Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

M&M Math

Care to compare that to actual census data?

Then you're counting wrong. Any gang that considers race important is racially motivated. Many "inner city" gangs are large organizations.
Many white supremacist groups are essentially gangs. They worry about "territory" and drug money just as much as their political agenda.

So then we are moving the goal posts? Because never before has street crime been considered the equal of the KKK. Maybe the Aryan Brotherhood, although they have an explicit racial motivation. Your average black street gang does not. Beating up a white guy on the corner because you're poor and stupid and a thug is not the same as:
1. Going into people's houses and dragging them out to be lynched.
2. Kidnapping them, killing them and leaving their bodies on the road side or swinging from a tree.
3. Burning their businesses in a non-riot situation.
4. Burning crosses in their front yard to intimidate them
5. Going into a place of worship and opening fire.

A) You're cherry picking your groups. Historically, whites could get away with it and not blacks. Thats not the case anymore. It doesn't help that you're ignoring a lot of other sources because you deem them a lesser class of criminal.

The heyday for militant black organizations was in the 70s to late 80s. That was over 30 years ago. I'd say history is on my side on this one.

B) No, it really isn't moving the goal posts. You really should consider what most gangs are, organized criminal organizations. And those often fall along racial lines, and target others of an opposing race. Irish and Italian mobs are a good example.

Groups organized to commit crime for profit. Not, repeat, not, groups organized to keep their neighborhoods racially pure or to punish people of another race.

C) Because white groups had the ability to exist before black groups. You're choosing history over the modern trends. Things change.

Again, how many black supremacist movements are still active today versus white ones? The list of current groups for whites is lengthier and more important (subjectively and in the estimation of the FBI) than black ones.

D) Lets assume you're analysis is right, whites control the world and the blacks are disadvantaged in every way. Thats motivation. The average white person in this instance doesn't need to maintain anything, they have the advantage. They gain nothing with violence.

#1, please don't exaggerate what I said. I said blacks are disadvantaged in several ways, and I specified which ones. I did not say "whites control the world and blacks are disadvantaged in every way."
#2, are you honestly going to try and say that groups who benefit from the status quo don't use violence in order to enforce it? Have you ever even read about South Africa and the Apartheid?

[wierd]

From the FBI report:

This year's hate crimes report is the first to include bias categories of gender and gender identity, as required by the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2009. The report shows 0.5 percent of victims were targeted because of gender identity while 0.4 percent were targeted because of gender bias.

Of the 5,814 known offenders, 52.4 percent were white while 24.3 percent were black, the report shows. Race was unknown for 14.8 percent of the offenders. Among the 2,527 offenders for whom age was identified, most -- 68 percent -- were 18 or older. The report also shows that nearly a third of hate crimes occurred in or near residences or homes.

From the census people, the US vital statistics concerning race look like this:

White alone, percent definition and source info White alone, percent, 2013 (a)    77.7%
Black or African American alone, percent definition and source info Black or African American alone, percent, 2013 (a)    13.2%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent definition and source info American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, 2013 (a)    1.2%
Asian alone, percent definition and source info Asian alone, percent, 2013 (a)    5.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent definition and source info Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, 2013 (a)    0.2%
Two or More Races, percent definition and source info Two or More Races, percent, 2013    2.4%
Hispanic or Latino, percent definition and source info Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2013 (b)    17.1%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent definition and source info White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2013    62.6%

In order for the statistic of black race crime purpetrators to be half that of white purpetrators, given that white people outnumber black people over 5:1, there has to be a significant increase in the baseline prevalence of racism amongst black people.

[Bauglir]

You do realize that data's for hate crimes in general, not just for race crimes. Notably, we might do better with the previous year for our purposes, since it won't contain gender and gender identity statistics.

[nenjin]

In order for the statistic of black race crime purpetrators to be half that of white purpetrators, given that white people outnumber black people over 5:1, there has to be a significant increase in the baseline prevalence of racism amongst black people.

So noted, along with Bauglir's statement. My sense would be that the # of black people involved in crime period has something to do with that number

[Bauglir]

To be fair, evidently less than 1% of the relevant crimes fall under the gender block, so even if that group was entirely black perpetrators it doesn't exactly change the conclusion. It's just that it's a very broad category that needs further disambiguation before we can start making the claims wierd wants us to make.

[nenjin]

Well, I can't deny basic mathematics when it comes to the data. I have my suspicions (overreporting, underreporting, misattribution, misclassification, etc..) but, in the absence of better data, it would appear that black people are more likely to commit a hate crime, based on these two sources. It still doesn't jive with what I feel, but as I've said, feels aren't data.

[Aqizzar]

Last I checked, you dont find other ethnic groups destroying their own towns over racial hatred.

Just because somebody had to shove their foot in their mouth with this dumbass statement again: white people rioting for no damn reason.

The reasons / stated reasons / underlying reasons / etc for how and why riots happen are a spurious at best marker of demographic motivations.

[wierd]

Well played, but not quite on the same scale.

The LA riots burned huge areas of the city, sufficient that the city was declared a national disaster area.
The reported incidences in that article were highly localized around the events in question.

The same was true for Furgeson and Baltimore.

As for motivation, most of those white riots were caused by sports events going south for some of the spectators. Think about what sports actually represent, in terms of allegory.  They represent group identities, and the sporting event is a contest-- a bloodless war to prove superiority. When a team loses spectacularly, it is a major hit to the group identity of the fans, who are unable to cope with this situation. This triggers violence.  One of the reasons I despise organised sports.

Ultimately, it is the same root cause between circumstances; erosion/denial of sense of superiority through the group identity.  "My team lost; I am angry!" is basically the same thing semantically as "My ethnic group took a serious PR hit today, I am angry!" 

The difference is the scale.  A team's fans are a significantly smaller portion of the population than an ethnic group is, and the real reprocussions of a team losing are significantly less than those from an ethnic group being short-shrifted. The riots over game outcomes are suitably smaller in scale, lockstep with that difference in total severity of total reprocussion.

People are just stupid to hold onto group identities like this.  They ALWAYS cause problems like this. (Religion, Race, Political affiliation, etc.)

[darkrider2]

One google search: worlds biggest riots

Right, so black riots are more widespread and destructive than white riots. But man, what we should all really be concerned about are those Irish riots. [/sarcasm]

[nenjin]

The difference is the scale.

The difference is one group has its members extra-judicially get the shit beat out of them and/or killed, the other lost or won a sporting event. No rioting is good for society, but to say that one is simply larger and more destructive than the other is pretty much ignoring the context in which both occurred.

That said, this derail has gone on long enough. If I have anything else to say about it, I'll be taking it over to the Race Thread.

[FearfulJesuit]

The Onion on point.

[mainiac]

No rioting is good for society,

Not if you abscribe to the theory of altruistic punishment.

I'll be you are familiar with the dictator game.  Well imagine a twist on the dictator game: give both players 50 dollars then let the dictator steal from the second player.  However for each dollar the dictator steals, the second player loses two dollars.  For example if the dictator takes everything they get 75 dollars and the second player hryd nothing.  On the other hand, if the dictator refrains from stealing both players get 50 each.  After the dictator makes their offer the second player is always allowed to chose spite and say both players get nothing.

Now imagine that you are going to play the dictator game with someone today and again tomorrow and so forth for forever.  You dont switch roles, if you are the dictator the first day you are always the dictator.  What strategy is the most good for society?  Well ask what strategy maximizes total profits to both players?

If you are the dictator your utilitarian strategy is obvious, you never steal and both players always split $100.  Utility is maximized. Any deviation from this strategy on your part hurts total profits by the players.

But what if you are the second player?  If you chose spite it reduces total income by at least 75.  If your goal is to maximize total income that's is counter productive in the short term.  But what if you never chose spite?  The dictator would take all the money for themself and you'd end up costing the "society" of two players $25 each round by letting them get away with it.  The best strategy is a mixed strategy, the more greedy the dictator gets the less it costs you to punish them and the more you gain by keeping them honest.  The less greedy the dictator is the better it is to accept a little bit of greed.  If we assume credible ultimatiums and probabilitic strategies, the stable equilibrium emerges where exactly equal amounts of money are getting wasted by the dictator stealing and the second player spiting every once in a while.

Then just take that basic concept and apply it to the much more complex relationships of humanity and voila, suddenly it makes sense why riots and rebellions lead to more prosperous societies by burning shit down and killing people.

[nenjin]

Oh I get that in the end, screw it, you're not benefiting from playing by the rules of society. Upsetting the status quo and so forth. It was worded too strongly. I just don't generally subscribe to the "burn this mother down" theory of social change. You effectively sacrifice bystanders on the altar of your cause. Which I suppose makes an interesting corollary to my wanting to encourage government surveillance to the extent domestic hate groups get more attention.

[mainiac]

You effectively sacrifice bystanders on the altar of your cause.

If you are doing that it's not altruistic punishment, it's tit for tat retaliation.  If our optimization parameter is minimizing violence then it's only altruistic punishment if increasing violence in a narrow scope lowers violence overall.

[nenjin]

It's hard to claim any level of altruism when people are running off with flatscreens, groceries and pretty much anything else in the zone. Doesn't real altruism require some higher level thinking, some unified purpose of mind? Can you really apply it to a mob mentality being exercised with indiscriminate violence? I don't doubt a lot of people can come together to serve an altruistic purpose. Riots doesn't seem like one of them though, except in a post-revisionary view. After the fact we can view it as altruistic on some level. At the moment, I don't think so. Except maybe in the most extreme Dark Knight-esqe moment of rationalization.