The News Thread

[rms]

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

you know exactly what it means. European cities have systematically denied entry for non-western migrants for centuries.

Again, your first thing you want to point between Chicago and London is guns -- not the lack of non-whiteys.

 

[EspaDa]

Malcom Young died at 64.

 

[Einherjar86]

you know exactly what it means. European cities have systematically denied entry for non-western migrants for centuries.

Again, your first thing you want to point between Chicago and London is guns -- not the lack of non-whiteys.

No, I really didn't. Your prose was inconsistent. "Access to weapons" implies a particular subject, whereas "access to minorities" implies an entirely different subject. I didn't know if you meant whether non-minorities had access to minorities, in which case "access" should probably be replaced with something like "exposure." Or if you meant that minorities don't have access to Europe itself (i.e. they're denied immigration privileges), in which case you should have said "access for minorities," since you're talking about the minorities' access to Europe.

Don't complain that I can't understand you when you don't write clearly.

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.

That may be, I don't know firsthand. Whether the difference is negligible or not, I can't say.

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.

But the common denominator here isn't the explanatory factor, that's the point. Just because something is a common denominator doesn't mean it's the root cause of whatever problem is being discussed. It's the way that denominator happens to interact with particular circumstances in a given location.

 

[rms]

and ignored it, noice #BeMoreLikeScandinavia

 

[Einherjar86]

You're right, the presence of minorities likely has some impact as well. Of course, in America, the presence of African immigrants coincides with slavery, so there's that little historical element... Africans in Europe didn't experience the kind of institutionalized subjugation that Africans in America did.

I'm not ignoring that detail, I'm saying it has to be considered in conjunction with the production and circulation of firearms. I'm not favoring one over the other.

 

[Dak]

But the common denominator here isn't the explanatory factor, that's the point. Just because something is a common denominator doesn't mean it's the root cause of whatever problem is being discussed. It's the way that denominator happens to interact with particular circumstances in a given location.

Which somehow never fails to become a conversation about guns and "poverty", one thing neutral (and subject of a debate in which there is precious little point in engaging) the other vague and relative. Whether or not there are shallow waters here, it seems that the effort is to stir up the mud so that we can say nothing about people except "aww, poor things".

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, I know I've said in the past that cultural feedback has to play some role. I just don't think we can attribute endemic violence predominantly to that, since there's no way to distinguish between factors like poverty, urbanization, gun access, cultural image, etc., especially when these things likely combine and give rise to circumstances that wouldn't necessarily turn up in a different country with a very different history and demographic layout (additionally, it's impossible to separate cultural image/feedback from the historical conditions that give rise to them). I don't think that reform is entirely out of anyone's hands, but I do think that efforts need to be made on multiple fronts.

I've said before that I think educational outreach would be one of the best things for inner city youth, but I don't know how to implement that.

 

[Dak]

Well, I know I've said in the past that cultural feedback has to play some role. I just don't think we can attribute endemic violence predominantly to that, since there's no way to distinguish between factors like poverty, urbanization, gun access, cultural image, etc., especially when these things likely combine and give rise to circumstances that wouldn't necessarily turn up in a different country with a very different history and demographic layout (additionally, it's impossible to separate cultural image/feedback from the historical conditions that give rise to them). I don't think that reform is entirely out of anyone's hands, but I do think that efforts need to be made on multiple fronts.

I've said before that I think educational outreach would be one of the best things for inner city youth, but I don't know how to implement that.

Even if you could somehow entirely eliminate gun access to inner city Baltimore, it isn't going to transform the place into a post-War paradise, or gentrified low income neighborhood, or any other urban or suburban fantasy. People like to tout education as some sort of panacea, or at least a first line effort in changing outcomes, but never clarify what the education consists of, or how it would be incorporated into more comprehensive approaches. It's easier to simply say "ban X and spend money on Y" and when a decade goes by with no improvement, "reform" and do it all over again.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't think banning guns in Baltimore would do anything. Banning guns nationwide might do something, but I also think it's way too controversial to even merit any serious discussion at this point.

I imagine the education program would/should consist of trade skills, financial planning, general history (geography and regional information), health sciences, etc. I also think one general humanities course is important.

 

[Dak]

I imagine the education program would/should consist of trade skills, financial planning, general history (geography and regional information), health sciences, etc. I also think one general humanities course is important.

Well I think those are all good things; what the hell are they doing K-12 though?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

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."

You said white Appalachians would commit serious violent crime on par with urban blacks if "you transplanted them into an urban environment". I don't see any real defense of that statement from you since then.

Switzerland and the Czech Republic have relatively lax gun laws, and though they have above average levels of gun violence in Europe, their overall homicide rates are among the lowest.

I've acknowledged most/all of those things. You brought up urbanization first, you and others brought up poverty as an excuse before that. I agree with the history side of things; I believe that the history/culture of blackness in America is the primary, most significant cause behind why blacks commit violence at rates much higher than most other minority groups. Worth noting that Native reservations have similar homicide rates to American blacks.

 

[Einherjar86]

You said white Appalachians would commit serious violent crime on par with urban blacks if "you transplanted them into an urban environment". I don't see any real defense of that statement from you since then.

Dak already acknowledged that there's research to suggest that population density correlates with increases in criminal behavior.

Switzerland and the Czech Republic have relatively lax gun laws, and though they have above average levels of gun violence in Europe, their overall homicide rates are among the lowest.

The Swiss also have mandatory military service. I kinda think it's an unfair comparison, once again.

Don't know about the Czech Republic, so I'd have to research it.

I've acknowledged most/all of those things. You brought up urbanization first, you and others brought up poverty as an excuse before that. I agree with the history side of things; I believe that the history/culture of blackness in America is the primary, most significant cause behind why blacks commit violence at rates much higher than most other minority groups. Worth noting that Native reservations have similar homicide rates to American blacks.

Then I'm not sure what your problem is with my comments.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Dak already acknowledged that there's research to suggest that population density correlates with increases in criminal behavior.

The Swiss also have mandatory military service. I kinda think it's an unfair comparison, once again.

Don't know about the Czech Republic, so I'd have to research it.

Then I'm not sure what your problem is with my comments.

It's a pretty weak correlation at best from what I've seen. Some research suggests the opposite; the more population density there is, the less likely a criminal is to attack somebody, and the more likely police are to be around. This has been observed in New York, where the two only correlate up to a certain threshold, for example:

https://nycdatascience.com/blog/stu...r-higher-population-densities-increase-crime/

Does that make a difference? Do people think about becoming armed robbers and gang members, join the military, and suddenly come out of it non-criminal? I'm doubtful. Most murder is impulsive and victimizes an acquaintance of the murderer.

The problem is that you use broad categories like urbanization, poverty, etc which don't affect whites, Hispanics, and Asians to nearly the same extent as American blacks. The other problem is that post-Great Society America has been promoting these same arguments for over 50 years, uncontested and with basically nothing to show for it. fwiw it's worth noting that American blacks had much higher murder rates even pre-welfare state, and worth noting that the welfare state has not helped the worst white areas either. People think the government can wave a magic wand and some money and somehow that is supposed to fix entire cultures built around gang violence, child abuse, drug use, etc.

 

[Dak]

post-Great Society America has been promoting these same arguments for over 50 years, uncontested and with basically nothing to show for it. fwiw it's worth noting that American blacks had much higher murder rates even pre-welfare state, and worth noting that the welfare state has not helped the worst white areas either. People think the government can wave a magic wand and some money and somehow that is supposed to fix entire cultures built around gang violence, child abuse, drug use, etc.

This is really hits it on the head.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's a pretty weak correlation at best from what I've seen. Some research suggests the opposite; the more population density there is, the less likely a criminal is to attack somebody, and the more likely police are to be around. This has been observed in New York, where the two only correlate up to a certain threshold, for example:

https://nycdatascience.com/blog/stu...r-higher-population-densities-increase-crime/

Does that make a difference? Do people think about becoming armed robbers and gang members, join the military, and suddenly come out of it non-criminal? I'm doubtful. Most murder is impulsive and victimizes an acquaintance of the murderer.

I'm sure it does make a difference. But it doesn't suggest that crime is less likely in higher density--it just suggests that crime tapers off, which is different.

The problem is that you use broad categories like urbanization, poverty, etc which don't affect whites, Hispanics, and Asians to nearly the same extent as American blacks. The other problem is that post-Great Society America has been promoting these same arguments for over 50 years, uncontested and with basically nothing to show for it. fwiw it's worth noting that American blacks had much higher murder rates even pre-welfare state, and worth noting that the welfare state has not helped the worst white areas either. People think the government can wave a magic wand and some money and somehow that is supposed to fix entire cultures built around gang violence, child abuse, drug use, etc.

But I'm not doing this. I saying that all those things are conditions that should be taken into consideration. So it's misleading to compare differences in crime between U.S. cities and Switzerland when there are multiple other factors that might explain that difference other than gun laws, or differences in crime between rural and urban areas when there are multiple factors that might explain that difference other than skin color, etc. I'm not trying to say that culture isn't important, I'm saying it's not the deciding factor.

Black crime may be better since the early-twentieth century, but not since the nineteenth century. And there are other socioeconomic factors that play into the rise in black crime in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, including the extended impact of Jim Crow on hiring black workers. I don't think the welfare system actually improved matters all that much, and I'm not arguing for welfare solutions now; all I'm doing is trying to combat a certain reduction of crime to skin color.

But you've already said you're not doing this, so I feel like we shouldn't really be arguing. You've already said that history plays a role, and I'm fine with saying it's a mix of culture and history. I just don't think you can lean more heavily on culture than you can on history.

 

[Nate Skalman]

Why does everything come back to black crime, or coked up Armenian dog fighting?...(no offense) how about Lavar Ball not apologizing to Trump? -his clothes line sucks, $500 ugly shoes...his shoplifting kid. Olympic athletic coaches fingering teens...um, more shootings. Get creative...more public masturbating by casting agents and directors...how 'bout that Margot Robbie?...

 

[CiG]

how 'bout that Margot Robbie?

[a wild erection suddenly appears]

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

http://www.metalinjection.net/polit...ed-metallica-box-set-by-danish-prime-minister

 

[CiG]

Seems like all the left-wing parties in Australia, America and England are becoming more and more anti-white. Just read about a white male politician in England who replaced a woman of colour politician in a job and the backlash caused him to apologize and step down.

Do they actually think pushing whites out of their parties is a sustainable practice considering they're all operating within majority white countries? I guess this is what it looks like to put ideological dedication above tactics and logic.

 

[Nate Skalman]

Almost half this country is minority, so it seems American democrats are banking between those numbers and the guilty white voters to override the working class- it's a risky gamble that hasn't paid off for them yet. It's their attempt to distance themselves from any decisions that could potentially be seen as benefiting the white working class -although most of them are of similar demographic...and label anyone not on board with following ever-changing identity politics as "the problem"...so yeah, this is also what ideological dedication looks like when it starts to fail. No "white" liberal would selflessly hand their job over to a minority (or someone higher on the oppression scale) just to prove a point- walking the walk is not their strong point