Everyone who has taken a social studies class in high school knows that crime is directly related to poverty. It has nothing to do with skin color, genetics, etc. There are blacks living in every city in this country, including the nice ones. Where are the black murders and shootings in San Dimas? Where are the black gang wars in Woodland Hills? Why isn't Kennebunkport reporting massive riots by their black community? I haven't heard about the crack dealers in Calabasas for a while, I wonder when they're going to start acting up again? Surely the black prostitutes in Beverly Hills are going to have their cover blown any day now. There are black people in every one of the cities, yet not an ounce of crime is taking place. It doesn't matter how small their numbers might be in a given city, if it's genetically in black people to commit crimes, they would commit them regardless. Even more so, since the ones living in nicer cities would have richer neighbors to steal from! Places where there is poverty, you have black crime. Places where there are is no poverty, you have no black crime. It's just that simple.

Quote: (11-09-2014 07:10 PM)Urban Renaissance Man Wrote:  

Everyone who has taken a social studies class in high school knows that crime is directly related to poverty. It has nothing to do with skin color, genetics, etc. There are blacks living in every city in this country, including the nice ones. Where are the black murders and shootings in San Dimas? Where are the black gang wars in Woodland Hills? Why isn't Kennebunkport reporting massive riots by their black community? I haven't heard about the crack dealers in Calabasas for a while, I wonder when they're going to start acting up again? Surely the black prostitutes in Beverly Hills are going to have their cover blown any day now. There are black people in every one of the cities, yet not an ounce of crime is taking place. It doesn't matter how small their numbers might be in a given city, if it's genetically in black people to commit crimes, they would commit them regardless. Even more so, since the ones living in nicer cities would have richer neighbors to steal from! Places where there is poverty, you have black crime. Places where there are is no poverty, you have no black crime. It's just that simple.

Are you willing to challenge that assumption? Because almost every statistic reflects disproportionate criminality irrespective of poverty. Usually that poor whites and asians commit less crime than poor blacks and hispanics.

A good source, but by no means the definitive one is this: http://www.colorofcrime.com/

I am sorry but it is not that simple, but it's also not that complex. It is not poverty, the fact that so many people kneejerk to that should make one think that the statisticians account for it.
It is, imo, liberal identity politics which account for blacks and hispanics being poor and criminal. A third source for both outcomes.

Asians do usually vote democrat but not as uniformly and actually have swung to the Republican side recently after seeing that the dems did them no favors.

Please elaborate on what you mean by "liberal identity politics"? Also, no one has still explain why black crime seems to disappear once the city/neighborhood improves.

Another question I have is, how were the ghettos created in the first place? Please no elementary, childish answers of a bunch of poor people just wanted to live together. Something scholarly please. What are all of these blacks doing in these poor parts of town in the first place? We all know why they are there. We all know the government, combined with the racial policies of the time, has everything to do with it. Yet we said and pretend that blacks are just some animals who are destined to be criminals, because they're black. If that's the case, why don't the Nigerians and other Africans coming to this country commit all sorts of crimes? It's the same damn black people! Most black Americans ancestors come from the same areas that these engineers and doctors come from. Why doesn't that Nigerian doctor just want to knock someone's head off from time to time, out of a primal urge to do so?

Quote: (11-09-2014 07:50 PM)Urban Renaissance Man Wrote:  

Please elaborate on what you mean by "liberal identity politics"? Also, no one has still explain why black crime seems to disappear once the city/neighborhood improves.

Another question I have is, how were the ghettos created in the first place? Please no elementary, childish answers of a bunch of poor people just wanted to live together. Something scholarly please. What are all of these blacks doing in these poor parts of town in the first place? We all know why they are there. We all know the government, combined with the racial policies of the time, has everything to do with it. Yet we said and pretend that blacks are just some animals who are destined to be criminals, because they're black. If that's the case, why don't the Nigerians and other Africans coming to this country commit all sorts of crimes? It's the same damn black people! Most black Americans ancestors come from the same areas that these engineers and doctors come from. Why doesn't that Nigerian doctor just want to knock someone's head off from time to time, out of a primal urge to do so?

Nigerians question is easy to answer: they stay in school.

I am not here to answer your questions when you did not check the source I asked you to. You also brought no citations of your own.

Seriously? "The source" you tried to steer me to might as well have been written by David Duke, and edited by Mark Fuhrman. Again, something scholarly please.

Urban renaissance man, do you have any scholarly "anti-racist" sources to support your claims?

The Color of Crime by NCF is not some neo-Nazi source just because it contains politically incorrect statistics that offend you. NCF is part of American Renaissance. Now if you ask the SPLC, they'll tell you that AmRen is full of racist Nazis. The SPLC will also tell you that Roosh, Forney, and r/theredpill are evil sexist misogynist rapists. Simply dismissing something as bigoted so you don't have to address the information is just an exercise in ignorance that progressives do on a daily basis.

The truth is often hurtful and politically incorrect, but it's still the truth. Minorities (blacks and Hispanics) are exponentially more likely to commit violent crime than whites or Asians. Academic/scientific sources in abundance. That's not racial bias, that's not bigotry, it's a well documented, statistical fact.

This has nothing to do with economics or poverty levels, otherwise whites (the majority) in poor areas would have the same crime rates. If it's not a result of race and genetics, then it's a result of culture within those communities. You can't discredit both.

What determines "racism" is how that information is used to dictate societal behavior against members of those groups.

The Nation of Islam has literature that contain some facts and real-world commentary as well. If I was to start quoting statistics from their website, would you consider that to be nonbiased information? Of course you wouldn't! You would assume their literature would have a racial slant, and an agenda to push. You would assume that any statistics they might come up with would have missing or skewed pieces, and other factors adulterating the information. I feel exactly the same about the "color of crime" bull crap.

We can all find something wrong with each race. Also, I don't claim that there aren't problems in the black community. Of course there is. We all see it. But we also all see why. It's the why that seems to get lost on the Mark Fuhrman's of the world. I say poverty and the desire to no longer be in poverty is the chief reason why there are so many issues in the ghetto. Take blacks out of the ghetto, of which many have left, and the crime suddenly disappears. Therefore, it can't possibly be simply because they're black.

Okay, say it's cultural. That is, ghetto cultural. Italian gangs are cultural as well, and they are nice and white. It still comes down to poverty! If you have an area of poor people, who perceive they are poor due to biases and unfair treatment against them, all living around each other, that is going to breed hate, contempt and anger. Could a "I don't give a fuck" attitude develop in such an environment? Sure. Now, if you want to view that as cultural, I guess you can. However, it's a culture which was created through racism, since the economic plight they're in was created through racism. To be honest, white people are the only ones I know of who can come from high social and economic backgrounds, and still want to go on a shooting spree! How's that for genetics?

Someone please provide a link saying social economic level has nothing to do with crime rate and it's all based on your ethnicity. No newspaper links but actually scientic journal studies would be relevant. I look at the upper class black population of where I live and crime is mostly non existent.

Other than Kabal everyone else has been giving out personal opinions in these last couple of pages

Quote: (11-10-2014 07:40 AM)Mentavious Wrote:  

Someone please provide a link saying social economic level has nothing to do with crime rate and it's all based on your ethnicity. No newspaper links but actually scientic journal studies would be relevant. I look at the upper class black population of where I live and crime is mostly non existent.

Other than Kabal everyone else has been giving out personal opinions in these last couple of pages

Has anyone said that in this entire thread? Or even suggested that? I don't think that they have. You're purposely oversimplifying what others are saying to try to make them sound bad. It's a pretty weak tactic.

I come from a town that is 85% white with over 29% of the population living below the poverty line. We do have some crime problems, but nothing remotely close to places that are dominated by blacks and Hispanics with similar levels of poverty.

There is obviously more to it than just poverty because there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of places in the US which have high rates of poverty but do not have the same crime problems that many poor black and Hispanic areas are plagued with.

Probably the biggest determinant of life outcome is IQ. People with lower IQs tend to commit more crimes, have children out of wedlock, make less money, etc. That is from the Bell Curve.

Quote: (11-09-2014 07:01 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I know multiple studies have been done across cultures that show no matter the race, boys raised without fathers are far more likely to become criminals. It's something extreme, such as a 1000% higher chance of becoming a violent criminal. They've done these studies in Finland, America, South America, etc. the results are the same - single moms produce criminals.

Great book on this topic is called "The Garbage Generation," very good read. You can read it for free with a quick google search.

Single Mothers = poverty and kids more predisposed to commit crimes. It isn't a ethnicity issue its the clear issue that one group in America has more children without father figures around then others. Start the argument from there.

^^^
why are you wasting your time trying to be rational with them?

their position is that blacks are less evolved than whites and asians, hence they[blacks] behave like criminals... a form of lower humans, basically. to strongly support this position they overlook cultural elements and focus on IQ or any factors that they believe is set in stone. They need to think this way to make things inviolable.

Heaven forbid there is a social factor. To them, that is blank statism. and we cannot have that! That will supports spending money on social programs to effect change. As you know, we simply cannot have that! certainly not with my money getting spend on those monkeys! not my tax money! << --that is the honest truth of their thinking.

the rest is just a massive intellectual masturbation/rationalization to support this position.

they are not interested in facts or reason.

just look at the utter, savage glee and excitement they exhibit in that thread about some slavic guy slapping that black hoodrat on the NYC train.

that is their ultimate fantasy right there.

Even though they have zero proof he is slavic, but hey, why spoil the fantasy?!! Thinking the guy is slavic feeds into their slavophilia. At the very least, he is a white man slapping a black woman. Pass the popcorn!

physically assaulting a hoodrat black feeds into their racism. Way to go putting those n-words in their place! atah boy!

all sorts of comments on that thread about how, animals like that(they were referring to the black hood rats)should be killed or shot or put in a zoo...

How can any decent human being even think or say something like that is beyond me. Total demonization and objectification of the *other* to diminish their humanity, as less than part of the human family.

oh well, this is how they truly feel... no point debating or talking to them.

^ Dude, you're not doing anything to help the discussion. If anything, when you post shit like that more whites want to become racist, if only to spite guys like you.

Quote: (11-10-2014 10:09 AM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  

Probably the biggest determinant of life outcome is IQ. People with lower IQs tend to commit more crimes, have children out of wedlock, make less money, etc. That is from the Bell Curve.

IQ is a very strong indicator for violent crime.

http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2012/5/1-17...-wide.html

Quote: (11-10-2014 10:45 AM)kosko Wrote:  

Single Mothers = poverty and kids more predisposed to commit crimes. It isn't a ethnicity issue its the clear issue that one group in America has more children without father figures around then others. Start the argument from there.

Yes

But don't we want to dig deeper?

I would assume the reason this thread had survived 6 pages and counting, is because there are some folks here who are truly concerned and not just seeking an agenda?

Is it enough to give a quick summation and move on?

Or do we only want to talk symptoms and not the disease?

Quote: (11-10-2014 11:12 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

^ Dude, you're not doing anything to help the discussion. If anything, when you post shit like that more whites want to become racist, if only to spite guys like you.

I have a question for you. I simple, honest question.

In all these race discussions, what things have you learnt that shifted your perspective? What concrete thing did you encountered that challenge your views? That developed your thoughts from what you previously held?

This question goes for everybody. Both the leftist and the rightwinger.

Nobody has the perfect answer on these social issues... if after years of reading and engaging in these debates, a person cannot point to at least one concrete thing they've learned from the opposing side. Then, what is the point?

I am not saying you should change your views.. i am simply asking, "what positive, concrete thing have you learned from the opposing side?"

If a person is truly intellectually honest, they would have learned something. Because of the bewildering amount of intellectual firepower brought to this debate. If you (rightist or leftist) haven't learned anything after all these years, something that challenge some of your previous views.... then what is the point of having a conversation with you?

This is one of the things i like about Roosh's blog... you can see his intellectual shift and development... from strong left to center right. To me, that speaks to intellectual honesty.

Most people are not that intellectually honest, hence there is really no point in engaging them. It doesn't matter either way if they are white and become more racist because of my post, since their minds is already made up. They are not going to argue in good faith. Or change their mind to begin with.

So, i ask again, "what positive, concrete thing have you learned from the opposing side?"

Quote: (11-10-2014 11:48 AM)MY DETROIT PLAYAS Wrote:  

Quote: (11-10-2014 10:45 AM)kosko Wrote:  

Single Mothers = poverty and kids more predisposed to commit crimes. It isn't a ethnicity issue its the clear issue that one group in America has more children without father figures around then others. Start the argument from there.

Yes

But don't we want to dig deeper?

I would assume the reason this thread had survived 6 pages and counting, is because there are some folks here who are truly concerned and not just seeking an agenda?

Is it enough to give a quick summation and move on?

Or do we only want to talk symptoms and not the disease?

--

Quote: (11-10-2014 08:54 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  

Quote: (11-10-2014 07:40 AM)Mentavious Wrote:  

Someone please provide a link saying social economic level has nothing to do with crime rate and it's all based on your ethnicity. No newspaper links but actually scientic journal studies would be relevant. I look at the upper class black population of where I live and crime is mostly non existent.

Other than Kabal everyone else has been giving out personal opinions in these last couple of pages

Has anyone said that in this entire thread? Or even suggested that? I don't think that they have. You're purposely oversimplifying what others are saying to try to make them sound bad. It's a pretty weak tactic.

I come from a town that is 85% white with over 29% of the population living below the poverty line. We do have some crime problems, but nothing remotely close to places that are dominated by blacks and Hispanics with similar levels of poverty.

There is obviously more to it than just poverty because there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of places in the US which have high rates of poverty but do not have the same crime problems that many poor black and Hispanic areas are plagued with.

All I want are facts and numbers.

You're right with the fact that it is more than poverty but its also more than just race. As others have stated single mother raising kids is another factor that races violence in kids among all races.

I may be speculating to an enormous degree, but I think that the crime issue with poor minorities vs. lower crime with poor whites would have to do with negative cultural indoctrination toward the mainstream culture rather than genetic predisposition.

I live near Hartford, Connecticut, a city that's almost 80% black/hispanic. The crime rate there is through the roof. It is regularly referred to as one of the most dangerous cities in America. The kids that attend Trinity College, a prestigious school smack dab in the middle of the city, are told not to venture off campus. I kid you not when I say white people from nearby towns don't even go there during the daytime.

This is what I know, and what I have seen. Make of that what you will.

Quote: (11-10-2014 01:15 PM)Joga Bonito Wrote:  

--

In bold, I played ad-libs with Joga Bonito's post. This should illuminate the problem with these kinds of non-fact-based, unfalsifiable narratives--they're attempts at proof by assertion--RVF constantly mocks the PC-feminist crowd for similar writings.

Quote: (11-10-2014 02:51 PM)Mentavious Wrote:  

All I want are facts and numbers.

You're right with the fact that it is more than poverty but its also more than just race. As others have stated single mother raising kids is another factor that races violence in kids among all races.

Regardless of what you believe, I echo Mentavious's call for facts and numbers.

If you believe that x drives or drove y, specify a model.

Put a citation down.

Proffer an effect size.

Present some numbers.

Show that you understand the quantitative material at hand before you post salty, non-discussion-advancing responses like:

Quote: (11-07-2014 03:49 PM)MY DETROIT PLAYAS Wrote:  

Or can your bag of algebraic equations explain this phenomenon?

Don't just regurgitate stuff that "everyone knows" from 10th grade Social Studies or freshmen-year Cultural Studies, or attempt similar appeals to "authority." That's the stuff we mock in unity when it comes to sex-difference-based discussions.

Or else, like I alluded to before, it's just a useless exchange of words that, at best, leads to a shouting match and name-calling.

Any discussion should be over data and methodology, not faith and speculation-presented-as-fact.

The members of RVF like to think they're well-above average in IQ and rationality.

Demonstrate it.

I made an example out of Joga Bonito above, but really a bunch of the posts that have been made on this thread could be subjected to the same exercise--because they revolve around the creation of unfalsifiable narratives.

We would never accept this level of discourse when it comes to male-female relations--why shift gears when it comes to race-related discussions?

In the U.S. we know (confirmable through various sources, including Wikipedia) that blacks are disproportionately, on a per capita basis,* responsible for a greater share of violent crime than whites, and whites than Asians.

Similarly, we know that blacks lag hispanics, who lag whites, who lag East Asians, who lag Jews, on standardized test scores and IQ.

So what explains these patterns that we see? I have seen some hypotheses posted on this thread so far (with no quantitative support, might I add...):

1. Is it socioeconomic status?
2. For blacks, is it some legacy of slavery?
3. For blacks, is it some sort of skin color discrimination?
4. Is it single motherhood rates?

I would like to share some materials I have seen elsewhere on some aspects of combinations of these:

1. Is it socioeconomic status?
For those posting anecdotes on various towns/cities you are familiar with, you may be interested to know that Ron Unz found that the proportion of blacks in a city is a better predictor of crime than the poverty rate or median income in the city.

For many reasons, I do not think that Unz's analysis proves that race is a stronger cause of violent crime than SES--but it certainly tilts the preponderance of evidence to the latter.

I invite the members on this forum to post more quantitatively-supported research on race, SES, and violent crime. I have not seen as much as I would like.

I have, however, seen much on IQ and test scores, and race and SES. And it pretty much always shakes out like the below, with SES being a weak predictor relative to race.



2. For blacks, is it some legacy of slavery?
Largely unmeasured and unfalsifiable. However, we have in-direct evidence from labor economics that it is not--children of black immigrants appear to regress to the mean of black natives:

Quote:Quote:

Black immigrants' labor market outcomes surpass those of native blacks. This paper determines in how far the relative success of black immigrants is passed on to the second generation. If second generation males work, they earn a stunning 29% more than the first generation. But 28% of the black second generation do not work and do not attend school. The joblessness and year-round idleness experienced by many young black men in the US is spilling over to second generation blacks, and blacks who immigrate young.

3. For blacks, is it some sort of skin color discrimination?
Does not appear to be the case. Regression analyses discussed here provided no evidence that lighter-skinned black siblings fared any better than their darker-skinned siblings when it comes to IQ and education:

Quote:Quote:

As can be seen, skin color is completely unrelated to IQ and education between siblings. Darker-skinned individuals are as likely as their lighter-skinned siblings to have higher IQ and more education.

4. Single Motherhood Rates
This actually is the most plausible to me--but it is mostly because I have seen the least evidence against it, not because I think it has been shown that single motherhood rates per se is a great driver of violent crime and IQ.

This is because women who have children out of wedlock likely tend to be low in IQ, low in impulse control, low in consciousness, and high in time preference--thus passing these traits onto their children genetically. Same goes to the sires of these children. So it is tough to see what the impact of single motherhood is, adjusted for genetics.

The disposition for single motherhood need not be identical between populations--some may be more predisposed to it than others. For example, geneticists have found that West Africans, Europeans, and East Asians have had different historical female-to-male breeding ratios (1.4, 1.3, 1.1, respectively). Higher female-to-male breeding ratios means higher historical rates of polygyny, and higher polygyny is associated with lower paternal investment across the animal kingdom, especially primates.


*This is the difference, Giovonny, between violent crime and and examples like high school/colleges shootings or white-collar crime, where it's unclear (at least to what I have seen) if whites are disproportionately responsible relative to the proportion of whites in high school/colleges/white-collar jobs [hence, again, my comment on relative likelihoods...]. I am, however, perfectly open to the idea of a genetic or cultural basis for, say, greater white psychopathy, if the quantitative support is there. Furthermore, it's disingenuous to lump in white-collar crime with violent crime--we might as well throw in jay-walking or turning-on-red in there).

Also once again Giovonny, statistics are not inherently misleading. People, however, can and do lie out of malice and ignorance. For example, it may be the case that downloading a spreadsheet from the U.S. government site and summing up the earnings of American females comes out to around 70% of that of American males. However, people lie by saying or implying something like "women earn 70 cents for every dollar men make, adjusted for productivity").

This is why replicability and falsifiability are important, and taking a look at the source yourself.