Print

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

[Neonivek]

Rural areas have low crime because people are generally more isolated. With people coming into contact all the time in big cities, there's more opportunity for all types of interactions - good and bad.

Unless it is in Japan or the UK... Where the crime rates are extremely high. (Joke based on two shows!)

Or you know... Dunwich.

[Rolan7]

Yeah, historically the Appalachians here have had a lot of crime per capita...  Not always reported, but exceptionally lawless.  A lot like the wild west.
Even now there's a lot of hillbilly/redneck lawlessness between the cities.

[Neonivek]

Yeah, historically the Appalachians here have had a lot of crime per capita...  Not always reported, but exceptionally lawless.  A lot like the wild west.
Even now there's a lot of hillbilly/redneck lawlessness between the cities.

Well remember also that it needs to be reported.

Given that there have been rural murderers who have managed an impressive body count simply because... well... who was there to call the police on them?

[Sheb]

That's not me saying that buddy.

[Phmcw]

Barricades are made because sadly that kind of discussion quickly attract hardcore racists.

Anytime I see a forum committing to free speech, it get invaded, and conversely, most of forum that are community-moderated turn into political circle-jerk.

[Reelya]

What are your claims?

I'm highlighting that most sources you can find around*, including the one from Reelya itself, claim mixed racial neighborhood more affected by crime than white only areas, with less correlation to income than to ethnicity (also see: large swath of low income area that are relatively low crime up in the rural north).

How about median wealth? There are other measures of how well an area is doing economically. income measures flow in / flow out of money whereas wealth measures longer term inequalities.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2015/03/26/the-racial-wealth-gap-why-a-typical-white-household-has-16-times-the-wealth-of-a-black-one/#6bc760c06c5b

The typical black household now has just 6% of the wealth of the typical white household; the typical Latino household has just 8%, according to a recent study called The Racial Wealth Gap: Why Policy Matters, by Demos, a public policy organization promoting democracy and equality, and the Institute on Assets and Social Policy.

In absolute terms, the median white household had $111,146 in wealth holdings in 2011, compared to $7,113 for the median black household and $8,348 for the median Latino household. (All figures come from the U.S. Census Bureau Survey of Income and Program Participation.)

i mean, that's a really huge glaring difference right there, and probably higher than income disparities.

http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/hcx/Muroi-Baumann_Crime.pdf
Here's an article looking and many measures, and using multiple ways of correlating the values to see which one has the best explanatory power. This is clearly better than cherry-picking only 1-2 measures, then only doing linear regression on them and calling that "proof".

[Rolepgeek]

The usual best counterargument to Reelya is that diversity causes strife because of underlying ethnic tensions that can never be fully eliminated, and that if you control for wealth, this becomes apparent.

Which may or may not be true. Doesn't justify discriminatory policies or being a dick either way.

[LoSboccacc]

http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/hcx/Muroi-Baumann_Crime.pdf

gonna read it later with interest, but beware of papers focused on curve fitting

% Hispanic . pvalue : 0.957
% over age 50 p value: 0.973

[Reelya]

Sorry, right it's r-squared we should be looking at. That's the equivalent of the "correlation" claim in the graph from The Color Of Crime 2005 you linked.

well, the measures in your image had correlations (which is r-squared) of ~0.35 which were therefore "weak".

0% indicates that the model explains none of the variability of the response data around its mean.
100% indicates that the model explains all the variability of the response data around its mean.

gonna read it later with interest, but beware of papers focused on curve fitting

Well, they fit each pair of values 5 different ways here (linear, log-linear, log-log, linear-log, quadratic), which should allay fears that they "over-fitted" the data.But for example, Median income explains crime 70-90% (r-squared of about .7 to .9 depending on the model) in all 5 of the curves they tried, even the linear model. And all other income/wealth/poverty measures tried by this university publication found at least r^2 = 0.7

For Color Of Crime to only find ones that have r^2 = 0.35 took actually effort on their part to exclude the measures of wealth that actually make sense (median wealth,  median income) in favor of "unemployment rate", which famously only measures people actively seeking work. Color of Crime is produced by people who are open advocates of racial segregation, btw, and publish articles about the inferior brains of the negros.

[Neonivek]

Who are open advocates of segregation

Ahh! Just like Extreme Liberals!

So great that the Horseshoe Theory applies so well to American Politics.

[itisnotlogical]

It's funny seeing the same argument used at both ends of the effort spectrum. Reelya used statistical analysis, cited multiple sources and looked up the authors of the paper he debunked. Neonivek takes a single sentence of that, says "no u lol" and doesn't even provide a link explaining what horseshoe theory is.

[Neonivek]

It's funny seeing the same argument used at both ends of the effort spectrum. Reelya used statistical analysis, cited multiple sources and looked up the authors of the paper he debunked. Neonivek takes a single sentence of that, says "no u lol" and doesn't even provide a link explaining what horseshoe theory is.

Well I wasn't critiquing Reelya at all. I just took a single sentence and found something funny about it... so I shared what I found funny.

Also Horseshoe theory is: "The extremes of two opposing views share more in common with each other then they do with the middle."

Something you can actually see even with non-extreme Liberalism and Conservatism.

For example the demonization of sex is both a Liberal and Conservative thing... just in different ways. We can also go into the objectification of women as well.

Extreme Conservatism and Extreme Liberalism both believe in Racial Segregation. One believes it is necessary to protect the majority, while the other believes it protects the minority... Yet both advocate racial segregation.

[TempAcc]

Nah, that's just Neo.

^
Altough one could argue that the whole buzz of months ago of crazy college students demanding "safe spaces for students of color" is just racial segregation with a prettier name, but thats a fringe opinion that doesn't represent the majority of american liberals ^{I hope}

[McTraveller]

I think the idea that it's at least a generation-to-fix problem is important. Too many people think you can magically just change entire cultures in a year or two or four or by throwing money at things.

It's all too easy to sit back from our various towers of privilege (consider: you have a computer connected to the internet, and are literate) and talk about "how we would fix things" and we probably don't even really have an idea what the problems really are let alone how the affected would consider something "fixed" in the first place.  It's important to note that our idea of "fixed" is probably not the same as theirs; thinking otherwise contributes to the friction.

[Neonivek]

Nah, that's just Neo.

^
Altough one could argue that the whole buzz of months ago of crazy college students demanding "safe spaces for students of color" is just racial segregation with a prettier name, but thats a fringe opinion that doesn't represent the majority of american liberals

It is more... Misguided.

There is a growing desire to protect "Minorities" by separating them from everyone else and not allowing the majority to interact with them. (and majority in this case... can be ANYONE!)

Which IS something some racists who advocated segregation have argued as well.

It is currently more of an extreme liberal idea but is slowly leaking into typical liberal/progressive dialog.