Snowflakes in action: the actual reality of "snowflakes" in the world and the consequences

[Hermit]

Try to come up with other causes of the high Black crime rate. If you manage to do that without allowing past and present racism as a dominant factor you'll get bonus points who don't think it is because, you know, Asians.

Explain how past racism causes young Black men to gun down other young Black men in large numbers. Also explain why young Black men commit disproportionate rates of violent crime in Canada and the UK. And Alaska.

Thanks for your refusal, but I'll explain with a few broad strokes just the same.

If you get treated like an inferior type of human being you behave as if you were one. It becomes a vicious circle. Then add the fact that you have no hope of being integrated into white society as an equal with all the opportunity this entails (I know this is a particularly pervasive problem for Australian Aborigines, and suspect similarly so for Inuits, Maoris and other societies that have been overrun and dispossessed by white colonialists in the past) they just don't care what they do any more. That too becomes a vicious circle. The way of life becomes enculturated, but it remains anchored in racism, Asian incomes notwithstanding.

 

[Metaphor]

I have countered that if the incidence of of single-mother households causes an increase in crimes perpetrated by blacks we must expect to see the same effect in the US population at large.

That is a false belief, as I have explained a number of times.

 

[Trausti]

Try to come up with other causes of the high Black crime rate. If you manage to do that without allowing past and present racism as a dominant factor you'll get bonus points who don't think it is because, you know, Asians.

Explain how past racism causes young Black men to gun down other young Black men in large numbers. Also explain why young Black men commit disproportionate rates of violent crime in Canada and the UK. And Alaska.

Thanks for your refusal, but I'll explain with a few broad strokes just the same.

If you get treated like an inferior type of human being you behave as if you were one. It becomes a vicious circle. Then add the fact that you have no hope of being integrated into white society as an equal with all the opportunity this entails (I know this is a particularly pervasive problem for Australian Aborigines, and suspect similarly so for Inuits, Maoris and other societies that have been overrun and dispossessed by white colonialists in the past) they just don't care what they do any more. That too becomes a vicious circle. The way of life becomes enculturated, but it remains anchored in racism, Asian incomes notwithstanding.

So the progressive view that Black people are helpless children who lack agency.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But your comment about (lack of) sizable inheritances helps confirm my belief that wealth inequality is underestimated by many who haven't looked at the data. I will summarize the numbers in Figure 11.11 of Piketty's Capital. I think these numbers are for France; the U.S.A. numbers might be similar or even more pronounced.

The statistic in Figure 11.11 is the fraction of a (birth-year) cohort who inherit more than the median life-time labor earnings (of that cohort?). (That median would be about $1 million I think, surely "sizable.")

Cohort born in 1810 — 10%
Cohort born in 18ึ70 — 8%
Cohort born in 1900 — 2%
Cohort born in 1920 — 2%
Cohort born in 1950 — 5%
Cohort born in 1970 — 12%
Cohort born in 2020 — 15% (predicted)

But when in their life do they inherit? An inheritance from one's parents usually does little to change one's life because it comes too late to do so. And note the big difference between the mean and the median.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, but again, if a lack of fatherly guidance and discipline is a dominant cause of increasing crime among blacks, an increase in the general population's number of children in single-mother households should equally result in a concomitant increase in crime across the board. It's not happening.

Don’t know that lack of fathers is the “dominant” cause of the high Black crime rate; but we seem to agree that it’s a big hurdle for any child growing up. But the high Black crime rate is probably a big factor in the group disparities; though it’s politically incorrect to notice that.

You did attempt to explain the difference of crime rates between blacks and non-blacks in terms of single-mother households here and here. You also tried to bolster your claim by falsely asserting that "Before the 1960's, the White/Black marriage rate was the same". (Before the 1960s the difference was actually a multiple compared to now.)

I have countered that if the incidence of of single-mother households causes an increase in crimes perpetrated by blacks we must expect to see the same effect in the US population at large. We obviously don't. What we see is a number of years (1983- 1991) during which crime rates as well as the number of single-mother households increased, followed by years (1992-2014) in which crime rates dropped significantly (just about halved) despite the continued steady rise in the number of single-mother households. Dads do matter. A lot less than you think. Try to come up with other causes of the high Black crime rate. If you manage to do that without allowing past and present racism as a dominant factor you'll get bonus points who don't think it is because, you know, Asians.

No, because there can be other causes also. Two obvious ones here--unleaded gas and legal abortion.

 

[Hermit]

Yes, but again, if a lack of fatherly guidance and discipline is a dominant cause of increasing crime among blacks, an increase in the general population's number of children in single-mother households should equally result in a concomitant increase in crime across the board. It's not happening.

Don’t know that lack of fathers is the “dominant” cause of the high Black crime rate; but we seem to agree that it’s a big hurdle for any child growing up. But the high Black crime rate is probably a big factor in the group disparities; though it’s politically incorrect to notice that.

You did attempt to explain the difference of crime rates between blacks and non-blacks in terms of single-mother households here and here. You also tried to bolster your claim by falsely asserting that "Before the 1960's, the White/Black marriage rate was the same". (Before the 1960s the difference was actually a multiple compared to now.)

I have countered that if the incidence of of single-mother households causes an increase in crimes perpetrated by blacks we must expect to see the same effect in the US population at large. We obviously don't. What we see is a number of years (1983- 1991) during which crime rates as well as the number of single-mother households increased, followed by years (1992-2014) in which crime rates dropped significantly (just about halved) despite the continued steady rise in the number of single-mother households. Dads do matter. A lot less than you think. Try to come up with other causes of the high Black crime rate. If you manage to do that without allowing past and present racism as a dominant factor you'll get bonus points who don't think it is because, you know, Asians.

No, because there can be other causes also. Two obvious ones here--unleaded gas and legal abortion.

Loren, you misunderstood the question.

 

[Trausti]

Loren, you misunderstood the question.

Study: DC gun crimes involve ‘small number’ of people - WTOP News

A study finds that suspects in violent crime in the District share a lot of characteristics.

wtop.com

The homicide rate in D.C. rose by 18% in 2020 compared to 2019, the study found, and about 500 identifiable people are behind 70% of the 863 incidents involving gun violence. The studies also showed that about 200 people are driving a majority of these incidents at any one point in time.

More than 90% of victims and suspects in 2019 and 2020 were male and about 96% were Black.

That’s pretty bad. Nearly all homicide offenders in DC were Black males. Surely, this is because of FDR’s redlining, right?

While the motive for the shooting “may not be a traditional gang war,” the report says, “often shootings are precipitated by a petty conflict over a young woman, a simple argument, or the now-ubiquitous social media slight.”

Racism!

 

[Hermit]

Loren, you misunderstood the question.

Study: DC gun crimes involve ‘small number’ of people - WTOP News

A study finds that suspects in violent crime in the District share a lot of characteristics.

wtop.com

The homicide rate in D.C. rose by 18% in 2020 compared to 2019, the study found, and about 500 identifiable people are behind 70% of the 863 incidents involving gun violence. The studies also showed that about 200 people are driving a majority of these incidents at any one point in time.

More than 90% of victims and suspects in 2019 and 2020 were male and about 96% were Black.

That’s pretty bad. Nearly all homicide offenders in DC were Black males. Surely, this is because of FDR’s redlining, right?

While the motive for the shooting “may not be a traditional gang war,” the report says, “often shootings are precipitated by a petty conflict over a young woman, a simple argument, or the now-ubiquitous social media slight.”

Racism!

Indeed. To repeat:

If you get treated like an inferior type of human being you behave as if you were one. It becomes a vicious circle. Then add the fact that you have no hope of being integrated into white society as an equal with all the opportunity this entails (I know this is a particularly pervasive problem for Australian Aborigines, and suspect similarly so for Inuits, Maoris and other societies that have been overrun and dispossessed by white colonialists in the past) they just don't care what they do any more. That too becomes a vicious circle. The way of life becomes enculturated, but it remains anchored in racism.

 

[Trausti]

Loren, you misunderstood the question.

Study: DC gun crimes involve ‘small number’ of people - WTOP News

A study finds that suspects in violent crime in the District share a lot of characteristics.

wtop.com

The homicide rate in D.C. rose by 18% in 2020 compared to 2019, the study found, and about 500 identifiable people are behind 70% of the 863 incidents involving gun violence. The studies also showed that about 200 people are driving a majority of these incidents at any one point in time.

More than 90% of victims and suspects in 2019 and 2020 were male and about 96% were Black.

That’s pretty bad. Nearly all homicide offenders in DC were Black males. Surely, this is because of FDR’s redlining, right?

While the motive for the shooting “may not be a traditional gang war,” the report says, “often shootings are precipitated by a petty conflict over a young woman, a simple argument, or the now-ubiquitous social media slight.”

Racism!

Indeed. To repeat:

If you get treated like an inferior type of human being you behave as if you were one. It becomes a vicious circle. Then add the fact that you have no hope of being integrated into white society as an equal with all the opportunity this entails (I know this is a particularly pervasive problem for Australian Aborigines, and suspect similarly so for Inuits, Maoris and other societies that have been overrun and dispossessed by white colonialists in the past) they just don't care what they do any more. That too becomes a vicious circle. The way of life becomes enculturated, but it remains anchored in racism.

The violent crime rate in Appalachia, home of the poorest and most downtrodden Whites, is half the national average.

 

[Hermit]

The violent crime rate in Appalachia, home of the poorest and most downtrodden Whites, is half the national average.

Is it now? Link, please. Excuse me for being sceptical, but without one I won't take your word for it, especially since you were so spectacularly wrong last Saturday about pre-1960's White/Black marriage rates having been the same.

You're not by chance comparing some rural part of Appalachia with the national average, are you? This site shows that rates of reported crimes in rural areas are half that of urban ones. Cherry picking is another trick you and some others are fond of.

As for urban Appalachia this site provides some interesting statistics:

The city violent crime rate for Appalachia in 2019 was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 2.42% and the city property crime rate in Appalachia was higher than the national property crime rate average by 47.34%.

In 2019 the city violent crime rate in Appalachia was higher than the violent crime rate in Virginia by 86.84% and the city property crime rate in Appalachia was higher than the property crime rate in Virginia by 89.25%.

It also presented a couple of graphs that contradict your assertion. Unfortunately, it does not state if those figures cover urban Appalachia only or the entire area covering parts of 13 states, but it would not make an appreciable difference, since less than 10% of Appalachia's population lives in rural areas (Page 9, table 1.1).

 

[Elixir]

We have conservotards still carrying on with their pet correlation/causation/confusion, insisting that blacks' economic predicament is their own fault..
Seems to be determined effort to disregard and deny the effects of generations of slavery upon the descendants of slaves.
Rather than confront those facts, they go fishing for trivial data that can be twisted to indicate that the great great grandson of a slave has it just as easy (economically) as any white son of a woodcutter or an Asian grandson of immigrant parents.
IT JUST AIN'T SO, and I'm pretty sure the consevotards know it but don't want to acknowledge the truth of the matter. That's why my level of respect for them is so very low.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But your comment about (lack of) sizable inheritances helps confirm my belief that wealth inequality is underestimated by many who haven't looked at the data. I will summarize the numbers in Figure 11.11 of Piketty's Capital. I think these numbers are for France; the U.S.A. numbers might be similar or even more pronounced.

The statistic in Figure 11.11 is the fraction of a (birth-year) cohort who inherit more than the median life-time labor earnings (of that cohort?). (That median would be about $1 million I think, surely "sizable.")

Cohort born in 1810 — 10%
Cohort born in 18ึ70 — 8%
Cohort born in 1900 — 2%
Cohort born in 1920 — 2%
Cohort born in 1950 — 5%
Cohort born in 1970 — 12%
Cohort born in 2020 — 15% (predicted)

But when in their life do they inherit? An inheritance from one's parents usually does little to change one's life because it comes too late to do so. And note the big difference between the mean and the median.

There is so much more than inheritance. There is financial stability of parents into end of life which impacts their children's financial situation less. Paying to have Mom and Dad live in your home because they aren't solvent any more costs their children. There is educational inertia as well. Parents get to high school, children to college, grandchildren to college... but blacks had to create their own colleges just to maybe be able to attend college. There is access to better school, less crime in the suburbs, which helps educational performance.

Money and access means a lot more than simply inheritance!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

When one talks about inheriting financial things, it's usually meant after death. But there's also a lifetime of free or reduced cost material property and benefits during lifetime.

 

[Elixir]

When one talks about inheriting financial things, it's usually meant after death. But there's also a lifetime of free or reduced cost material property and benefits during lifetime.

Those things are real, but of minor consequence IMO compared to the “cultural” inheritance of generations of economic dependence upon slave holding plantation owners.

 

[Trausti]

The Japanese get it.

 

[Hermit]

The Japanese get it.

So, what about your Appalachians?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The violent crime rate in Appalachia, home of the poorest and most downtrodden Whites, is half the national average.

Is it now? Link, please. Excuse me for being sceptical, but without one I won't take your word for it, especially since you were so spectacularly wrong last Saturday about pre-1960's White/Black marriage rates having been the same.

You're not by chance comparing some rural part of Appalachia with the national average, are you? This site shows that rates of reported crimes in rural areas are half that of urban ones. Cherry picking is another trick you and some others are fond of.

As for urban Appalachia this site provides some interesting statistics:

The city violent crime rate for Appalachia in 2019 was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 2.42% and the city property crime rate in Appalachia was higher than the national property crime rate average by 47.34%.

In 2019 the city violent crime rate in Appalachia was higher than the violent crime rate in Virginia by 86.84% and the city property crime rate in Appalachia was higher than the property crime rate in Virginia by 89.25%.

It also presented a couple of graphs that contradict your assertion. Unfortunately, it does not state if those figures cover urban Appalachia only or the entire area covering parts of 13 states, but it would not make an appreciable difference, since less than 10% of Appalachia's population lives in rural areas (Page 9, table 1.1).

Is Appalachia, the town, or Appalachia, the region?

The violent crime rate in Appalachia, home of the poorest and most downtrodden Whites, is half the national average.

Is it now? Link, please. Excuse me for being sceptical, but without one I won't take your word for it, especially since you were so spectacularly wrong last Saturday about pre-1960's White/Black marriage rates having been the same.

You're not by chance comparing some rural part of Appalachia with the national average, are you? This site shows that rates of reported crimes in rural areas are half that of urban ones. Cherry picking is another trick you and some others are fond of.

As for urban Appalachia this site provides some interesting statistics:

The city violent crime rate for Appalachia in 2019 was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 2.42% and the city property crime rate in Appalachia was higher than the national property crime rate average by 47.34%.

In 2019 the city violent crime rate in Appalachia was higher than the violent crime rate in Virginia by 86.84% and the city property crime rate in Appalachia was higher than the property crime rate in Virginia by 89.25%.

It also presented a couple of graphs that contradict your assertion. Unfortunately, it does not state if those figures cover urban Appalachia only or the entire area covering parts of 13 states, but it would not make an appreciable difference, since less than 10% of Appalachia's population lives in rural areas (Page 9, table 1.1).

Are your statistics for a town named "Appalachia", in Virginia? If so, I do not believe Trausti was talking about that.

ETA: sorry about the quotations; I still don't know how to use the new forum.

 

[Trausti]

Are your statistics for a town named "Appalachia", in Virginia? If so, I do not believe Trausti was talking about that.

Right.

Appalachia: The big white ghetto

In Appalachia, jobs have vanished, and people live for pills, soda pop, and welfare

theweek.com

There's a great deal of drug use, welfare fraud, and the like, but the overall crime rate throughout Appalachia is about two thirds the national average, and the rate of violent crime is half the national average.

 

[Hermit]

Unfortunately, it does not state if those figures cover urban Appalachia only or the entire area covering parts of 13 states, but it would not make an appreciable difference, since less than 10% of Appalachia's population lives in rural areas.

Are your statistics for a town named "Appalachia", in Virginia?

It does not say.

If so, I do not believe Trausti was talking about that.

Nobody knows. One declarative sentence and no link to support it leaves sfa to work out what Trausti is talking about, and we may never find out. He is not the sort of person who lets statistical facts bother him, let alone make him acknowledge when they have destroyed another one of his cherished opinions. Trausti has a habit of simply going away and talk about something else.

 

[Trausti]

Unfortunately, it does not state if those figures cover urban Appalachia only or the entire area covering parts of 13 states, but it would not make an appreciable difference, since less than 10% of Appalachia's population lives in rural areas.

Are your statistics for a town named "Appalachia", in Virginia?

It does not say.

If so, I do not believe Trausti was talking about that.

Nobody knows. One declarative sentence and no link to support it leaves sfa to work out what Trausti is talking about, and we may never find out. He is not the sort of person who lets statistical facts bother him, let alone make him acknowledge when they have destroyed another one of his cherished opinions. Trausti has a habit of simply going away and talk about something else.

Appalachia has the common meaning of a region. Thought everyone knew that.

Appalachian Regional Commission - Investing in Appalachia's economic future.

Appalachian Regional Commission The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is an economic development partnership entity of the federal government and 13 state governments focusing on 423 counties across the Appalachian Region. ARC’s mission is to innovate, partner, and invest to build community...

www.arc.gov