Missouri KKK Threaten Use of Lethal Force Against Ferguson Protestors - Polidicks

[QUOTE=kurgan;46492517]if you take a bunch of people of the same incomes but different races, the blacks will still commit more crimes (and especially more violent crimes) than the whites.[/QUOTE] One of links I posted addresses this specifically: [quote]Violent crime rates were lowest in those neighborhoods with low disadvantage, regardless of whether they were predominantly Black or white. Extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods had violent crime rates that were 16.3 per 1000 higher than rates in low disadvantage neighborhoods. The results showed that extremely disadvantaged Black neighborhoods still had slightly higher violent crime rates than did similar white neighborhoods. One possible reason may be that the Black neighborhoods in this study are still more disadvantaged than the comparable white neighborhoods, Krivo said. In addition, the highly disadvantaged Black neighborhoods were more likely than the white neighborhoods to be grouped together, which may intensify the negative effects.[/quote] Blacks are, historically [I]and[/I] contemporarily, the most disadvantaged demographic in this country. They dominate the demographics for urban poverty, and urban poverty presents unique conditions for crime that will not exist, or exist on a much smaller scale, in rural or suburban areas with similar poverty levels. Gangs, for example, are a uniquely urban threat. While they are spreading farther and farther into rural and suburban areas, almost every major player in the gang world is hosted from an area of urban poverty, which, as just mentioned, are predominantly compromised of minorities, especially blacks. Less than 10% of gang membership is white, yet gangs account for almost 50% of all violent crime in this country. This has wildly skewed the statistics of violent crime rates, and led to exact misunderstanding of those statistics that you are currently demonstrating. In dozens of cities around the country, and especially in Saint Louis, black gangs grew from the seeds of urban poverty that were planted by White Flight, and perpetuated through institutional racism. Unless you have some other explanation? Because this is a pretty well documented, and widely accepted theory on the true history of black crime and gang violence in the United States. If you are discounting this, then what is [I]your[/I] explanation for black crime? Currently, it seems as if you don't have one, other than the fact that black people are black. [quote]as for white flight, your causation is backwards. whites flee black crime. [editline]14th November 2014[/editline][/quote] Again, inaccurate. Or at least it was during the period in which White Flight was occurring as a mass migration, and not an individual basis. While it is indisputable that families will now flee expanding urban areas simply due to the understandable fear of gangs and crime, White Flight occurred during a period of overt racism, and the areas affected by it were once safe and prosperous, which is exactly why black families began migrating to them. This was a period where people moved out simply because they did not want to live near black people. This is where the phrase "there goes the neighborhood" comes from. It refers to a black family moving into a neighborhood, and all the white families packing up and moving out. [QUOTE=kurgan;46492517](and i could have sworn that one of the narratives being pushed was that ferguson was due to the opposite of white flight - gentrification.)[/QUOTE] This is a deeply mistaken perspective on this particular issue. It may be a contributing factor in certain areas, but Saint Louis is the poster child of white flight.

[QUOTE=Suzune;46492676]Once again, crimes like murder and rape, like any other crime, are still influenced by income. When you look at the majority of poverty stricken communities in the United States, what racial group is the most prevalent? Blacks. Go and look at the disparity of incomes between blacks and whites, and you'll see the connection. It's due to this you see a higher crime rate from this group. On the subject of drugs, the pursuit is done in low-income neighborhoods more often, and in the case of murder, the crime is much more likely to occur in a low-income neighborhood. As I said earlier, the disparity in income spawns from this nation's history of race relations. It's exactly the reason why communities like Ferguson are so upset: living in a society where they're placed at a disadvantage, another injustice takes place right in front of them and it's only natural it would lead to protest. [/quote] look, all you're doing is reiterating the correlation. I've said that it doesn't imply causation. sit down and think for like, 60 seconds, of how you could get the same correlation pattern but with a different causal structure. if you can't get more than 3 you're doing it wrong. [quote]If illegal drug use is larger among the white population than it is in the black population, shouldn't that alone tell you that something is wrong if more blacks are being arrested for it? Regardless if you claim that you're more likely to find a black dealer, it doesn't change the fact the more whites have still consumed more illegal drugs and aren't being pursued to the extent blacks are.[/quote] the statistics say who has tried drugs more. it does not say who are current users. again, the data is being stretched beyond what it actually shows. if blacks are more likely to become habitual users (I do not actually know if this is the case, but I would bet money that it is) rather than just trying it once, they are more likely to be arrested. [quote]If only a sandbox world like this actually existed. If you take two people of different races, give them an equal income, and place them in a nice neighborhood, why exactly do you think the black person would commit more crimes? There isn't a natural urge to commit crimes among blacks, it's that they (and anyone of any race) are influenced by the community they grow up in.[/quote] Drapetomania, clearly :) [quote]White flight was prominent during a time when people didn't want to be around blacks [U]simply for the fact that they were black[/U], not because they thought blacks were going to destroy their neighborhoods through crime.[/QUOTE] But black neighbourhoods were (and are), in fact, more disordered than white ones. How can you be sure that their concerns were not ultimately rational? Consider this: how does something as cut-throat as the property market sustain such an obvious and persistent undervaluation of black properties, if it were really based on racism (i.e. phantom reasons)? It's fashionable to denigrate the Efficient Market Hypothesis nowadays, but this kind of shit doesn't fly. Surely, some real estate broker or banker or quant could put aside his racism and make a killing by exploiting the mismatch between the valuation and its actual worth? Under any reasonable assumptions (i.e. that the financial industry likes to make money) the whole thing would vanish. It hasn't, so by modus tollens there must be something to the stereotype.

[QUOTE=kurgan;46492833]look, all you're doing is reiterating the correlation. I've said that it doesn't imply causation. sit down and think for like, 60 seconds, of how you could get the same correlation pattern but with a different causal structure. if you can't get more than 3 you're doing it wrong. the statistics say who has tried drugs more. it does not say who are current users. again, the data is being stretched beyond what it actually shows. if blacks are more likely to become habitual users (I do not actually know if this is the case, but I would bet money that it is) rather than just trying it once, they are more likely to be arrested. Drapetomania, clearly :) But black neighbourhoods were (and are), in fact, more disordered than white ones. How can you be sure that their concerns were not ultimately rational? Consider this: how does something as cut-throat as the property market sustain such an obvious and persistent undervaluation of black properties, if it were really based on racism (i.e. phantom reasons)? It's fashionable to denigrate the Efficient Market Hypothesis nowadays, but this kind of shit doesn't fly. Surely, some real estate broker or banker or quant could put aside his racism and make a killing by exploiting the mismatch between the valuation and its actual worth?[/QUOTE] At this point you are actively denying that White Flight even existed, despite the fact that it is not a matter of opinion: it is a historical fact. White Flight led to the devaluation of these communities, and the rise of crime, not the other way around. To top it off, you are also baselessly asserting that you believe black people are more prone to becoming drug users on an individual basis, and you still have not provided any explanation for why [I]you[/I] believe the black crime rate to be so absurdly high, if you discount the well documented history of racism and manufactured ghettos that most scholars on the subject seem to attribute it to. I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at with the Drapetomania reference. Is that supposed to be a joke?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46492868]At this point you are actively denying that White Flight even existed, despite the fact that it is not a matter of opinion: it is a historical fact. White Flight led to the devaluation of these communities, and the rise of crime, not the other way around.[/QUOTE] how does any of that amount to me denying the existence of white flight?? I disagree with what you say was the cause (racism).

[QUOTE=kurgan;46492897]how does any of that amount to me denying the existence of white flight?? I disagree with what you say was the cause (racism).[/QUOTE] You literally just denied the exact motivations and conditions of White Flight. Racism [I]was[/I] the cause. This is not an opinion. It is a fact. You may as well argue that segregated water fountains, schools, and bus seats weren't a result of racism. What is your excuse for those, I wonder? Fear of cooties? If you're going to defend overt racism, at least call it by its proper name. Don't hide behind skewed definitions.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46492929]You literally just denied the exact motivations and conditions of White Flight. Racism [I]was[/I] the cause. This is not an opinion. It is a fact. You may as well argue that segregated water fountains, schools, and bus seats weren't a result of racism.[/QUOTE] It's neither an opinion, nor a fact. It's wrong. Oh and I'm not sure if you're aware if it, but you're using a very slimy argumentative tactic. You're playing fast and loose with two parallel definitions of "White Flight": Meaning A: the exodus of whites from areas as blacks fill them. This undeniably happened, and is what people usually refer to by the phrase. [quote]White flight is a term that originated in the United States, starting in the mid-20th century, and applied to the large-scale migration of whites of various European ancestries from racially mixed urban regions to more racially homogeneous suburban or exurban regions. The term has more recently been applied to other migrations by whites, from older, inner suburbs to rural areas, as well as from the US Northeast and Midwest to the milder climate in the Southeast and Southwest.[1][2][3] The term has also been used for large-scale post-colonial emigration of whites from Africa, or parts of that continent,[4][5][6][7][8] driven by levels of violent crime and anti-colonial state policies.[9][/quote] No mention of racism - that is left for later when it describes the causes. Meaning B: the same as above, but with the supposed cause (racism) as an integral part of the definition. Therefore, when somebody says that racism wasn't the cause of White Flight, you can use the B-definition to say "you deny the existence of White Flight", which any ordinary person will interpret as the A-definition: "this person denies that white people left cities en masse, what a lunatic!" Stop it.

[QUOTE=kurgan;46492939]It's neither an opinion, nor a fact. It's wrong.[/QUOTE] Based on what? Because essentially every scholar of racial history in the country would beg to differ.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46492949]Based on what? Because essentially every scholar of racial history in the country would beg to differ.[/QUOTE] woops sorry if i don't believe everything that comes out of some degree-mill "XYZ-studies" department

[QUOTE=kurgan;46492939]It's neither an opinion, nor a fact. It's wrong. Oh and I'm not sure if you're aware if it, but you're using a very slimy argumentative tactic. You're playing fast and loose with two parallel definitions of "White Flight": Meaning A: the exodus of whites from areas as blacks fill them. This undeniably happened, and is what people usually refer to by the phrase. No mention of racism - that is left for later when it describes the causes. Meaning B: the same as above, but with the supposed cause (racism) as an integral part of the definition. Therefore, when somebody says that racism wasn't the cause of White Flight, you can use the B-definition to say "you deny the existence of White Flight", which any ordinary person will interpret as the A-definition: "this person denies that white people left cities en masse, what a lunatic!" Stop it.[/QUOTE] I in no way meant to imply that you were denying that white people abandoned cities, just that you were denying the well-documented historical facts of why and how they left them as a means to further your agenda of willful ignorance of the racial background of the United States. [editline]14th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=kurgan;46493001]woops sorry if i don't believe everything that comes out of some degree-mill "XYZ-studies" department[/QUOTE] Your amusing lack of credibility is showing.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46493007]I in no way meant to imply that you were denying that white people abandoned cities, just that you were denying the well-documented historical facts of why and how they left them as a means to further your agenda of willful ignorance of the racial background of the United States.[/QUOTE] well, that's how it came off to me. sorry for the implication though.

[QUOTE=kurgan;46492833]look, all you're doing is reiterating the correlation. I've said that it doesn't imply causation. sit down and think for like, 60 seconds, of how you could get the same correlation pattern but with a different causal structure. if you can't get more than 3 you're doing it wrong. [/QUOTE] You're saying that the relation between income and crime rate is just a coincidence? It doesn't seem at all to you, that it couldn't be the direct cause? That the situations that arise when living in poverty, where the education system is also likely to be sub-par, wouldn't lead into a higher crime rate? Seriously, you're ignoring the largest, most prevalent factor in this, and then claiming it's something else without even giving an example of what it could be. [QUOTE]the statistics say who has tried drugs more. it does not say who are current users. again, the data is being stretched beyond what it actually shows. if blacks are more likely to become habitual users (I do not actually know if this is the case, but I would bet money that it is) rather than just trying it once, they are more likely to be arrested. [/QUOTE] If someone tries an illegal drug, black or white, I doubt they're going to stop after the first try. You're not even sure yourself that blacks are more likely to be habitual users. Whites could habitual users just as much, but they're not pursued by the police to the same degree. They're looking for people living in ghettos, not a suburban college student. [QUOTE]Drapetomania, clearly :) [/QUOTE] How tasteful. [QUOTE] But black neighbourhoods were (and are), in fact, more disordered than white ones. How can you be sure that their concerns were not ultimately rational? [/QUOTE] Their concerns originated from the mindset of the time and of the previous decades: that blacks were inferior, that they were an eyesore and you shouldn't have to put up with them. That mindset was [B]grounded in the time[/B], even if the crime rate for blacks was 0, they still wouldn't have wanted to live in a neighborhood populated by blacks. [QUOTE]Consider this: how does something as cut-throat as the property market sustain such an obvious and persistent undervaluation of black properties, if it were really based on racism (i.e. phantom reasons)? It's fashionable to denigrate the Efficient Market Hypothesis nowadays, but this kind of shit doesn't fly. Surely, some real estate broker or banker or quant could put aside his racism and make a killing by exploiting the mismatch between the valuation and its actual worth? Under any reasonable assumptions (i.e. that the financial industry likes to make money) the whole thing would vanish. It hasn't, so by modus tollens there must be something to the stereotype.[/QUOTE] Black property was deemed lower because the people who could actually afford to move around didn't want to move somewhere populated with blacks back then. Moving to today, these communities that have been affected by white flight have sunken property values because of the economic turmoil that has influenced them thanks to white flight, once again, continuing the cycle.

[QUOTE=kurgan;46493025]well, that's how it came off to me. sorry for the implication though.[/QUOTE] Why exactly are you arguing so staunchly against this? What is your end-game? What do you hope to prove? You have yet to offer any real position of your own, save for attempting to break down mine (and that of the professionals who have devoted their lives to understanding this exact subject). If you deny the motivations and effects of White Flight, urban poverty, and the overall sociopolitical history of racism in the United States as the cause for high crime rates among black people, then what is [I]your[/I] explanation? Honestly, I'd love to hear your position, because if you are willing to so swiftly cast aside such a massive mountain of data, historical fact, and scholarly conjecture on this issue, you [I]must[/I] have an interesting and convincing perspective. Right?

[QUOTE=Suzune;46493030]You're saying that the relation between income and crime rate is just a coincidence? It doesn't seem at all to you, that it couldn't be the direct cause? That the situations that arise when living in poverty, where the education system is also likely to be sub-par, wouldn't lead into a higher crime rate?[/quote] I'm saying that the correlation between income and crime is mediated, to a large extent by race. And I didn't deny that crime can't be caused by poverty - poverty will fuel acquisitive crime. But the association between poverty and violent crime is non-obvious. Again, Appalachia is poor, and has a high rate of petty crime and redneck drug use. Violent crime is half the national average. I don't need to tell you what is the majority race in Appalachia. [quote]If someone tries an illegal drug, black or white, I doubt they're going to stop after the first try. You're not even sure yourself that blacks are more likely to be habitual users. Whites could habitual users just as much, but they're not pursued by the police to the same degree. They're looking for people living in ghettos, not a suburban college student.[/quote] I wasn't sure, but I stuck my neck out and made a prediction. [url]http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/200903/readers-quiz-which-race-takes-more-drugs[/url] shock, horror, I was right. [quote]If you consider all the people who have ever used marijuana, then look at the percentage who did so in the last year, there is a large drop off - for whites, over three quarters "quit." (This is actually even truer for "hard" drugs - crack and heroin - which tells us that drug experimentation is overwhelmingly the rule, rather than progression to habitual use.) However, slightly (but significantly) more African Americans are current users - indicating that more White Americans outgrow drug use over their lifetimes (about a third of African Americans who have ever used marijuana did so in the last year). [B] Oh, by the way, mixed race Americans are actually number one in the recent marijuana use categories - 17 percent in the last year, 10 percent the last month. A mixed racial identity is a risk factor for current drug use.[/B][/quote] (as an aside, that last part is super interesting and I don't know how to explain it!) [quote]Their concerns originated from the mindset of the time and of the previous decades: that blacks were inferior, that they were an eyesore and you shouldn't have to put up with them. That mindset was [B]grounded in the time[/B], even if the crime rate for blacks was 0, they still wouldn't have wanted to live in a neighborhood populated by blacks. Black property was deemed lower because the people who could actually afford to move around didn't want to move somewhere populated with blacks back then. Moving to today, these communities that have been affected by white flight have sunken property values because of the economic turmoil that has influenced them thanks to white flight, once again, continuing the cycle.[/QUOTE] I don't think you understood the point about the efficient market hypothesis. What do you think would happen once some banker noticed "holy shit, my colleagues are idiots, they think blacks are actually more criminal!" He'd exploit the inefficiency by offering mortgages and rents at the proper rate rather than the inflated rate, and make a shitload of money through the extra tenants. [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46493041]Why exactly are you arguing so staunchly against this? What is your end-game? What do you hope to prove? You have yet to offer any real position of your own, save for attempting to break down mine (and that of the professionals who have devoted their lives to understanding this exact subject). If you deny the motivations and effects of White Flight, urban poverty, and the overall sociopolitical history of racism in the United States as the cause for high crime rates among black people, then what is [I]your[/I] explanation? Honestly, I'd love to hear your position, because if you are willing to so swiftly cast aside such a massive mountain of data, historical fact, and scholarly conjecture on this issue, you [I]must[/I] have an interesting and convincing perspective. Right?[/QUOTE] because it's twenty to 3 in the morning and I'm procrastinating from studying :^)

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46492929]You literally just denied the exact motivations and conditions of White Flight. Racism [I]was[/I] the cause. This is not an opinion. It is a fact. You may as well argue that segregated water fountains, schools, and bus seats weren't a result of racism. What is your excuse for those, I wonder? Fear of cooties? If you're going to defend overt racism, at least call it by its proper name. Don't hide behind skewed definitions.[/QUOTE] Bullshit. "East St. Louis was named an All-America City in 1959, having retained prosperity through the decade as its population reached a peak of 82,295 residents. In 1950, it was the fourth largest city in Illinois. Through the 1950s and later, the city's musicians were an integral creative force in blues, rock and roll and jazz. Some left and achieved national recognition, such as Ike & Tina Turner and the jazz great Miles Davis, who was born in nearby Alton and grew up in East St. Louis. The 1999 PBS series River of Song featured these musicians in its coverage of music of cities along the Mississippi River. Cargill grain elevator in East St. Louis [B]The city suffered from the mid-century deindustrialization and railroad restructuring. As a number of local factories began to close because of changes in industry, the railroad and meatpacking industries also were cutting back and moving jobs out of the region. This led to a precipitous loss of working and middle-class jobs. The city's financial conditions deteriorated.[/B] Elected in 1951, Mayor Alvin Fields tried funding measures that resulted in raising the city's bonded indebtedness and the property tax rate. More businesses closed as workers left the area to seek jobs in other regions. More established white workers had an easier time gaining jobs in other localities, and the city demographics became increasingly black. Crime increased as a result of poverty and lack of opportunities. "Brownfields" (areas with environmental contamination by heavy industry) have made redevelopment more difficult and expensive." Industry collapsing > loss of middle class (aka white people by and large) > white flight > black migration (cheaper housing post industry collapse) > continued poor social conditions Its not a fact at all, you would like it to be so you can preach authoritatively on the subject, but it is clearly up for debate. [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] the 2nd half of your post is pure straw man. We're not talking about segregation, you're arguing the collapse of east st louis was purely because of racism and not because the fucking economic backbone of the city died out. Yeah whitey sure just loves not making money and having to rearrange their economic future just to keep black people out of the neighborhood. Are you fucking insane?

Still waiting on an explanation of how racism can cause tens of thousands of money-men to collectively leave hundreds of billions of dollars worth of real estate arbitrage on the table.

the problem with racists is that their arguments are built entirely on solid numbers, but assumed conclusions They take otherwise correct numbers and assign the conclusion that the cause for that number is the inferiority of other races. A "racist of the gaps" argument, if you will. Their argument is similar to many other ideological apologist arguments in that it assumes that if all other possibilities are removed, theirs will be proven true by default. Because in their minds they're already correct, and all information and fact finding is about finding a road back towards their assumed conclusion. And the efficient market thing is bogus, by the way. Of course the areas are more crime ridden, but they're more crime ridden because of actions taken mainly by white people because of racist sentiment. If you kick someone into a ditch, they are objectively below you for all intents and purposes. Just not because they're naturally short.

[QUOTE=Bert the Turtle;46491103]can i ask how the protesters themselves are being "racist"?[/QUOTE] Considering most the protests are "only white people make up the justice system! and they intentionally shoot black people for fun and they think they can get away with! stop it white people" Here's a great example of their views. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQfg52m0-4o[/media] "Hey white people!" Yeah because you speak for all black people right? And because all white people share the same views. If you want to stop racist profiling, this isn't how you do it. Because how much you wanna bet there are black cops who profile other non-officer blacks as "gang bangers, gangsters, etc"

[QUOTE=dilzinyomouth;46493175]Bullshit. "East St. Louis was named an All-America City in 1959, having retained prosperity through the decade as its population reached a peak of 82,295 residents. In 1950, it was the fourth largest city in Illinois. Through the 1950s and later, the city's musicians were an integral creative force in blues, rock and roll and jazz. Some left and achieved national recognition, such as Ike & Tina Turner and the jazz great Miles Davis, who was born in nearby Alton and grew up in East St. Louis. The 1999 PBS series River of Song featured these musicians in its coverage of music of cities along the Mississippi River. Cargill grain elevator in East St. Louis [B]The city suffered from the mid-century deindustrialization and railroad restructuring. As a number of local factories began to close because of changes in industry, the railroad and meatpacking industries also were cutting back and moving jobs out of the region. This led to a precipitous loss of working and middle-class jobs. The city's financial conditions deteriorated.[/B] Elected in 1951, Mayor Alvin Fields tried funding measures that resulted in raising the city's bonded indebtedness and the property tax rate. More businesses closed as workers left the area to seek jobs in other regions. More established white workers had an easier time gaining jobs in other localities, and the city demographics became increasingly black. Crime increased as a result of poverty and lack of opportunities. "Brownfields" (areas with environmental contamination by heavy industry) have made redevelopment more difficult and expensive." Industry collapsing > loss of middle class (aka white people by and large) > white flight > black migration (cheaper housing post industry collapse) > continued poor social conditions Its not a fact at all, you would like it to be so you can preach authoritatively on the subject, but it is clearly up for debate. [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] the 2nd half of your post is pure straw man. We're not talking about segregation, you're arguing the collapse of east st louis was purely because of racism and not because the fucking economic backbone of the city died out. Yeah whitey sure just loves not making money and having to rearrange their economic future just to keep black people out of the neighborhood. Are you fucking insane?[/QUOTE] This is true. But there are two steps to making a ghetto, moving people in, and keeping them from moving out. The reason that white and black neighborhoods are so segregated is because white people are more mobile than black people are. And no matter what you think about how things are today, it's undeniable that for a great deal of time in the past it was because of racist sentiment. Of course economic factors are a large part of it. You need oxygen, heat, and fuel to make a fire, after all.

[QUOTE=kurgan;46493135]I'm saying that the correlation between income and crime is mediated, to a large extent by race. And I didn't deny that crime can't be caused by poverty - poverty will fuel acquisitive crime. But the association between poverty and violent crime is non-obvious. Again, Appalachia is poor, and has a high rate of petty crime and redneck drug use. Violent crime is half the national average. I don't need to tell you what is the majority race in Appalachia. [/QUOTE] Then tell us, why do you think blacks have a higher incarceration rate for violence based crimes? Appalachia is an example of poverty leading to petty crime, but it isn't the guideline, right? [QUOTE]I wasn't sure, but I stuck my neck out and made a prediction. [url]http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/200903/readers-quiz-which-race-takes-more-drugs[/url] shock, horror, I was right.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]However, if you switch your scope to mj use in the last year, African Americans are number one (12 percent) followed by Native Americans (11 percent), then Whites (10 percent). And leading in current (past month) use are Native Americans (8 percent), then African Americans (7 percent), then Whites (6 percent).[/QUOTE] In the case of last year and last month, these difference comes down to 1-2%, and yet arrest rates are still disproportionate. [QUOTE]I don't think you understood the point about the efficient market hypothesis. What do you think would happen once some banker noticed "holy shit, my colleagues are idiots, they think blacks are actually more criminal!" He'd exploit the inefficiency by offering mortgages and rents at the proper rate rather than the inflated rate, and make a shitload of money through the extra tenants. [/QUOTE] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining"]Makes sense, but surprisingly, things went the other way. [/URL] [QUOTE]because it's twenty to 3 in the morning and I'm procrastinating from studying :^)[/QUOTE] So once again, what is your position?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46493257]the problem with racists is that their arguments are built entirely on solid numbers, but assumed conclusions They take otherwise correct numbers and assign the conclusion that the cause for that number is the inferiority of other races. A "racist of the gaps" argument, if you will. Their argument is similar to many other ideological apologist arguments in that it assumes that if all other possibilities are removed, theirs will be proven true by default. Because in their minds they're already correct, and all information and fact finding is about finding a road back towards their assumed conclusion.[/quote] Isn't it convenient how the Enemy Tribe is the one that has their opinions set in stone and selectively uses data to rationalize their opinion? Of course, My Tribe is different - we're the enlightened voices of reason that dispassionately follow the data wherever it may lead. God, it's all so easy being on the right side of history! [quote]And the efficient market thing is bogus, by the way.[/quote] Do tell. [quote]Of course the areas are more crime ridden, but they're more crime ridden because of actions taken mainly by white people because of racist sentiment. If you kick someone into a ditch, they are objectively below you for all intents and purposes. Just not because they're naturally short.[/QUOTE] Comedy gold

[QUOTE=Episode;46493269]Considering most the protests are "only white people make up the justice system! and they intentionally shoot black people for fun and they think they can get away with! stop it white people" Here's a great example of their views. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQfg52m0-4o[/media] "Hey white people!" Yeah because you speak for all black people right? And because all white people share the same views. If you want to stop racist profiling, this isn't how you do it. Because how much you wanna bet there are black cops who profile other non-officer blacks as "gang bangers, gangsters, etc"[/QUOTE] While I also find any sort of racial generalization appalling, it's not uncommon for two segregated communities of any kind to build up an unfounded straw version of the other to aim their complaints at. The complaints themselves are valid though. The problem is with the target, and how those complaints are being communicated. [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=kurgan;46493332]Isn't it convenient how the Enemy Tribe is the one that has their opinions set in stone and selectively uses data to rationalize their opinion? Of course, My Tribe is different - we're the enlightened voices of reason that dispassionately follow the data wherever it may lead. God, it's all so easy being on the right side of history! Do tell. Comedy gold[/QUOTE] I personally try only to support conclusions which are directly supported by evidence. That's just me though, I don't pick sides. If you take issue with me generalizing you as a "racist", feel free to suggest an equally accurate or descriptive term. I don't appeal to history. That would be a fallacy. I just think you're wrong.

[QUOTE=Episode;46493269]Considering most the protests are "only white people make up the justice system! and they intentionally shoot black people for fun and they think they can get away with! stop it white people" Here's a great example of their views. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQfg52m0-4o[/media] "Hey white people!" Yeah because you speak for all black people right? And because all white people share the same views. If you want to stop racist profiling, this isn't how you do it. Because how much you wanna bet there are black cops who profile other non-officer blacks as "gang bangers, gangsters, etc"[/QUOTE] The ultimate irony of this is fckh8 is an organization ran by white upper class yuppies. I mean that script they are reading alone is obviously written by someone, probably a girl, in her early 20s and in the passionate throes of social activism on campus. The mannerisms, the speech patterns, its all too clear.

[QUOTE=Suzune;46493322]In the case of last year and last month, these difference comes down to 1-2%, and yet arrest rates are still disproportionate.[/quote] On that point, you've got me. I'm not sure. I would hazard a guess that blacks are more likely to smoke outdoors, but this is based on anecdotes so I won't rest on it. [quote][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining"]Makes sense, but surprisingly, things went the other way. [/URL][/quote] top fucking lel, I was waiting for the redlining myth to come up. at the most charitable reading, the redlining explanation is your standard "stupid government distorts price signals" kind of thing, in the form of the FHA. wiki makes passing note of "informal discrimination that took place earlier" but this masks the reality that the FHA merely codified what was already happening. again, real estate agents and other brokers were supposedly prepared to eat up the cost of their self-imposed racism. blacks were only one factor among many: [img]http://i.imgur.com/caPhTLr.png[/img] in particular, inner-city zones were often redlined not because of the racial composition, but because they were older buildings that cost more to insure (this is also a partial cause for urban sprawl). the FHA only affected a minor part of the housing market: [img]http://i.imgur.com/qhpr7AO.png[/img] nonexistent effect on black homeownership: [img]http://i.imgur.com/bF2ecoY.png[/img] and of course, most inhabitants of redlined zones were fucking white anyway.

[QUOTE=dilzinyomouth;46493175]Bullshit. "East St. Louis was named an All-America City in 1959, having retained prosperity through the decade as its population reached a peak of 82,295 residents. In 1950, it was the fourth largest city in Illinois. Through the 1950s and later, the city's musicians were an integral creative force in blues, rock and roll and jazz. Some left and achieved national recognition, such as Ike & Tina Turner and the jazz great Miles Davis, who was born in nearby Alton and grew up in East St. Louis. The 1999 PBS series River of Song featured these musicians in its coverage of music of cities along the Mississippi River. Cargill grain elevator in East St. Louis [B]The city suffered from the mid-century deindustrialization and railroad restructuring. As a number of local factories began to close because of changes in industry, the railroad and meatpacking industries also were cutting back and moving jobs out of the region. This led to a precipitous loss of working and middle-class jobs. The city's financial conditions deteriorated.[/B] Elected in 1951, Mayor Alvin Fields tried funding measures that resulted in raising the city's bonded indebtedness and the property tax rate. More businesses closed as workers left the area to seek jobs in other regions. More established white workers had an easier time gaining jobs in other localities, and the city demographics became increasingly black. Crime increased as a result of poverty and lack of opportunities. "Brownfields" (areas with environmental contamination by heavy industry) have made redevelopment more difficult and expensive." Industry collapsing > loss of middle class (aka white people by and large) > white flight > black migration (cheaper housing post industry collapse) > continued poor social conditions Its not a fact at all, you would like it to be so you can preach authoritatively on the subject, but it is clearly up for debate. [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] the 2nd half of your post is pure straw man. We're not talking about segregation, you're arguing the collapse of east st louis was purely because of racism and not because the fucking economic backbone of the city died out. Yeah whitey sure just loves not making money and having to rearrange their economic future just to keep black people out of the neighborhood. Are you fucking insane?[/QUOTE] That's a very good point. You are definitely right to assert that it's foolish not to consider the de-industrialization of America as a factor of migrations from urban areas, but I would argue that it's just as foolish, if not considerably more so, to ignore the obvious racial element of this, especially considering that the roots of White Flight as a national phenomenon date back to nearly forty years prior to de-industrialization. [url]http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/uhic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?zid=6a1bad0fb7249abc890694c4d619b1e3&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CCX3409002659&userGroupName=sand55832&jsid=0eb36a88ed67eee83f67ce22149cc5f5[/url] [quote]They lobbied politicians, bankers, and real estate agents to restrict blacks informally to designated black neighborhoods, usually comprised of older housing stock. The Baltimore city council enacted an ordinance forbidding any black person from moving into a block where a majority of the residents were white in 1910, and a dozen other cities followed suit, even though the United States Supreme Court declared residential segregation unconstitutional in 1917.[/quote] [quote]When legal or extra-legal exclusionary tactics failed, whites resorted to out-migration, turning over a neighborhood to their former adversaries. Residential homogeneity could be based on factors such as class, religion, or ethnicity, but white flight came to be the term for relocation related to racial differences.[/quote] White Flight was, at its heart, a reaction to the "incursion" of minorities people into white communities. While de-industrialization played a big role in setting the stage for the eventual mass-migration during the 60's and 70's, racial tension was the factor that historians believe was the true tipping point for White Flight. It was a recognized phenomena which occurred in dozens of major cities around the country. It's important to realize that this was still a very effective, if not official, form of racial segregation. It takes only a quick look at the racial demographics of urban areas to see how they have been divided. In the case of modern-day Saint Louis, we have this: [t]http://i.imgur.com/JMC51kn.png?1[/t] Blue represents the concentration of black people in this city, and red is the whites. I find it very hard to argue that race is not a driving force of this. However, even if we cannot prove beyond a doubt that White Flight was the [I]primary[/I] factor of black people in Saint Louis ending up in the situation that they currently live in, it is very easy to show that they came to this point as a result of very strong sociopolitical influences, and that racism played a strong part throughout the entire process. The blue areas of this map are deeply povertous and riddled with crime, and very little has changed on an institutional level to go about making a real difference in this. There is a very good reason that black people in America feel disenfranchised and abandoned at best, and outright subjugated at worst, and that map paints in very clear colors what that reason is.

[QUOTE=dilzinyomouth;46493175]-good stuff-[/QUOTE] of course, the reality of poverty in urban communities is much more complex and in many ways based on larger macroeconomic conditions. it seems like the primary focus of this whole debate has been the actual role of racism in current socioeconomic conditions and the race relations that arise from it. but in terms of finding a solution (that is, building trust and mutual cooperation between the black community and police departments) one needs to tackle perceptions. regardless of whether or not racism is rampant in police departments, people believe it is, and there are a few broader general steps that can be taken: ending the war on drugs, taking steps to demilitarize police departments, offering community outreach, taking efforts to change police culture and perceptions (ending the "us vs them" mentality, essentially), taking up a more sympathetic stance on crime (like the kind that scandinavian countries employ wherein rehabilitation rather than punishment is key to criminal justice), things of all that sort. all of those things not only reduce crime (by having communities work with departments to prevent it, by reducing recidivism, and by ending arrests for drug possession) but also in turn mitigate the impact of racial disparities in crime rates.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46493347]I personally try only to support conclusions which are directly supported by evidence. That's just me though, I don't pick sides. If you take issue with me generalizing you as a "racist", feel free to suggest an equally accurate or descriptive term. I don't appeal to history. That would be a fallacy. I just think you're wrong.[/QUOTE] Look, everybody thinks their conclusions are supported by the evidence. Everybody thinks they don't pick sides.

[QUOTE=joes33431;46493449]of course, the reality of poverty in urban communities is much more complex and in many ways based on larger macroeconomic conditions. it seems like the primary focus of this whole debate has been the actual role of racism in current socioeconomic conditions and the race relations that arise from it. but in terms of finding a solution (that is, building trust and mutual cooperation between the black community and police departments) one needs to tackle perceptions. regardless of whether or not racism is rampant in police departments, people believe it is, and there are a few broader general steps that can be taken: ending the war on drugs, taking steps to demilitarize police departments, offering community outreach, taking efforts to change police culture and perceptions (ending the "us vs them" mentality, essentially), taking up a more sympathetic stance on crime (like the kind that scandinavian countries employ wherein rehabilitation rather than punishment is key to criminal justice), things of all that sort. all of those things not only reduce crime (by having communities work with departments to prevent it, by reducing recidivism, and by ending arrests for drug possession) but also in turn mitigate the impact of racial disparities in crime rates.[/QUOTE] The main issue with convincing people to take steps towards positive change is that doing so makes people vulnerable, and in many instances those steps will fail. The prison system is a prime example of that. People would rather do something unproductive and harsh than something productive and lax. It's more important to feel as though criminals aren't "getting away with it" than it is to actually reduce the amount of criminals in society.

[QUOTE=joes33431;46493449]of course, the reality of poverty in urban communities is much more complex and in many ways based on larger macroeconomic conditions. it seems like the primary focus of this whole debate has been the actual role of racism in current socioeconomic conditions and the race relations that arise from it. but in terms of finding a solution (that is, building trust and mutual cooperation between the black community and police departments) one needs to tackle perceptions. regardless of whether or not racism is rampant in police departments, people believe it is, and there are a few broader general steps that can be taken: ending the war on drugs, taking steps to demilitarize police departments, offering community outreach, taking efforts to change police culture and perceptions (ending the "us vs them" mentality, essentially), taking up a more sympathetic stance on crime (like the kind that scandinavian countries employ wherein rehabilitation rather than punishment is key to criminal justice), things of all that sort. all of those things not only reduce crime (by having communities work with departments to prevent it, by reducing recidivism, and by ending arrests for drug possession) but also in turn mitigate the impact of racial disparities in crime rates.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3gQJMMlt_E[/media]

[QUOTE=kurgan;46492658]not much. [img]http://chicago.straightdope.com/images/JHBLEOS%20by%20race%20%28numbers%29.PNG[/img] [url]http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3180/what-s-the-racial-breakdown-of-people-killed-by-cops[/url] if blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes then they're more likely to get shot. open and shut case.[/QUOTE] I think percentages would be better here than strict total number of deaths... I say this because I'm not suprised more white people are justfiably shot by police to death, you know... since there are like 6x more white ppl than black people. Raw 'numbers' like this are also super misleading bc you can say, "well, more white people are in prison than black people!" ... yes, thats true, but the proportion of black in prison to black out of it vs the same for whites is ridiculously different.

[QUOTE=kurgan;46493469]Look, everybody thinks their conclusions are supported by the evidence. Everybody thinks they don't pick sides.[/QUOTE] I'm only stating my view, feel free to point out any contradictions between it and my arguments. I strive towards consistency, though of course we are all fallible.