What is the Republican plan to fight racism?

Black people are far more likely to be living in poverty, too - with poverty being strongly associated with crime rate. Also, black communities are far more likely to be policed by forces that are not effective. Etc.

All you are doing is attempting to find statistics to justify your racism.

Don't worry - you can be a racist. It's not illegal.

 

You are flat out wrong.

It is not illegal for a police force to be FLAT OUT racist.

It is not illegal for the white government ruling Fling Michigan to not give a crap about the water that is destroying the brains of black children in Flint.

It's not illegal for Republicans to work to make it harder for blacks to vote and to otherwise work to ensure that representation is unequal - you just can't be too crazy radical about it.

Etc.

Your ideas about racism are sadly uninformed.

 

Tell us some more about your animosity towards white politicians.

 

Looking for statistics to justify my racism is easy. I want more of a challenge.

-----------

Poverty and Crime

The notion that economic deprivation necessarily leads to lawlessness is widely believed but is not supported by empirical evidence. Human history is replete with examples of impoverished people—of all racial and ethnic backgrounds—who have endured extreme poverty without descending into criminal activity. During the 1960s, for instance, the residents of San Francisco’s Chinatown were among America’s poorest people—with the most unemployment, the worst housing conditions, the least education, and the highest rate of tuberculosis in their city. Yet despite such hardships, only five people of Chinese ancestry went to jail in the entire state of California in 1965.[1]

Similarly, Jewish immigrants to America during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries also repudiated criminality despite having to face extreme economic deprivation. Historian Max Dimont describes them:

“The majority of these immigrants had arrived penniless, all their worldly belongings wrapped in a bundle…. Most of [them] arrived in New York. Some made their way into other cities,… but the majority remained in New York, settling in the Lower East Side of Manhattan, [which was] a neighborhood of the poor. Sociologists, with their impressive charts showing the number of toilets (or lack of the), the number of people per room, the low per capita income, paint a dismal picture of the Lower East Side Jewish slum. But their charts do not capture its uniqueness. Though it bred tuberculosis and rheumatism, it did not breed crime and venereal disease. It did not spawn illiteracy, illegitimate children, or deserted wives. Library cards were in constant use.”[2]

The late political scientist James Q. Wilson debunked the theory that crime results from poverty, or that redistributive government programs can reduce crime rates by alleviating poverty, by pointing out that “crime rose the fastest in this country at a time when the number of persons living in poverty or squalor was declining.” He added: “I have yet to see a ‘root cause’ or to encounter a government program that has successfully attacked it.”

Footnotes:

1. James Q. Wilson and Richard Herrnstein, Crime and Human Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985), p. 473.
2. Max I. Dimont, Jews, God, and History (New York: Penguin USA, 1994), pp. 373-374. (This book was originally published in 1962.)
4. https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/other/poverty-crime/
   
   

 

Poverty does not cause crime, although low intelligence causes poverty.

Crime is caused by low impulse control and too much testosterone.

 

I've pointed out why this kind of use of statistics is just plain nonsense.

 

You only think you have. Social reform and social welfare spending never reduced the crime rate. The only thing that works is punishment, lots and lot's of punishment.

 

President Clinton signed bills that increased punishment and reduced welfare. As a result the crime rate declined during his administration.

 

You do not have evidence of that.

 

The problem with this idea is that same problem you've been having on a repeated basis.

There are many factors in our society.

You can't point to changed and then simply state that it comes from the one factor YOU want to point at.

 

During the 1960's poverty was reduced by an expanding economy and War on Poverty programs. The civil rights legislation pas passed into law. The prison population was reduced. The crime rate doubled.

Beginning with the administration of Reagan cuts in welfare and a more competitive economy resulted in increases in poverty. The prison population began to grow. The crime rate declined.

 

So... A 3-year-old study, that even the producers admit isn't fully baked, that maybe showed discrimination on the part of a handful of large companies, with special emphasis on autos and other retail sales. I can think of multiple reasons for that. One, it could be that they're looking for sales staff for stores that have a primary demographic, be it white, black, male, female, or otherwise. Second, when you talk about the biggest corporations that exist, for every job opening, they get hundreds or thousands of applications. I know, because I used to work for a very small company, and when I was trying to hire sales folks, I got hundreds. Who got interviewed and who didn't was largely pot luck, and whomever's resumes ended up on the top of the stack would be weeded out until I had enough what appeared to be qualified candidates and then I stopped looking. The rest didn't even get a single look, through no fault of their own, mine, or anyone else's.

So... Call me if/when they complete their little study, including naming names, and with full details. Since it hasn't already happened, I'm not holding my breath. But we'll see.

 

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

In my observations, it is not the Republicans who say that blacks are either A: Too Poor, or if not, then B: Too dumb, or if not, then C: Too lazy to simply get an ID. A free ID that is available at the nearest DMV that pretty much everyone knows where it is, and if you don't know, it's information that is easy peasy to find.

 

In the social sciences correlation is the only way to estimate causation. We cannot go back in time, choose a different policy, and measure different results.

 

No, whites commit the most murders.

 

So? If there are 2 blacks and 1 commits murder, that's 50% murder rate.
Males are by far the most murderous group. And by raw numbers, whites commit the most.

 

Nonsense.

When someone fixates on a cause, that's just no more than politics.

 

There you go using the total population numbers without adjusting for the fact that for the same population numbers a certain percent of black males commit far more than whites.

Just pretend that the per capita math doesn't exist

 

[QUOTE="FatBack, post: 1074313021, member: 79158"]So you're telling me that they don't commit a larger portion of murders by far? How about armed robberies and assaults?

Yes most are committed by males all right, to be specific most of the murders are committed by black males.[/QUOTE]You said nothing of per capita.

No, they don't commit the largest portion of murders.
And what difference does it make what the skin color of the males are? What does that change about the fact?
Males by far commit the most murders.
Even if every black murder was ended, there'd still be over 50% of murders happening because of white skin males.

 

You said nothing of per capita.

No, they don't commit the largest portion of murders.
And what difference does it make what the skin color of the males are? What does that change about the fact?
Males by far commit the most murders.
Even if every black murder was ended, there'd still be over 50% of murders happening because of white skin males.[/QUOTE] please fix the quote function..... The post above was not written by fatback but the post below these bolded words was...
What does the sex of the people who commit the murders matter?

The fact of the matter is, portion of the black males in the population commit four times more murders than the portion of the white males in the population.

The fact is they commit murder at a much higher rate. You want to pretend that per capita math doesn't exist and instead try to count the total and pretend like it doesn't matter that the portion of blacks committing four times more murders exist within only 13% of the population versus the portion of the whites committing murders that exist within roughly 60% of the population.

I bet you won't answer this question...
How many murders does every 100,000 white males commit and how many murders does every 100,000 black males commit?

 

please fix the quote function..... The post above was not written by fatback but the post below these bolded words was...
What does the sex of the people who commit the murders matter?

The fact of the matter is, portion of the black males in the population commit four times more murders than the portion of the white males in the population.

The fact is they commit murder at a much higher rate. You want to pretend that per capita math doesn't exist and instead try to count the total and pretend like it doesn't matter that the portion of blacks committing four times more murders exist within only 13% of the population versus the portion of the whites committing murders that exist within roughly 60% of the population.[/QUOTE]
So what about the black skin. They are still males.
Again, end every single black murder, there's still over 50% of murders going to happen. By white skin males.

The sex of the perps matter if one is interested in rooting out the causes of murders. Since over 70% are males, they are the largest group killing people.

If one doesn't care about murders and reducing them. Then it does not matter.

 

So what does the presence of a penis matter?

You won't answer the question... How many murders does every 100,000 white males commit versus how many murders does every 100,000 black males commit.

@dairyair

Please quit butchering up the quote function

 

And here is a meta-analysis of studies that shows continued racial disparities in hiring for you to continue rationalizing away.

I think the original complaints about “self-segregation” was Blacks wanting “safe places” at universities by the usual right-wingers, but they don’t raise the same issue when it is Sikhs, gays, Moslems, Hispanics, etc. wanting their safe spaces.

It is always funny when the right “interprets” MLK. In my city there are largely Black (and white) sections associated with low income levels. Middle class and up Blacks have moved to middle class and up neighborhoods that are mixed or even the burbs. I do not see a problem if Chinese want to have a China town or if Mexicans or Italians congregate in one section of a city. The problem is when they are prevented from moving where they want. That is more in keeping with MLK’s vision. The color of their skin should not be what prevents them the from having the freedoms everyone else has.

The US is made up of many subcultures and each adds something, so get over it. Black culture is distinct because it grew out of slavery, segregation, racism and enforced poverty, that is the reason Blacks have 1/10 the mean wealth of whites. 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, so the percentage of Blacks must be higher. Not a good scenario for home buying, so maybe they are not “dumb” for having to rent.

Many right-wingers on here have accused African Americans as useful tools of the Democrats. They think they are stupid children and the Republicans meanwhile put up every road block they can think of to keep them from exercising their constitutional right. The message is clear the right doesn't like Blacks.

 

They will commit over 50% of them.