Print

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

[Reelya]

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

Table 7: Violent Crime Quadratic Model

Some of the Coefficients:

%Black = 3.668
%Poverty rate = 15.267
%Female = 33.411

Well, according to this analysis of data for 1000 counties over 4 years, the poverty rate correlates with violent crime 5 times as much as race, and every 1% of women correlates twice as much as that. It sounds crazy, but other studies have pointed this out too:
http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/men-commit-more-violent-crimes-when-they-are-surrounded-by-women-claims-study/

The study authors set out to investigate the assumption that societies with more men than women would suffer from “elevated levels of aggression driven by a glut of testosterone-fueled, unmarried men.” However, somewhat surprisingly, they found the exact opposite to be true, discovering that violent crime committed by males actually rises when women are in the numerical ascendancy.

To conduct their investigation, the researchers used data from the 2010 US Census to determine the sex ratio in each of the country’s 3,082 counties. They then cross-referenced this with figures obtained from the FBI in order to examine how these ratios correlated with levels of violent crimes between men – such as murders and assaults – and sexual crimes like rape, prostitution, and other sexual offenses.

“We find rates of homicide, aggravated assault, rape, sex offenses, and prostitution/commercial vice to be more common in counties with more women than men,” explain the authors, adding that “counties with more men have lower rates of crime and violent behavior.” These findings, they say, “challenge conventional claims of male excess leading to elevated levels of violence.”

So they were looking to prove the opposite and used 3 times as many counties as the other paper, found the same thing. Here's a prediction: black neighborhoods actually lack men, and this can explain more aggressive competition. Sure enough, it's true:
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/07/nyregion/in-black-neighborhoods-worrisome-gender-gap.html

Poor black neighborhoods in New York City house considerably fewer men than women, a new report says, and, along with quantifying the gap, it points up an alarming demographic trend - the disappearance of working-aged black men from the census roles.

The report, ''Poverty Amidst Prosperity: Is New York Dividing Into Two Cities?,'' cites a high incidence of murder, wartime casualties, imprisonment, unemployment and homelessness as the principal causes of the shortage. It also says that the shortage has contributed to the increase in the number of households led by single black women. Those households, statistics show, are more likely to live below the poverty level than are two-parent households.

Given the above discoveries, locking up large number of black men could actually feed into a vicious cycle

[Shadowlord]

I don't think you can fit an individual's personal beliefs on a horseshoe any more than you can on a line.

[Neonivek]

I don't think you can fit an individual's personal beliefs on a horseshoe any more than you can on a line.

Horseshoe theory is more that extremes are more similar to eachother then they are to the middle (or moderation).

The horseshoe is more of a visual metaphor.

[Shadowlord]

But what opinions are "extremes" and which ones are "middles?" Who decides? The political parties in power in the country? Both of them are "right-wing" from the pov of Europe, for example. They're both corporatist from my point of view, and the pov of other modern us progressives, etc.

[Neonivek]

But what opinions are "extremes" and which ones are "middles?" Who decides? The political parties in power in the country? Both of them are "right-wing" from the pov of Europe, for example. They're both corporatist from my point of view, and the pov of other modern us progressives, etc.

Doesn't matter.

Two opposing views tend to go towards each other the more opposed they become then they do with a more moderate view.

The more strongly they disagree with eachother the more similar they become when compared to a view that incorporates both ideas with less strong opposition.

[Shadowlord]

Let's pick a topic to consider for what you're saying. How about response to climate change?

You have:
1. Ban drilling/mining fossil fuels and buying or selling them, which would destroy the economy and get whoever imposed it thrown out of office
2. Impose a carbon tax. Generates revenue for the state while making using fossil fuels less economical.
3. Tighten fuel standards in an attempt to reduce how much is coming out of cars. This does not affect existing cars and as we have seen companies have cheated because that was easier than actually managing it without losing fuel efficiency.
4. Provide subsidies to green/clean energy companies, and possibly consumers.
5. Remove subsidies for fossil fuel companies.
6. Drill, baby, drill.
7. Claim that climate change / global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," is a hoax created by the Chinese, etc, and therefore see #7.
8. Kill subsidies for green energy companies because one that the government funded failed one time!

These are not all mutually exclusive. The only "similar" opposites I see are removing subsidies for fossil fuel companies or green energy companies, which, although they are the same action, have opposite effects because they have different targets.

[smjjames]

#1. I haven't heard of any politicians calling for that, besides, it's not realistic because we need oil to make plastics, among other things. Transportation is just the largest share of it.

#6. "drill baby, drill" could arguably be #8 as that's pretty extreme.

#2 and #4 would be closer to the middle.

[Neonivek]

Climate change? Ok, now that is easier.

The only "similar" opposites I see are removing subsidies for fossil fuel companies or green energy companies

1. Ban drilling/mining fossil fuels and buying or selling them, which would destroy the economy and get whoever imposed it thrown out of office

Both advocating unrealistic solutions that ignore reality for little more than political maneuvering.

As opposed to Moderation which is trying to find a compromise between what is needed right now and what needs to be done.

Check!

How both sides actively state how their side is an obvious scientific fact without really showing people anything of consequence because "it is too complicated" while also feeding their own supporters outright boldfaced lies in order to push their agendas?

As opposed to the Moderate view which is more about the need for greener energies as a way to mitigate pollution.

Check 2

[Shadowlord]

Neo: You set off my trap card. That's the "solution" which nobody has advocated, which I came up with on my own because, dontchaknow, the effects of the real solutions just weren't extreme enough to compare with the effects of pretending climate change isn't real and drilling like there's no tomorrow.

[Neonivek]

Neo: You set off my trap card. That's the "solution" which nobody has advocated, which I came up with on my own because, dontchaknow, the effects of the real solutions just weren't extreme enough to compare with the effects of pretending climate change isn't real and drilling like there's no tomorrow.

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-election-2016-democratic-proposals-ban-drilling-federal-lands-would-hamper-us-oil-2317832

Yep no one has EVER made laws to ban oil drilling in anyway shape or form.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/15/obama-to-kill-off-arctic-oil-drilling

Also your trap card is you made something up... researched it... And Then found out it wasn't true

But I know what your saying "But clearly I meant all drilling period. No one has ever argued that?"

Well... I have an article that proposes a ban on all offshore oil drilling.

AND a petition to ban all oil drilling period.

[smjjames]

Neo: You set off my trap card. That's the "solution" which nobody has advocated, which I came up with on my own because, dontchaknow, the effects of the real solutions just weren't extreme enough to compare with the effects of pretending climate change isn't real and drilling like there's no tomorrow.

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-election-2016-democratic-proposals-ban-drilling-federal-lands-would-hamper-us-oil-2317832

Yep no one has EVER made laws to ban oil drilling in anyway shape or form.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/15/obama-to-kill-off-arctic-oil-drilling

Also your trap card is you made something up... researched it... And Then found out it wasn't true

That's just stopping new ones from being made, doesn't stop current operations.

Global Warming is probably not the best thing to use for trying to see whether the horseshoe theory works because it's about as extreme as shooting or not shooting at an incoming asteroid, the choices themselves are already extreme.

A better one might be guns maybe?

[Neonivek]

Guns? are even easier

"We have too much violence. Banning guns will fix all our problems with guns"

"We have too many drugs. Banning all drugs will fix all our problems with drugs"

But that is another political view from another part of the spectrum... Lets stick with guns!

Lets see...

"We don't want you to have guns, we are going to force you to get rid of them"
"You want to take our guns? We are going to force you to stop with our guns"

Global Warming is probably not the best thing to use for trying to see whether the horseshoe theory works because it's about as extreme as shooting or not shooting at an incoming asteroid, the choices themselves are already extreme.

Global Warming isn't JUST about accepting whether or not there is Global Warming... But also what should be done.

INSTEAD of "It doesn't matter if it exists or not... Perhaps we should seriously do something about the environment before it is too late"

It is "GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING!!! PANIC RUN!!! AHHHHH!!! Thus we should do everything we can to stop it!"
and "GLOBAL WARMING IS A SHAM SHAM SHAMMY SHAM!!! LIES!!! DECEPTIONS! AHHHHH!!! Thus we should do absolutely nothing"

[Baffler]

Guns for everyone vs. guns are haram isn't really a horseshoe either. The classic example is black and white nationalists both wanting a "black American homeland." They disagree on where it is and what it looks like, but that's still closer to each other than the average person's position of "no, that's ridiculous."

[smjjames]

I looked around a bit and it's not so much about ideologies or policy than it is about behavior, this probably sums it up: http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8209/how-accurate-is-the-horseshoe-theory

[Neonivek]

Well... "Guns for everyone" versus "Guns are bad" are very VERY horseshoe if we ACTUALLY use those.

Because the argument for "Guns for everyone" is that if everyone has a gun... there would be no crime
and the argument for "Guns are bad" is that if no one had a gun... there would be no crime

SLIGHT exaggeration... but that is the basic premise.

While the moderate view is: "No that is stupid!"

---

Mind you the reason Horseshoe theory exists... is obvious.

The more extreme you become in your beliefs the greater the chance that you are willing to dictate, lie, exaggerate, and basically be up your own butt.

So if you were anti-candy... and hated it... over time you would start to argue that candy causes cancer, causes moral decay, and you would burn candy and candy shops perhaps.

Moderation tends to be more passive and thus shies away from such actions.

OR it can be argued that it is the "dictation, lies, exaggeration, and up your own butt" that MAKES it extreme.

ALSO horseshoe theory... doesn't matter

It isn't the Bechdel Test where it has a real honest point. It is more of an interesting point.