Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Nice post RU.

Personally I wouldn't feel slighted or left out if an all white women screening of a movie took place. Not sure if other males or women of whatever colour or culture would feel the same way. Perhaps it's not discriminatory until someone else wants in.

Years ago in Seattle I attended a soccer game at the old Kingdome. Didn't matter if you were barely drinking age or 104 years old, everyone had to show proof of age to buy a drink. Why? Because the younger crowd complained they were being discriminated against because of their age. The city responded by passing the proof of age policy bylaw. Not sure if still in effect today.

Quote:That's how you can tell if something's really wrong or your rationale is at least logically consistent. Make it about race.

In a society that is always making it about race, it's not only logical but ethical to confront that issue where one sees it in play. People wouldn't have to make it about race if society wasn't already making it about race in the forms of racial profiling, whitesplaining, high conviction rates for young black men, and persistent daily stereotyping.

(May 31, 2017 07:33 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]...in the forms of racial profiling, whitesplaining, high conviction rates for young black men, and persistent daily stereotyping.

Oh, you mean profiling and convictions based on the crime rate of a demographic? Are you arguing special treatment, like black school kids being punished equal to the white kids...regardless of disparities of bad behavior? O_o

Quote:Oh, you mean profiling and convictions based on the crime rate of a demographic?

No...I mean profiling and convictions based on the color of one's skin. Such as we see all across America. It's called "DWB"---driving while black. It's called racial profiling. As in the higher rate of innocent blacks wrongfully convicted of crimes:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/politics/b...ons-study/

(May 31, 2017 10:28 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Oh, you mean profiling and convictions based on the crime rate of a demographic?

No...I mean profiling and convictions based on the color of one's skin. Such as we see all across America. It's called "DWB"---driving while black. It's called racial profiling. As in the higher rate of innocent blacks wrongfully convicted of crimes:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/politics/b...ons-study/

According to the researchers, innocent blacks are seven times more likely to be convicted of murder than innocent white people. Gross said this was partly because homicide rates among black people are higher than among white people, and innocent black people are therefore more likely to get suspected and convicted of murder. (According to data from the FBI, 52% of murder victims in 2014 were black and 46% were white, and 53% of offenders were black compared to 45% who were white).
- http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/politics/b...ons-study/

Like I said, demographics. Blacks are much more likely to commit certain crimes. And those demographics are much more striking as a percentage of population. If blacks are more likely to commit murder, you have actual statistical evidence that supports profiling. Otherwise, you're making a special pleading for law enforcement to ignore statistical disparities of particular demographics.

As for the police misconduct they cite no data for:

But there’s a problem. For as much as police diversity has value for image and community relations, it’s not clear that it does anything to cure the problem of police abuse and brutality in black and Latino communities. Just because an officer is black, in other words, doesn't mean he’s less likely to use violence against black citizens.

The best look at this comes from Brad W. Smith, a researcher from Wayne State University in Detroit. In a 2003 paper, he looks at the impact of police diversity on officer-involved homicides in cities of more than 100,000 residents and cities of more than 250,000 residents. Regardless of city size, there wasn’t a relationship between racial representation and police killings—officer diversity didn’t mean much. ...

What mattered for police shootings wasn’t the makeup of the police department, it was the makeup of the city. In all measured cities, an increase in black residents brought an increase in police shootings. In smaller cities, a substantial change in the proportion of black residents resulted in a slight increase in the predicted number of police-caused homicides. And in the larger cities, the same change increased the chance for police-caused homicides by a factor of 10 compared to smaller cities. Put another way, the quickest way to predict the number of police shootings in a city is to see how many blacks live there.
- http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...lence.html

Quote:homicide rates among black people are higher than among white people, and innocent black people are therefore more likely to get suspected and convicted of murder.

So because blacks tend to be the more impoverished class in society, and so end up committing more crimes, this justifies racial profiling of black people which results in more innocent black people being wrongfullyconvicted of crimes? Uh no. A proper study of crime statistics would show the poor are more likely to commit crimes than any particular race. Whites included:

https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/badcomm.htm

Quote:Just because an officer is black, in other words, doesn't mean he’s less likely to use violence against black citizens.

You've never heard of internalized racism? It's a fact of our society. Many black officers fall into the trap of their predominantly white depts and profile potential crime perps by their skin color. It just reveals the depth to which racism is embedded into our cultural consciousness, regardless of whether you are black or white.

(May 31, 2017 11:15 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:homicide rates among black people are higher than among white people, and innocent black people are therefore more likely to get suspected and convicted of murder.

So because blacks tend to be the more impoverished class in society, and so end up committing more crimes, this justifies racial profiling of black people which results in more innocent black people being wrongfullyconvicted of crimes? Uh no. A proper study of crime statistics would show the poor are more likely to commit crimes than any particular race. Whites included:

https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/badcomm.htm

Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).
- https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137

So by your reasoning, Hispanics are less racially profiled than whites? o_O
Why are Hispanics the lowest? https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoner...Crime.aspx

Not all criminologists agree, particularly with respect to violent crimes. Steffensmeier et al. suggest “caution and uncertainty about the notion that structural sources of violence affect racial/ethnic groups in uniform ways.” They presented evidence based on 232 census tracts. Each of these census tracts was almost exclusively black, white, or Hispanic. They computed the share of individuals living in poverty in each of these tracts and compared it to the violent crime rate there. I have reproduced their figure below (Figure A1).

The figure does indicate that black and white census tracts have slightly higher violent crime rates as the level of census tract poverty increases. However, at each poverty concentration level, the violent crime rate is substantially higher in black than in white census tracts. Moreover, there are many Hispanic census tracts with high poverty concentration levels but relatively low rates of violent crime.

Steffensmeier et al. also found the same patterns when looking at the relationship between unemployment and violent crime rates. Holding unemployment rates constant, black census tracts had much higher violent crime rates than either white or Hispanic ones. Reflecting on these patterns, they pointed out:

   "Most of the higher violent crime places are predominantly black, even at more moderate levels of disadvantage, and that even the higher disadvantage predominantly white and Hispanic places tend to fall lower in the violence rate distribution. This pattern, along with the differences we found in the effects of disadvantage on violence suggests that racial/ethnic disparities in levels of disadvantage are only part of the story regarding race/ethnic differences in violent offending."
- http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/...crime.html

So you're simplistic poverty-crime correlation is not the whole story...by far.

Quote:

Quote:Just because an officer is black, in other words, doesn't mean he’s less likely to use violence against black citizens.

You've never heard of internalized racism? It's a fact of our society. Many black officers fall into the trap of their predominantly white depts and profile potential crime perps by their skin color. It just reveals the depth to which racism is embedded into our cultural consciousness, regardless of whether you are black or white.

Or the simple fact that they are in MORE danger patrolling black communities, which is statistically proven and more well-known by the black officers raised in those communities. "Cultural consciousness" is a dog-whistle myth of self-loathing leftists.

Quote:Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).
- https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137

So by your reasoning, Hispanics are less racially profiled than whites? o_O
Why are Hispanics the lowest? https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoner...Crime.aspx

So lower rates of crime for hispanics equals evidence of race-based crime? How does that work? Maybe there's less poverty among hispanics than among impoverished blacks and whites. It certainly doesn't suggest that race is a cause for more crime. If anything it shows that crime is unrelated to one's race.

Quote:Or the simple fact that they are in MORE danger patrolling black communities, which is statistically proven and more well-known by the black officers raised in those communities. "Cultural consciousness" is a dog-whistle myth of self-loathing leftists.

Right..as in more impoverished black neighborhoods as opposed to white middle class neighborhoods. Doesn't equate to race being a factor in crime at all.

(Jun 1, 2017 12:17 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).
- https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137

So by your reasoning, Hispanics are less racially profiled than whites? o_O
Why are Hispanics the lowest? https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoner...Crime.aspx

So lower rates of crime for hispanics equals evidence of race-based crime? How does that work? Maybe there's less poverty among hispanics than among impoverished blacks and whites. It certainly doesn't suggest that race is a cause for more crime. If anything it shows that crime is unrelated to one's race.

Lower Hispanic crime rates certainly don't support the argument that high black crime rates are due to racism. And this graph I already posted shows the comparable poverty level to crime rate, by race:

(link I missed added to previous post)
So you can see for yourself the crime rates at the same level of poverty....and the obvious disparity by race.

Quote:

Quote:Or the simple fact that they are in MORE danger patrolling black communities, which is statistically proven and more well-known by the black officers raised in those communities. "Cultural consciousness" is a dog-whistle myth of self-loathing leftists.

Right..as in more impoverished black neighborhoods as opposed to white middle class neighborhoods. Doesn't equate to race being a factor in crime at all.

Wait, are you claiming black cops only patrol predominately black neighborhoods? O_o

Quote:Lower Hispanic crime rates certainly don't support the argument that high black crime rates are due to racism.

Who said higher crime rates for blacks is due to racism? It's due to poverty, which is just common sense.

https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/badcomm.htm

https://vittana.org/26-poverty-and-crime-statistics

"What Poverty and Crime Statistics Look Like in the United States

People living in households in the US that have an income level below the Federal poverty threshold have more than double the rates of violent victimization compared to individuals in high-income households.
Individuals who live in poverty are more likely to report a crime than those who do not live in poverty, but more than half of all crime is believed to go unreported to local law enforcement.
When people live in households that are struggling with poverty, they also have a higher rate of violence that involves a firearm at 3.5 per 1,000 people compared to 0.8-2.5 per 1,000 people in middle-to-high income families.
For both whites and blacks/African-Americans in the US, the overall pattern of being in poverty with the highest rates of victimization was consistent. For Hispanics and Latinos, violent victimization is relatively equal across all income levels.
Hispanics in the US who are living in poverty have nearly half the rates of violent victimization when compared to poor whites. Even poor blacks/African-Americans have a lower rate of violent victimization in poverty compared to whites.
Urban poverty increased the risks of violence and crime for US households, but did not change the racial risk factors. Whites are the most at risk in an urban poverty household to experience crime, at a rate of 5.64%. Blacks/African-Americans had the second highest level of risk for experiencing crime in urban poverty at 5.13%.
When looking at the overall correlation between poverty and crime, there are some facts that jump out. For example: when someone receives more education, they are less likely to commit a crime and are more likely to earn a living wage. On the other end of the spectrum, it also shows that urban white households in poverty are more at risk than any other group when it comes to experiencing crime.

This is probably a shift in what many tend to think about when they picture crime in the United States. Yet when it comes to violent crime, which is most likely to occur from a poverty standpoint, there were fewer victims of violent crime in the US than people who died from accidental poisoning. More people died from accidental falls than from violent crime.

And, if you take violent crime from a purely white perspective, more white people are killed by accidental drownings then they are from black on white violent crime.

What does this mean? That there is a direct correlation between socioeconomic status in the United States and experiencing a risk of violent crime."

Quote:Wait, are you claiming black cops only patrol predominately black neighborhoods? O_o

Who said that?