The News Thread

[Dak]

Chalking it up to moonshining also tells one fuckall about Appalachia. It's believed that marijuana production comprised a significant chunk of Kentucky's agricultural economy in the '90s. I'm sure that's still going on, although opioids are bigger today.

Well it's crime, but it ain't gonna kill you. We can chalk that up to more drug war nonsense. But Appalachia doesn't have a Part I Offense against Persons crime problem, at least from what I can find.

You're right, I'd choose the place with the mountains and woods--you know, where all the hikers, hipsters, and family vacationers go...

You're conflating regions and communities.

Hikers and hipsters are at least as much of a blight on Appalachia as the residents, but why not conflate the region and communities when talking about the human behavior of the communities in the region? Otherwise we are just talking about the flora, fauna, and weather.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well it's crime, but it ain't gonna kill you. We can chalk that up to more drug war nonsense. But Appalachia doesn't have a Part I Offense against Persons crime problem, at least from what I can find.

They would if you transplanted them into an urban environment. Part of what I'm saying is that Appalachia is fucking huge and spread out. There aren't turf wars when you're separated by mountains and woodlands. Which leads me to my next point...

Hikers and hipsters are at least as much of a blight on Appalachia as the residents, but why not conflate the region and communities when talking about the human behavior of the communities in the region? Otherwise we are just talking about the flora, fauna, and weather.

First of all, I don't understand why hipsters and hikers are a blight (maybe the hipsters, but that's little more than a personal objection that I believe we happen to share--not a comment on their behaviors).

The reason you can't conflate them is that people who go vacationing in Appalachia aren't going and living among the local residents. They're staying in official campgrounds and national parks. There are areas of the region that are distinct from the residential communities.

So contrasting the lack of vacationers between Appalachia and the ghettos of Baltimore is misleading. It's not as though vacationers are running off to be among the residential slums of the hill folk.

 

[rms]

concentrated relative poverty seems like an obvious large influencer of violence. just don't see any other-more-plausible alternative

 

[Nate Skalman]

Inner city culture has stereotypes that seem to follow popular media and attention then attached to the demographic almost...alot of the crime in black communities are proliferated by music and media influence telling them that being a drug dealer and a thug not only makes them "cool", but will also get them laid by bitches and make everyone want to emulate them...Appalachia doesn't have the same "popular culture" influence. You can't expect to glorify drug dealing and disrespecting society on a POPULAR media level, but then blame "black people" for being criminals. If it doesn't involve thuggin' and bangin'...it won't sell -we want our rappers "real", and "from the streets". We reward (and celebrate) the message and behavior, but want to punish blacks when the behavior becomes reality...if that makes sense

 

[no country for old wainds]

Justice William O’Neill took to Facebook on Friday to make a statement on what he called the “national feeding frenzy about sexual indiscretions,” and in doing so he gave details about his sexual history.

“In the last fifty years I was sexually intimate with approximately 50 very attractive females,” O’Neill wrote. “It ranged from a gorgeous blonde who was my first true love and we made passionate love in the hayloft of her parents barn and ended with a drop dead gorgeous red head from Cleveland.

“Now can we get back to discussing legalizing marijuana and opening the state hospital network to combat the opioid crisis.”

lmao

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Again, I don't think poverty is an independent factor; but comparing rural Appalachia to black urban communities is like comparing apples and oranges. The Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice issued a report in the early nineties that crime in rural communities, including Appalachia, is often of the organized variety, and that local law enforcement are often complicit, and therefore crime tends to be under-reported.

Also, I doubt that rural Appalachia is actually "safer" than the black ghetto for your average Midwesterner or New Englander.

Drug crime, wife-beating, sure, though you could say that about any area. Murder doesn't easily get under-reported.

They would if you transplanted them into an urban environment. Part of what I'm saying is that Appalachia is fucking huge and spread out. There aren't turf wars when you're separated by mountains and woodlands. Which leads me to my next point...

Bullshit. There's very little correlation between urban-ness and serious crime. In much of Europe, the worst cities (aside from perhaps certain immigrant ghettos) have homicide rates only a few times higher than the national average. In the USA it's more than 10x the national average, and exclusively in cities with large black populations. Urban-ness correlates only because of blackness in American cities.

EDIT: Also, it ignores the fact that the black regions of rural Louisiana and Mississippi have comparable gun homicide rates to cities with high levels of black violence.

 

[CiG]

The crime and relative poverty couldn't have common factors underlying both rather than having a direct causal connection.

Well I didn't make my post to be an absolutist so sure, the possibility exists. Though I'm more inclined to think that relative poverty has a direct causal connection than not.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

That's heavily confounded by the fact that wealthy regions are usually highly policed. The Arab world and Singapore have some of the lowest violent crime rates anywhere combined with the highest income inequality. In places with both high crime and high income inequality, most of the crime still victimizes the poor because the rich actively avoid bad areas. Chicago is an obvious example again; the city as a whole actually is safer than a lot of people let on, but the bad neighborhoods are some of the worst places in the entire country. Does the existence of wealthy people that poor people don't actually see in the real world cause poor people to rob and kill other poor people?

 

[Einherjar86]

Bullshit. There's very little correlation between urban-ness and serious crime. In much of Europe, the worst cities (aside from perhaps certain immigrant ghettos) have homicide rates only a few times higher than the national average. In the USA it's more than 10x the national average, and exclusively in cities with large black populations. Urban-ness correlates only because of blackness in American cities.

EDIT: Also, it ignores the fact that the black regions of rural Louisiana and Mississippi have comparable gun homicide rates to cities with high levels of black violence.

I was talking about poverty, and black urban communities came up because they're often poor. I never said that poor areas can't be crime-ridden (obviously, since I'm suggesting that many rural white areas actually are). Aspects of violent crime in inner cities likely have much to do with poverty and with cultural perceptions of black success, I admit (and already said as much); but the history of urbanization and demographic shifts in black communities has historical roots, and these have likely contributed to the criminal statistics we see today.

It sounds as though you're trying to chalk crime, especially violent crime, up to blackness itself, which is simply not a tenable position.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So why doesn't urbanization affect other poor groups? I never said that you said "that poor areas can't be crime-ridden". You change the subject with every reply.

 

[CiG]

The Unfortunate Truth of Democratic Urban Governance.

 

[Nate Skalman]

In Portland people are catching on that the self-righteous Democrats on the City Council crying for social change ALL live in the West Hills (which are wealthy, gated communities), or Lake Oswego (dubbed "Lake No Negro"). The facts are chuckle-worthy -Check how many 1%ers are Democrats, then listen to them hammer on about how the rich (meaning republicans, apparently) need to pay their fair share of taxes. I don't see Oprah or Bill Gates being chastised for being richer than god himself -but wealthy republicans are painted out as racist, white nationalists...actions do speak louder than words...

 

[Einherjar86]

So why doesn't urbanization affect other poor groups? I never said that you said "that poor areas can't be crime-ridden". You change the subject with every reply.

I don't change the subject with every reply. I respond to the counter-examples other people give. We were discussing poverty, and then you specifically mentioned rural Appalachia in contrast to black ghettos. So I started talking about urbanization.

With regard to European cities--and I realize this won't be a popular answer--but many of them have stricter gun laws than the U.S. Studies have shown correlations between stricter laws and lower crime rates.

This isn't me changing the topic, this is me responding to specifics of the counter-examples you introduce. You're trying to treat these issues (i.e. poverty, urbanization, etc.) as discrete circumstances that can be measured or compared on their own merits, but you can't do that. It's all connected, and particular regions have particular histories. American cities aren't the same as European cities, and black communities in America aren't the same as black communities elsewhere. You have to think about more than just their urbanness or poverty--and you can't skip right to "it must be because they're black."

 

[CiG]

Studies have shown correlations between stricter laws and lower crime rates.

*except in America, I assume.

 

[Einherjar86]

Ah, but America's different again! Cities like Chicago have strict laws, but where do all the Chicago guns come from? Most come from elsewhere in the state.

European countries are much smaller, meaning it's more difficult to move guns around (nothing like passing between states in the U.S., which isn't regulated at all); and the laws are more uniform across Europe in general.

This is why a lot of gun reform that's discussed casually actually wouldn't work for the U.S.--there would have to be seriously sweeping legislation, and it would have to account for differences between state regulations.

 

[CiG]

I thought Chicago was only strict on public carrying, you can still own a shotgun or a handgun in the home.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, that's kinda the point. I don't think there's a single state in the U.S. in which you can't own a shotgun or handgun. Gun laws are pretty lax across the country.

I may have oversold the "strict" laws of Chicago; but my point is that laws elsewhere are lax enough to get guns wherever you want in the country. If they're lax in Chicago too, then it's that much easier.

 

[rms]

don't get why you attribute violence to access to weapons and not access to minorities, which is a position European cities have strongly held for at least a few centuries now

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't know what "access to minorities" means.

I think violence has to do with a lot of factors. All I'm suggesting is that comparing violence in America and Europe has to account for more than one thing. It's not just poverty, or just gun laws, or just urbanization, etc. I do think that access to firearms has some impact on the level of violence, though.

 

[Dak]

They would if you transplanted them into an urban environment. Part of what I'm
saying is that Appalachia is fucking huge and spread out. There aren't turf wars when you're separated by mountains and woodlands. Which leads me to my next point...

First of all, I don't understand why hipsters and hikers are a blight (maybe the hipsters, but that's little more than a personal objection that I believe we happen to share--not a comment on their behaviors).

The reason you can't conflate them is that people who go vacationing in Appalachia aren't going and living among the local residents. They're staying in official campgrounds and national parks. There are areas of the region that are distinct from the residential communities.

So contrasting the lack of vacationers between Appalachia and the ghettos of Baltimore is misleading. It's not as though vacationers are running off to be among the residential slums of the hill folk.

Quick aside on the hipsters/hikers/vacationers: They don't clean up after themselves and wanna gentrify the mountains.

I happen to agree, to some degree, about there being fewer turf wars when everyone is spread out. There's research to show that population density increases antisocial behaviors. Vacationers may not be "slumming it up" in Appalachia, but in many cases you do have to transverse this areas to get to camping grounds and national parks, whereas people will reroute around a ghetto.

With regard to European cities--and I realize this won't be a popular answer--but many of them have stricter gun laws than the U.S. Studies have shown correlations between stricter laws and lower crime rates.

American cities aren't the same as European cities, and black communities in America aren't the same as black communities elsewhere. You have to think about more than just their urbanness or poverty--and you can't skip right to "it must be because they're black."

Stricter laws and policing do reduce crime. But "broken windows policing" really gets some panties in wads in this country. European cities are indeed not like American cities, and black communities in America are indeed not like black communities elsewhere. And the common denominator is not guns, or vacuum cleaners, or any other neutral, inanimate object. It's the people. It's the values of the culture.