Why are American cities so murderous compared to European ones...

Not even that, maybe a second place, brazil has the most retarded niggers as you can see...

Attached: homicides-by-country.jpg (1566x894, 141K)

St Louis has a population of ~300,000 whereas London's is ~ 8 million. You are comparing 50% black population to less than 12.5%. A higher proportion of blacks around each other means a higher likelihood of chimpouts.

Attached: we_have_a_black_problem_not_a_murder_problem.png (649x2316, 667K)

Nigger+Gun=increased diversity

Murder rates are calculated per capita, you absolute moron. St Louis is 50% black, while London is 13%.

Attached: state_murder_rate_and_demographics_with_data.jpg (3917x5178, 2.44M)

Because every single.one of those cities is filled with niggers

because diversity is strength and our strength is reflected in our strong statistics.

What's "R" and "p" mathematically?

Am I understanding that graphic correctly, Brazil's murder rate is equal to all the blue highlighted countries combined? If so that is fucking mental.

You’ve obviously never had the pleasure of being personally acquainted with black america.

>Murder rates are calculated per capita

Obviously they are. That's how you can COMPARE St. Louis and London to begin with. Now consider that London has problems like international crime syndicates which are absent in St. Louis, and St. Louis's murder rate looks even worse in context.

Attached: US Homicide Rates 2017 + Guam.png (902x848, 62K)

this chart is all bullshit. columbia sc has the highest murder rate for like 6 years running. like half a school district went missing 1 year. they told the people without kids (no longer in possession of a child) to move to another state

they dont even report the gun related homicides any more and we didnt have cops for a year and a half

Welp, that’s the power of highly concentrated sub-saharan african genes

oops. didn't have anything labeled.

Attached: state_murder_rate_and_demographics_with_data.jpg (3917x5178, 2.59M)

>but attributing 50% of the crime to a 5% of the population is unreal and uncompatible with reality.
Why, because you say so? The reality is nearly all violent crime is committed by young men (age 13 - 35 or so) so you can exclude geezers, chicks, and kiddies of all races.
> Let's say we have a total of a 5% of the US population composed of criminal blacks.
Actually it's far lower. You've crafted yourself a non-sequitur here. You've labeled EVERY young black man a criminal.

>The value of R is: 0.938
For anyone who doesn't realize, that basically means that it's nearly a perfect correlation. Anything over .7 is going to be a VERY strong correlation. A correlation of 1.0 would be something like tracking time spent driving and tracking gallons of gasoline burnt on a flat road. More driving simply means more gasoline consumption. A value of 0 would mean that the two things have no effect on eachother. And a -1 would mean that while one goes up, the other reliably goes down always. So it's a scale of -1 to 1.
Basically, looking at the race of a city is a almost as good of a predictor of crime as trying to guess how many miles a car traveled on a flat road by looking at how much gas was consumed.
dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r/

p-value is something we calculate to determine the likelyhood that what we're looking at is simply a factor of random chance.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value

Lazy fucking southerners should have picked their own damn cotton.

under 5% responsible for most of killings lmao . nice life in america enjoy niggers, i still havent seen a nigger in my life only on internet, for you that is luxury

How is that incompatible with reality? Most of the population doesn't commit violent crimes at all, so a very small number of repeat offenders make the numbers.

Just make sure you don't fall for it too. Until your generation has put safegaurds in place to keep Estonia as a land for your people, there will always be people pressuring you.

Attached: 1510863297520.png (633x744, 819K)

Jews

Ok so R is correlation. Gonna read into what p is. I agree, 0.938 is extremelly strong.

Not because of white people. Blacks and browns mostly.

Europe has those too now. Heck I think there are African cities with a lower murder rate

i want estonian gf

Attached: 72808d0b.jpg (1920x1431, 215K)

First of all I also hate niggers, you Americans have a very hard time telling the difference between blunting the edges of terms and nuances, and actual shilling.
>Why, because you say so?
No, again I have mentioned mathematics and poulation density ratio. I mean, you can into numbers and logic right?
>You've labeled EVERY young black man a criminal.
Well, exactly my point man. For that 13/50 statistic to work you would need to have every single young black man commiting crimes all day, every day. I mean I get how the Reagan admin did a great job with unconspicuous apartheids and racial profiling to fuck niggers, but my concern is about how the fuck are your niggers such committed criminals, or who the fuck is pampering with the data as if we needed tweaked statistics to despise niggers.

It would be interesting to see what the crime rate was for our lovely black population before the communists flooded their streets with smack in the 60’s. They actually had a chance to live in relative peace.
>waiting for someone to look up those stats because I’m too lazy to open a new window

its 2006 year document that was leaked in 2011 wikileaks its already broadcasted in our news lmao

>For that 13/50 statistic to work you would need to have every single young black man commiting crimes all day, every day.
It wouldn't need to be that high. But obviously, their crime rate is extremely high.
> who the fuck is pampering with the data
It's not..?

How and why did you choose that significance level?

>1488
So, my friend. Did your countrymen respond by putting into place a constitutional amendment to ensure that Estonia is a place for the Estonian people. Or did they all just say "hah, that will never happen" and do nothing, like we did?

It's almost entirely blacks and latinos. Look up the statistics. If you remove the minority statistics, violence in the states isn't high at all. Including guns. If you remove all the gun crimes caused by blacks, the US starts looking about the same as everyone else.

You're asking about the dude who posted the image, right? He took N (the number of cities present in the data) and the R score and used it to come up with the p-value of .001778. Just look at his image. It even has the url to the Pearson calculator.

Explain this like you’re talking to an utter retard.

well, again if we are saying that roughly 5% of niggers commit half of crimes, that is 1% commiting a 10% of all crime. So it's either some dude wanted to pamper with the data to make niggers look worse (as if it was neccessary at all) or we cannot even start to fathom the deplorable lifestlye of an American negro. Taking that stadistic as literal also means accepting how most crimes are black on black.

Sauce, please.

Attached: Tyrone.jpg (866x959, 56K)

Why the FUCK have you not joined this server yet?
discordapp.com\invite\CEmErv

pMV

>With unwavering faith and a steadfast will to strengthen and develop the state which embodies the inextinguishable right of the people of Estonia to national self-determination and which was proclaimed on 24 February 1918, which is founded on liberty, justice and the rule of law, which is created to protect the peace and defend the people against aggression from the outside, and which forms a pledge to present and future generations for their social progress and welfare, which must guarantee the preservation of the Estonian people, the Estonian language and the Estonian culture through the ages, the people of Estonia, on the basis of § 1 of the Constitution which entered into force in 1938, and in the referendum held on 28 June 1992, have adopted the following Constitution

Yeah but he has to choose a level at which he finds the value significant rigt? The 0.01, 0.05 and 0.10. The p-value as I understand it is a messure of how probable it would be if there was no nigger problem? If it was just chance? Am I getting this right?

Never thought of this possibility.

Attached: 0d41808f60af8871fa122b3b0f37ab1b.gif (500x333, 2.92M)

Thanks for the subtle redpill thread on the blacks, OP.

If you have to ask that question, looking at that list, and dont know the answer, your a shitposting baitfag.

>Basically, looking at the race of a city is a almost as good of a predictor of crime as trying to guess how many miles a car traveled on a flat road by looking at how much gas was consumed.

So .01, .05 and .10 selections under the calc are just different levels of significance, and do not effect the calculation that is being done based on N and R. All it does is change that last line "The result is significant at" [your selection]

Here's what these selections actually mean
If something is 0.10 it's fairly weak. But if your calculation beats 0.10, you /might/ be on to something, and should consider seeing if you can try and increase N with additional statistics. it's like a 10% chance your conclusion is simply random chance.
If it's .05 then that's statistically significant in the scientific community. The result should be considered as likely to be true, but continued to be tested. 5% it's random chance.
.01 is a very strict standard, is also statistically significant in the scientific community, and a conclusion with this much certainty is going to get a lot of attention. it's only 1% chance that his is due to random chance.
.001 or less is considered statistically highly significant and have less than 1 in 1000 chance of being wrong.

As long as they keep feeling that way, and it wont be undone, that's good to hear. Is there a method in your constitution to make amendments, possibly to this very section?

So it is a statistical chance of it being random chance? Is it exact or a rule of thumb? Either way those results are really good. Thanks for the explanations user btw.

>So it is a statistical chance of it being random chance?
Yeah, pretty much, I explained it weird because it's late and I'm thinking of going to bed.
So what the P value in this case actually means more correctly:
IF THERE IS NO CONNECTION between race and crime (this is the null hypothesis). But for some reason we're seeing this .938 correlation across N (7 cities), there is a 00.17% chance that we still could have gotten this result even when no correlation existed. So, are we living in the 99.83% world where race and crime do correlate? Or the 00.17% world where it does not correlate but we got this erroneous result?

So basically when the p value is low enough, we can simply reject the null hypothesis all together. So, it ultimately is a rule of thumb, so-to-speak, because we could decide that rejecting the null hypothesis can be done at p = 0.05 or at p = 0.01. We could also to it at p = 0.5 but we're going to end up on a lot of fucking wind goose chases. If we are only willing to reject the null hypothesis at p = 0.00001 then we're going to struggle to get anything that statistically significant.
I would suggest you look up more on it if you're interested. There's probably good youtube videos on this. I'm not an expert on statistics, I just read scientific papers (mostly on nutrition and health) as an interest, which is how I learned some of this. and I'm going to bed.

Well whatever it is, it certainly cant be niggers. Everyone knows that the United States is far more white than for example Sweden, the UK, France or Germany.