villain. "Rogue" describe Jordan in that he has always been resistant to authority; he is difficult to control, he misbehaves and is known to be a rule-breaker. It has nothing to do with him being a villain.

In case you are still unlcear, let's review the conversation:

Saint: "Jordan is a rogue."

Dnno1: "He's not a villain, so he's not a rogue!"

Saint: "Rogue does not necessarily mean villain; it can refer to one who misbehaves, who is mischievous or hard to control, which Jordan has always been."

Dnno1: "What are you talking about? He's not a villain!"

Do you see the problem?

Yes, this is not how the discussion went down. Go back and read the entire thread from the beginning. I said that Jordan may be a hothead (in the script) but not a rogue (a villain, which is my definition and the common one). Your definition of rogue does not coin him as a villain so why are we talking about this?

 

[dnno1]

Your attempt to vilify Guard is a sad ploy, at best. Guard didn't say anything about white people being "superior," nor did he say that most criminals are Hispanic. Someone said that films too frequently portray blacks minorities as criminals, and Guard responded by saying that, statistically, a majority of criminals are minorities. You confirmed this by posting statistics that indicate the same.

He didn't have to. By his not disclosing the statistic on the white population in his post, he left the impression that there were no white people in jails and hence the subsequent impression that they were better (superior) to the other demographics. Also lumping minorities all into one demographic is another ploy to make it look like something else. The truth of the matter is that the residents in U.S. jails are mostly whites and African Americans (making up more than 80% of the population). His figures were even wrong in his post. Don't try to defend this guy.

The reason for this statistic, of course, has nothing to do with anyone being superior or inferior. It's simple: poor people are more likely to resort to crime. Minorities are more likely to be poor because decades of racism meant they did not have the same opportunities as the white majority. Even if they do have those opportunities today (and some will argue that they do not; that institutionalized racism still prevents it), it is still a greater challenge for them to surmount the conditions that were created by those decades of racism.

Or, more simply: racism created poverty among minorities, and even though racism is (mostly) gone, the poverty persists, which creates crime, which is why the statistics indicate that the majority of criminals are of racial or ethnic minorities.

There a lot more reasons for this than what you are stating here (it is a multi-factorial problem). I suggest you do not get into this discussion since it is not on topic, and you don't really know what you are talking about.

 

[The Guard]

The hell? If anything, I would have thought people would have taken exception to me thinking the Jack Black GL script was funny.

I don't know what criminology has to do with story writing. Are you sure you are a criminologist?

No, I'm in insurance, actually. I said I majored in criminology in college.

Your figures fail to mention that 36% were white.

So...what you're driving at is that 64 percent of the criminals were not white. Which was more or less my whole point, if you will recall.

And where, pray tell, is it written that I need to mention the percentage of whites, in the context of my statement? 36% of criminals being white has absolutely no bearing on how many criminals are "minorities", which was my entire point.

Allow me to repeat my rather simple point:

As a criminology major...there's a reason that many criminals are portrayed as "minorities". At least as of circa 2000, many criminals ARE "minorities". This is a stereotype that unfortunately has it's basis in statistical fact. Especially in larger, more urban cities. Now, are many criminals white as well? Yes, but look at the races and ethnicities that jails and prisons are full of. The poor, and the "minorities".

This was my point. Can you invalidate it simply because I didn't put what percentage of criminals are white? The numbers have probably changed since then, but obviously not much. Are you really going to quibble because I didn't say "Many criminals are also white"?

Oh...wait. I did say that.

So what's your issue, exactly? The implication should be obvious, but apparently you're going to get upset because I forgot to mention what percentage "many" equals, despite the fact that it is, wait for it...IRRELEVANT in context. The percentage of whites in jail, last I checked, is still less than the combined percentage of minorities in jail. Therefore, my statement was, and remains, a valid one.

In fact the highest proportion of the prison population comes from both the white and black races.

So? What does that have to do with anything in context?

Thus, it is erroneous to conclude that most criminals are Hispanic (of which an even smaller number are drug dealers) since they are outnumbered by whites and African Americans.

It's already been pointed out to you, but just for the hell of it...I want you to show me where I said "most criminals are hispanic". On what planet would I state that 19% of criminals are Hispanic and THEN say that most criminals were Hispanic?

Furthermore, the following two tables above came directly from Bureau of Justice statistical reports (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cpus98.pdf and http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/jim07.pdf). They indicate that whites have been right up there in population along with their black cohorts.

Hey, that's great. Add the percentage of non white prisoners together. See how that compares to the percentage of white prisoners.

Also, this data only pertains to the prison population (of less than 3 million) in the United States (it doesn't even cover criminals who have not been incarcerated).

Fair enough. Let's look at arrest records. You seem to have the most recent statistics handy, so I'll let you handle that.

Half the audience for this film will coming from foreign countries where they have a different understanding of the demographics of prisoners in jails.

So what? I don't ***** about cultural differences in a foreign film when I watch it. Does their "different understanding of the demographics of prisoners in jails" somehow make the portrayal of crime in the US by Hollywood any less inaccurate?

You are being very misleading, sir, with your post.

Misleading about what, exactly?

You are trying to paint a picture that poses white people as superior sine (as you are impling) "white people don't go to jail as much as minorities" and that is not necessarily the case. This behavior is commonly known as racism and you have fallen prey to being guilty of it.

You know, I'm not even going to pretend I care about defending myself of such ridiculous accusations.

That's a matter of opinion. What is a fact is that The Guard has no credibility for his bogus statistics.

How are my statistics bogus?

Even YOUR, much newer and likely more accurate, statistics, essentially prove the point I was trying to make.

He didn't have to. By his not disclosing the statistic on the white population in his post, he left the impression that there were no white people in jails and hence the subsequent impression that they were better (superior) to the other demographics.

Only a blithering idiot would think that, in the context of this discussion, that that is the impression I meant to leave. Here's a hint...I didn't mention the percentage of inmates who are white because I don't care. Because it's completely and totally irrelevant to this discussion involving Hollywood's portrayal of criminality and minorities in that context.

Also lumping minorities all into one demographic is another ploy to make it look like something else.

No, it's exactly what it is. It's not a ploy, and I'm not trying to be sneaky or secretive about it. Lumping minorities into one demographic is exactly what I meant to do.

The truth of the matter is that the residents in U.S. jails are mostly whites and African Americans (making up more than 80% of the population). His figures were even wrong in his post. Don't try to defend this guy.

I'm not in the least bit interested in whether or not whites make up a significant portion of the inmates in US prisons. I'm interested in why Hollywood portrays many criminals as minorities. Statistics show that most criminals in jails are minorities.

Don't defend me for what? What exactly did I do that was so horrible? Make a statement that is flat out true?.

 

[solidsnake86]

I have a degree in criminology as well and really minorities make up a large percentage in prisons compared to their percentage in the actual population. So lets say in Canada aboriginals make up 2 percent of the population, but in prisons are 10 percent of the prison population (just made this up), it doesnt mean that they commit more crimes than white people, its disproportionate in regards to the population. In reality, race plays a role in unfair trials but poverty is another, if not more, important factor which basically limits the access to justice and the ability of someone to be represented justly.

Secondly statistics are just a general indicator but really if you exam them they aren't very telling. Do police patrol upper class neighbourhoods as often as lower class ones, no they don't. Are poorer children thrown in jail for marijuana consumption and seen as drug addicts or dealers whereas richer ones get passed off as it "just being a phase". As a criminoloy major Guard you should know better than to use them to say many "criminals" are minorities without clearly defining what your refering to.

 

[IDrawDeadPeople]

Yeah, I don't get the "too sci-fi" aspect either. Heck, it's not like GL is particularly "hard" sci-fi anyways. It's intergalactic cops with a ring that can create impressive constructs, not 2001: A Space Odyssey or Blade Runner. There's a lot more in common between GL and Star Wars than with those two examples.

I also think the intergalactic corps is a nice multi-cultural shorthand metaphor. Why shouldn't that appeal across race lines?

Just to be clear, I don't believe what "I said", either, which is why I emphasized 'POSSIBLY'.

I don't think the character is anything less than remarkable, and if done right, could blow the minds of audiences, across the board.

However, I don't really know how it will be percieved/received.

I do, however, believe what I stated about my lack of belief in theatres teeming with overly sensitive Latino mothers, sobbing at the "racism" in a dead, unidentified character the way I was screaming at the screen when I went to see Daredevil and they had an Irish Catholic fall asleep drunk in front of his tv... and then had Bullseye make his first appearance as an Irish bloke (like me) in A PUB! Listening to HOUSE OF PAIN!!! OMGZERZ!

He could even drink a pint and do other things at the same time! It was humiliating to be in that theatre, knowing that everyone's eyes were on me for being one of those Irish drunks who blasts "Jump Around" in my car.

I was going to call the Irish Anti-Defamation group and get them to sue and make me a lot of money for my heartache.

But, we don't actually have a group like that.

 

[Evil Twin]

Too much time has been spent on this already. Especially when El Mayimbe doesn't give the source of his "statistical fact" about meth dealers being predominantly white. (And, my quick research, indicates that "statistical fact" is, at best, outdated, and the latest statistics say that Mexican drug cartels control the majority of the meth supply, not white guys making the stuff in bathtubs.)

And, personally, it's not a big issue to me since we don't know if it's important that the character is a drug dealer or just some random unfortunate character. There's no elaboration in the review to determine what his role is supposed to be. So, there's a dead Latino drug dealer in the movie, and that's important why?

The rest sounds good enough. I like that Oa and Earth based opponents are in the movie. That's an effective way to show the parameters within which GL operates. And we've never really had a cosmic villain in modern superhero movies, with the possible exception of the Galactus cloud, so that's something that if pulled off is something the audience hasn't seen before. I do wish we'd get an idea of the motivation of Hector Hammond though. What's his goal and motivation?

 

[IDrawDeadPeople]

So, there's a dead Latino drug dealer in the movie, and that's important why?

The rest sounds good enough. I like that Oa and Earth based opponents are in the movie. That's an effective way to show the parameters within which GL operates. And we've never really had a cosmic villain in modern superhero movies, with the possible exception of the Galactus cloud, so that's something that if pulled off is something the audience hasn't seen before. I do wish we'd get an idea of the motivation of Hector Hammond though. What's his goal and motivation?

For all of my farce-posting, I just want to say that this is pretty much what I think of this "issue".

It's a pretty useless cause to be outraged over a cameo.

I said it with jokes a few pages ago, but I'm sorta serious... if we can't risk offending a particular group of people by casting humans in criminal/villainous roles, we would, theoretically, have to eliminate antagonism from our stories completely, which lends itself to rendering the idea of needing a 'hero' useless.

I guess, in short form, what I'm getting at is that, in order to live in a race-profiling vacuum, we should get to a place where we don't actually believe that people sell drugs, whether they are white, black, Latino, Arab, bipedal, oxygen breathing, etc.

It's such a non-issue that if thought through too deeply, borders on banality.

 

[Saint]

Yes, this is not how the discussion went down.

It is exactly how our conversation went down.

I said that Jordan may be a hothead (in the script) but not a rogue (a villain, which is my definition and the common one). Your definition of rogue does not coin him as a villain so why are we talking about this?

We're talking about it because I was the one to call him a rogue--and you disagreed, saying "he is not a villain." I then clarified for you that rogue is not synonymous with villain, making your comment that "he is not a villain" irrelevant to my branding him as a rogue. I have already explained this.

 

[Saint]

He didn't have to. By his not disclosing the statistic on the white population in his post, he left the impression that there were no white people in jails and hence the subsequent impression that they were better (superior) to the other demographics.

Bull. The only people who would have assumed that are morons. Any one with a brain knows that when a person says "64% of criminals are minorities," that they are implying that the remaining 36% of prisoners are white--BY VIRTUE OF THAT BEING THE ONLY POSSIBILITY.

Guard also said outright in his post that many prisoners are wqhite. Perhaps you should read before you complain.

Also lumping minorities all into one demographic is another ploy to make it look like something else.

Nonsense: he pointed out the percentages for each group specifically; he didn't lump them together.

There a lot more reasons for this than what you are stating here

Yes, that's right, but getting into all of them was not required by my point.

(it is a multi-factorial problem). I suggest you do not get into this discussion since it is not on topic,

Funny: it was okay for you to talk about it when you were responding to Guard, but it's not okay for me to talk about it when responding to you?

 

[dnno1]

Bull. The only people who would have assumed that are morons. Any one with a brain knows that when a person says "64% of criminals are minorities," that they are implying that the remaining 36% of prisoners are white--BY VIRTUE OF THAT BEING THE ONLY POSSIBILITY.

No, they would only look at the statistic that most prisoners are minorities and wouldn't have a clue what the white population was without having to grab a paper and pencil. Note that in the Bureau of Justice reports they always list the white population. In fact when always reporting statistical data you always list all possible outcomes whether it is implied or not. The fact remains that the majority of prisoners are white and African American (making up over 80%) since they have the largest numbers in the prison population. If it is fair game to lump a group of races together and say they are the majority in a particular population, then lets be fair and group the demographics with the highest populations. Face it he was misleading in reporting the facts. Hispanics make up about 15% of people in jails and that isn't counting all the criminals anyway. It is a bad statistic.

Guard also said outright in his post that many prisoners are wqhite. Perhaps you should read before you complain.

No, I caputured his quote in my post and he hasn't changed his original statement. He said that most criminals are minorities and nothing else.

Nonsense: he pointed out the percentages for each group specifically; he didn't lump them together.

When you say most criminals are minorities, you are lumping them together (African American, Hispanic, and other).

Yes, that's right, but getting into all of them was not required by my point.

You are not everyone.

Funny: it was okay for you to talk about it when you were responding to Guard, but it's not okay for me to talk about it when responding to you?

I was not trying to explain why the statistics are the way they are. You were.

 

[marcvader]

This race depiction in a "comic book movie" talk is getting monotonous and a bit sad guys. Enough of the he said she said garbage and let's get back to talking GL.

 

[dnno1]

The hell? If anything, I would have thought people would have taken exception to me thinking the Jack Black GL script was funny.

I didn't read it so I wouldn't know.

No, I'm in insurance, actually. I said I majored in criminology in college.

So...what you're driving at is that 64 percent of the criminals were not white. Which was more or less my whole point, if you will recall.

And where, pray tell, is it written that I need to mention the percentage of whites, in the context of my statement? 36% of criminals being white has absolutely no bearing on how many criminals are "minorities", which was my entire point.

Allow me to repeat my rather simple point:

As a criminology major...there's a reason that many criminals are portrayed as "minorities". At least as of circa 2000, many criminals ARE "minorities". This is a stereotype that unfortunately has it's basis in statistical fact. Especially in larger, more urban cities. Now, are many criminals white as well? Yes, but look at the races and ethnicities that jails and prisons are full of. The poor, and the "minorities".

This was my point. Can you invalidate it simply because I didn't put what percentage of criminals are white? The numbers have probably changed since then, but obviously not much. Are you really going to quibble because I didn't say "Many criminals are also white"?

Oh...wait. I did say that.

So what's your issue, exactly? The implication should be obvious, but apparently you're going to get upset because I forgot to mention what percentage "many" equals, despite the fact that it is, wait for it...IRRELEVANT in context. The percentage of whites in jail, last I checked, is still less than the combined percentage of minorities in jail. Therefore, my statement was, and remains, a valid one.

So? What does that have to do with anything in context?

First of all, none of your figures match the ones that have been reported by the BoJ and you do not site a source, so that would invalidate it (i.e. make it bogus). Secondly you are quoting figures based on criminals who got caught and are in prison. This does not account for all or most criminals, which you stated in your post. Finally, based on your numbers, the largest proportion of mixed races would come from the white and African American figures. As an example if all of the prisoners were in one facility and I were to go to visit one randomly it would be more probable that I would see one that was either white (non-Hispanic) or African American (a close to 80% chance) than I would just any minority (a 64% chance). I think you should stick to selling insurance.

 

[Saint]

Well, I wrote up a response, it then I realized the problem: you are simply incapable of understanding anything that is said to you. You have misinterpreted (and misrepresented) every word that has been written in response to your ridiculous posts. I enjoy debate, but when the opposing party is completely incapable of understanding what is said, what's the point? Your ability to misunderstand everything with truly alarming consistency simply disables any opportunity for discussion. It's like a superpower. A very unfortunate superpower.

 

[Mister J]

This race depiction in a "comic book movie" talk is getting monotonous and a bit sad guys. Enough of the he said she said garbage and let's get back to talking GL.

This man has the right idea. :gl:

Those of you who wish to continue playing the statistics game as it pertains to criminality, or whatever spawned this ridiculous race side topic, are welcome to do so via PMs. It doesn't require a general audience.

 

[The Guard]

I have a degree in criminology as well and really minorities make up a large percentage in prisons compared to their percentage in the actual population.

True. But criminals make up a smaller percentage of the general population, too. What does that stat have to be with what percentage of minorities are criminals in relation to non minorities, out of all the criminals in the US?

I'm not arguing anything about how likely someone of a given race is to be a criminal VS another race. That's getting into dangerous territory, although the numbers exist for that as well. I'm stating simple numbers about what percentages of criminals are minorities.

So lets say in Canada aboriginals make up 2 percent of the population, but in prisons are 10 percent of the prison population (just made this up), it doesnt mean that they commit more crimes than white people, its disproportionate in regards to the population. In reality, race plays a role in unfair trials but poverty is another, if not more, important factor which basically limits the access to justice and the ability of someone to be represented justly.

As I said before...fair enough. Find the arrest records. Let's see who is committing crimes.

Secondly statistics are just a general indicator but really if you exam them they aren't very telling. Do police patrol upper class neighbourhoods as often as lower class ones, no they don't. Are poorer children thrown in jail for marijuana consumption and seen as drug addicts or dealers whereas richer ones get passed off as it "just being a phase". As a criminoloy major Guard you should know better than to use them to say many "criminals" are minorities without clearly defining what your refering to.

God invented brains and keyboards so people, if they were confused or stupid, could ask for clarification of unclear concepts.

Of course statistics are just a general indicator. Why do I need to clearly define anything in a casual conversation? How in god's name should I "know better" than to make a vague and yet true statement like "many criminals are minorities" without clearly definining it? That's absurd. "Many" means "many", last I checked. Do you think Hollywood cares about the actual, researched-until-the-end-of-time truth? No. Hollywood cares about what society perceives as the truth. I can't help it that there are "college professors" lurking among us.

As I said before...fair enough. Find me the arrest records for something society doesn't usually give a pass for...like violent crime. Let's see who is committing the crimes that are actually being documented.

It's such a non-issue that if thought through too deeply, borders on banality.

Exactly.

No, they would only look at the statistic that most prisoners are minorities and wouldn't have a clue what the white population was without having to grab a paper and pencil.

What? Can't most people add 40 percent to 19 percent, come up with 59 percent of prisoners who are minorities and realize that minorities, statistically speaking, based on the numbers provided, make up a greater percentage of prisoners than whites do?

Note that in the Bureau of Justice reports they always list the white population. In fact when always reporting statistical data you always list all possible outcomes whether it is implied or not. The fact remains that the majority of prisoners are white and African American (making up over 80%) since they have the largest numbers in the prison population. If it is fair game to lump a group of races together and say they are the majority in a particular population, then lets be fair and group the demographics with the highest populations. Face it he was misleading in reporting the facts. Hispanics make up about 15% of people in jails and that isn't counting all the criminals anyway. It is a bad statistic.

Statistics clearly show (based on your numbers) that "minorities", as I have grouped them together, are the majority in the prison populations. I'm not going to make apologies for that. If this was a thesis paper, I might care about "proper" reporting standards, for those poor educated professors and statisticians who are too stupid to add percentages and figure this stuff out. As this is not a thesis paper, and rather a relatively casual message board, I do not. The fact remains that, based on your own statistics, statistically speaking, non minorities make up more of the prison population than whites do. Not one ounce of your "indignation" at my poor statistic reporting habits matters in that context.

No, I caputured his quote in my post and he hasn't changed his original statement. He said that most criminals are minorities and nothing else. When you say most criminals are minorities, you are lumping them together (African American, Hispanic, and other).

Oh, no, I have been "quoted". Yes, I lumped them together. I said "minorities", and I stand by that, and the point behind it was obvious.

I never said "most criminals are minorities" (though given the vagueness of the word "minority", that might well be true on some level). I said more minorities are in prison than whites. Based no your statistics, this is the case.

First of all, none of your figures match the ones that have been reported by the BoJ and you do not site a source, so that would invalidate it (i.e. make it bogus).

Why in god's name would I have to cite a source? This isn't a research paper that I'm handing in for a grade. It's me making an offhand comment on a message board.

Regardless, when you began to whine, I then used your statistics. And look at that, the outcome remained the same. So now, you should be questioning your sources, it seems.

Secondly you are quoting figures based on criminals who got caught and are in prison.

Uh huh. That's true. How about that? My statistics are for criminals who are incarcerated. How does that make the statistics themselves, for that group of people bogus?

This does not account for all or most criminals, which you stated in your post.

I do not recall stating anything of the kind. Care to show me where I said "Most criminals are minorities"? I believe I only said "many criminals are", and then pointed out the statistics that backed this up. The fact that over half the criminals in US prisons ARE. That would tend to be "many", in the context of criminals and their racial makeup, wouldn't you say?

Finally, based on your numbers, the largest proportion of mixed races would come from the white and African American figures.

When did I say a damn thing about which two random numbers, added together, form the largest percentage of incarcerated criminals?

Do me a favor. Total the number of umm...whites, blacks, living jello monster bandits and umm...space alien criminals. That has to have some bearing on...something, right? I mean, it must because you seem to feel you can just attack random points I've made, regardless of their context. Ah, random numbers, and the people who love them.

As an example if all of the prisoners were in one facility and I were to go to visit one randomly it would be more probable that I would see one that was either white (non-Hispanic) or African American (a close to 80% chance) than I would just any minority (a 64% chance). I think you should stick to selling insurance.

What bearing does that have on my statement, or it's meaning or relevance? What does "how likely we are to see someone of one race or another at any given time if we walk into a prison" have to do with how much of the population is a minority? You're creating a completely random straw argument.

And apparently, you should stick to being rude for the sake of being rude. The hell did I ever do to you? You realize, don't you, that despite all your "holier-than-thou" statistics ********, none of your points have the slightest bearing on the discussion that was taking place.

 

[Keyser Soze]

This man has the right idea. :gl:

Those of you who wish to continue playing the statistics game as it pertains to criminality, or whatever spawned this ridiculous race side topic, are welcome to do so via PMs. It doesn't require a general audience.

Thank the good Lord. Just when I thought this thread was DOA.

So with the race argument hopefully killed (at last!) let's put an end to the "rogue" nonsense too. Dnno1, you could have put an end to about two pages' worth of pointless conflict by saying "Oh, so rogue doesn't always mean villain? Sorry, my bad, didn't realise that." End of. Move on. Nobody would have thought less of you for an innocent mix-up. But it seems like they do now.

Can't we just talk about the script?