-->
@Death23
well, metro Detroit has full control on how to deal with local crime and local teacher's unions, so it's really hard to blame whitey.
At What Point Does the "Racism" Boogeyman Go Away?
Posts
Total:
108
-->
@bmdrocks21
Metro Detroit has full control on how to deal with local crime and local teacher's unions, so it's really hard to blame whitey.
-->
@Death23
Separation is very expensive. There are alternatives which you might not have considered.
Firstly, it's not expensive if you do *before* you let them in.
Secondly, you haven't demonstrated any expense. You're quickly becoming a lazy contributor to the forums, if you're frequently unable to cite any of your assertions (considering the last thread). You need to cite this assertion, otherwise I'll refrain from interacting with you.
-->
@MgtowDemon
Shut up.
-->
@MgtowDemon
No. In regards to I.Q, yes. But there are instances wherein black people are genetically superior to white people (and other races).
I don't think there is any point in continuing this. If you honestly think you are genetically superior to another race then there is obviously no way of reaching you with logic. That kind of thinking was disproved a long, long time ago.
you are using a wildly racist argument do argue that racism isn't an issue. that is some serious irony.Please keep the toys in the pram.
lol, no response huh? You use a wildly racist idea to argue racism isn't an issue. You are disproving yourself before you even finish typing.
Shut up.
Your concession is appreciated.
Have a nice day.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't think there is any point in continuing this. If you honestly think you are genetically superior to another race then there is obviously no way of reaching you with logic. That kind of thinking was disproved a long, long time ago.
So, originally, you asked this question: "do you actually believe that black people are genetically inferior to white people?"
To that question, I answered "no" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5177-at-what-point-does-the-racism-boogeyman-go-away?page=3&post_number=51
You have, somehow, turned my "no" into a 'yes'. Due to this, you've proven that you are incapable of rational discussion, and thus our conversation terminates here.
-->
@HistoryBuff
That kind of thinking was disproved a long, long time ago.
Yep.
-->
@Greyparrot
Metro Detroit has full control on how to deal with local crime and local teacher's unions, so it's really hard to blame whitey.
No sir, it is Whitey's fault for leaving instead of fixing all of their problems, don't you know?
-->
@bmdrocks21
I find it slightly humorous that housing development, plentiful jobs, low crime, and good education are labeled perniciously as gentrification by some black communities.
All cultures must be celebrated and at the same time, cultural differences don't matter policy-wise.
-->
@Greyparrot
Honestly, I have yet to hear one good argument for why "gentrification" is bad. When everything is cleaned up, is the "gig up"? Can't blame the neighborhood and red-lining anymore?
-->
@bmdrocks21
Because when gentrification occurs and there are no relaxations of housing construction regulations, people can't build the units needed that the poor people can live in.
So they blame the investors for "pushing poor people out" when it's the regulations that actually push them out. Investors would love the opportunity to build cheap housing if they were allowed to.
-->
@Greyparrot
Or they force rent control to fix that problem for a lack of low-income housing!
And then all existing infrastructure deteriorates since there is no profit incentive to keep it clean and nobody is willing to spend all of that money that will take 10 years to recover the costs!
Yay! Housing shortages and garbage housing!
-->
@bmdrocks21
That is degentrification.
-->
@Greyparrot
Degentrification sounds culturally enriching, you bigot.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Degentrification is cultural pride.
-->
@bmdrocks21
A piece of string is defined by it's mass....But how long is it?
Racism is all about perceived difference and consequent information that is perpetuated as a result.....Whereas, politics is politics.
I'm sat on the fence and can see for sure, that racism is a two way street....What I am saying, is that until the street is all the same, there will always be a racism bogeyman.
-->
@zedvictor4
What I am saying, is that until the street is all the same.
Hegemony is the curse of the English Empire.
-->
@Greyparrot
Hegemony was and is the basis of colonialism.
Though I think that most European colonialist aspirations have been pacified.
And Britain is now largely, a happy mix of people.....Though for sure, a few still have the racist bogeyman under the bed.
-->
@MgtowDemon
So, originally, you asked this question: "do you actually believe that black people are genetically inferior to white people?"You have, somehow, turned my "no" into a 'yes'. Due to this, you've proven that you are incapable of rational discussion, and thus our conversation terminates here
lol you also said that black people had lower IQs than white people because they are genetically inferior. So you think you are smarter than black people for genetic reasons, but that isn't racist? lol you are such a joke.
-->
@MgtowDemon
Unfortunately, African Americans are far more likely to be disadvantaged than Whites because there is a large, negative genetic component (i.e. not racism). In essence, African Americans create their own disadvantage, and thus that doesn't need to be controlled for. If we were to control for it, I suspect (but not know) that the racial gap would disappear entirely, because you would be eliminating the undesirable genes (and the expression thereof) that create the gap in the first place. Genetic components such as lower I.Q [1][2], poor delayed gratification propensity [3], presence of the 'warrior gene' [4] etc. create this gene differential between African American and White populations, and thus one group, on average, becomes more "disadvantaged".
This sort of avoids the point no? We account for disadvantaged status because we want to find the results when all other variables are equal. I can accept everything you said here (about less desirable genes and whatnot) and my point would still stand. If African Americans have undesirable genes, we would want to compare blacks with desirable genes to whites with equivalent genes to truly see if race is playing a role.
allow me provide an analogy.
-We want to see if gym instructors perceive women as being weaker.
My side would say.
-We must find men and women with equivalent strength, have them demonstrate their strength to the instructor, and have the instructor evaluate their performances to find a disparity.
Your side would say.
-We must find group of men and women without adjusting for strength because women are genetically worse off. Then the instructor should evaluate their performances to find a disparity.
Do you see how at this point your side isn't really looking at gender anymore because we aren't accounting for strength disparities between men and women?
Likewise, your not really looking at race anymore because we aren't accounting for socioeconomic disparities. If black people are predisposed to be worse off we can account for this and see if race is a factor or not. You may say we need not account for disadvantaged status because black people are predisposed to disadvantaged status, but that is equivalent to not accounting for strength disparities between men and women in the gym instructor analogy.
Conversely, non-disadvantaged African Americans are such because of their better genes
Okay, so what I'm saying is these non disadvantaged blacks would still get sentenced longer than equally non disadvantaged whites. About 20.4% longer actually.
To any other readers, I do not believe black people are genetically more violent or less intelligent, I am just saying that if I accept this, my point still stands.
-->
@HistoryBuff
lol you also said that black people had lower IQs than white people because they are genetically inferior. So you think you are smarter than black people for genetic reasons, but that isn't racist? lol you are such a joke.
Yes, it fits the textbook definition of racism. I think I posted 11 dictionary entries, all of which showed it to be racism. He seems to be suffering from some delusion that it is not racism.
-->
@Trent0405
This sort of avoids the point no? We account for disadvantaged status because we want to find the results when all other variables are equal. I can accept everything you said here (about less desirable genes and whatnot) and my point would still stand. If African Americans have undesirable genes, we would want to compare blacks with desirable genes to whites with equivalent genes to truly see if race is playing a role.
Yeah you're right. I didn't realise I wrote the wrong conclusion.
Let me fix the part that is wrong. I'll quote the wrong part first:
"If we were to control for it, I suspect (but not know) that the racial gap would disappear entirely, because you would be eliminating the undesirable genes (and the expression thereof) that create the gap in the first place."
This should read:
"If we were to control for it, I suspect (but not know) that the racial gap wouldn't disappear entirely, because you would not be eliminating the undesirable genes (and the expression thereof) that create the gap in the first place."
Okay, so what I'm saying is these non disadvantaged blacks would still get sentenced longer than equally non disadvantaged whites. About 20.4% longer actually.
So the 20.4% is from the Booker report 2012. The critique I can give of it is the following:
The variables not addressed in the 2012 Booker report are as follows: (1) how the defendant presents himself in court, (2) and how likely he is to reoffend. The latter is partially controlled for by the Booker report in that it takes into account criminal history, but that isn't the only part in determining future likelihood of committing a crime (e.g. a new drug habit could have been formed).
I don't know if the 20.4% would evaporate entirely or minutely, but not controlling these variables puts an otherwise excellent study into some doubt.
Also, to go off topic slightly, I can't find any plausible critiques of this part (quoting a previous post of yours): "men have to endure sentences which are 63% longer than their female counterparts (I know my link is a 538 article but it summarizes a 2015 study from Michigan state university)". So, the study certainly isn't complete trash and is actually quite good.
-->
@Trent0405
Okay, so what I'm saying is these non disadvantaged blacks would still get sentenced longer than equally non disadvantaged whites.
Just because black judges might understand more about the black experience doesn’t mean that they’re more sympathetic toward black criminals. In fact, a surprising new study shows that all judges in Louisiana — white or black — actually give longer sentences to juvenile offenders of their own race.
This is a critically important study since it's very rare for a juvenile to fall under the 3 strike rule which affects much of black criminal sentencing.
It also shows a direct reverse of what you would expect from the mass media narrative regarding cross-racial sentencing.
It's a logical result from decades of mandatory "sensitivity" training in the judicial system.
-->
@MgtowDemon
The variables not addressed in the 2012 Booker report are as follows: (1) how the defendant presents himself in court, (2) and how likely he is to reoffend. The latter is partially controlled for by the Booker report in that it takes into account criminal history, but that isn't the only part in determining future likelihood of committing a crime (e.g. a new drug habit could have been formed).I don't know if the 20.4% would evaporate entirely or minutely, but not controlling these variables puts an otherwise excellent study into some doubt.
You must acknowledge that no study can address every variable under the sun, can you find a study that controls for both of these? I did some google searching and couldn't.
Also, to go off topic slightly, I can't find any plausible critiques of this part (quoting a previous post of yours): "men have to endure sentences which are 63% longer than their female counterparts (I know my link is a 538 article but it summarizes a 2015 study from Michigan state university)". So, the study certainly isn't complete trash and is actually quite good.
Well yes, from my understanding the gender gap in sentencing just isn't disputed (though I'm sure flaws in this individual study could be nit picked). Every study has limitations, and they all recognize them as such, including that 2015 Michigan study that found the 63% disparity. This is why we must err on the side where the majority or the plurality of data rests.
This is why I believe in racial sentencing disparities actually, we have the meta analyses (this one looks at 85 studies) and we can see where the totality of the data points.
-->
@Greyparrot
That was indeed a very stupid (surprisingly racist) video.
-->
@Trent0405
You must acknowledge that no study can address every variable under the sun, can you find a study that controls for both of these? I did some google searching and couldn't.
I'm not sure "no study" can do this, but it's certainly an extremely tall order that the overwhelming majority of studies haven't/will not be able to do.
We also had (what I would purport to be) a worthwhile conversation involving the Booker report and arguments relating to it.
So, for context, I originally posted this study in response: No evidence of racial discrimination in criminal justice processing: Results from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health - ScienceDirect .
You responded by saying that, "It is unclear what methodology was used to account for confounding variables. Without that information, we have to allow for the fact that the study had only a 1 in 15 chance of getting reasonably matched populations, and even then, only on SES." You cited this web article: Race and IQ | Alan Duval (patheos.com) . It also complained the other confounding variables not being accounted for (I.Q and age).
After our conversation ended here, I did some research to see if SES actually affects crime. A meta-analysis (Faulk 2016), of a whole variety of topics involving race and SES, found that there was only a "weak" relationship with crime in general Race, Poverty, and Crime – The Alternative Hypothesis . Although, that is not to eliminate low SES entirely as a predictor of crime(as it is still weak), but we know what is left is "small", if it exists at all. So, SES matching the participants wouldn't matter all that much.
As for age, I don't know how much this affects crime (will need to research further).
Controlling for I.Q. is difficult because African Americans have significantly less I.Q. than whites. Albeit, I agree in that I do think this should have been controlled for.
Well yes, from my understanding the gender gap in sentencing just isn't disputed (though I'm sure flaws in this individual study could be nit picked). Every study has limitations, and they all recognize them as such, including that 2015 Michigan study that found the 63% disparity. This is why we must err on the side where the majority or the plurality of data rests.This is why I believe in racial sentencing disparities actually, we have the meta analyses (this one looks at 85 studies) and we can see where the totality of the data points.
This links only to an abstract. Do you have the meta-analysis in full?
-->
@MgtowDemon
I'm not sure "no study" can do this, but it's certainly an extremely tall order that the overwhelming majority of studies haven't/will not be able to do.
Perhaps for very very simple topics yes, all variable could be accounted for. But for a topic as multifaceted as this, I can't imagine everything being taken into account.
After our conversation ended here, I did some research to see if SES actually affects crime. A meta-analysis (Faulk 2016), of a whole variety of topics involving race and SES, found that there was only a "weak" relationship with crime in general Race, Poverty, and Crime – The Alternative Hypothesis . Although, that is not to eliminate low SES entirely as a predictor of crime(as it is still weak), but we know what is left is "small", if it exists at all. So, SES matching the participants wouldn't matter all that much.
Your study sidesteps the question I think. This isn't about whether high or low SES made you more likely to commit crime, we want to see how it impacts sentencing specifically.
The above meta analysis (can't find the whole thing) does state a statistically significant impact of SES on sentencing.
As for age, I don't know how much this affects crime (will need to research further).
I am not quite sure, but I did find this as a top result when I searched around.
The existing research indicates that, at the individual-level, offender characteristics have important relationships with sentencing outcomes. Specifically, age and sex of defendant have been found in some research to be important predictors ofsentence severity. For instance, while the research is clearly not uniform in this regard, several studies have found women receive more lenient sanctions than men (Bernstein45This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
1979; Daly and Tonry 1997; Frazier and Bock 1982; Steffensmeier 1980; Mustard 2001). Similarly, research by Steffensmeier et al. (1998), Spohn and Holleran (2000), Zatz and Hagan (1985) among many others, have found sentence severity is related to age of defendant. Such findings suggest that these characteristics are potentially important moderator variables;
[SOURCE FOR QUOTE] Page 45
This links only to an abstract. Do you have the meta-analysis in full?
-->
@Trent0405
Perhaps for very very simple topics yes, all variable could be accounted for. But for a topic as multifaceted as this, I can't imagine everything being taken into account.
Sure. I was responding more in the vain future-proofing, as opposed to current capabilities.
Your study sidesteps the question I think. This isn't about whether high or low SES made you more likely to commit crime, we want to see how it impacts sentencing specifically.
Yes. My apologies for answering the wrong question. Let's get back to the topic.
I currently don't have a response to this study that you cited, seeing that I can't read it and haven't encountered it before. I'll endeavour to look more into this: The Effects of Physical Attractiveness, Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Gender of Defendants and Victims on Judgments of Mock Jurors: A Meta‐Analysis1 - Mazzella - 1994 - Journal of Applied Social Psychology - Wiley Online Library .
-----
I've revised and mulled over your cited blog response (which was more than substantial, given its thoroughness) Race and IQ | Alan Duval (patheos.com) , which responded to my study No evidence of racial discrimination in criminal justice processing: Results from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (psu.edu) (thank you for finding a working link for it). I think I can provide better answers now. You cited this as the chief concern:
Firstly, age was controlled for to a decent extent. With wave 1 of the data cited (Urdy's Add Health study, 2003, cited in the text), all 90,000 participants were in "middle or high school". Although the sample decreased with each wave, we know that mostly adolescence were used for wave 2 (1.5 years later), "young adults" with the wave 3, and adults aged "24-32" for the final wave. Whilst 1-to-1 correspondence isn't the control method, it appears that at worst 8 years was the gap between participants, and thus the average age for each racial group should have somewhat evened out.
Secondly, SES was controlled for using the following methodology: "Specifically, we recalculated the statistical models by controlling for ameasure of SES that was drawn from wave 1 interviews with theprimary caregiver. This single-item question asked the primarycaregiver whether they were currently receiving public assistance,such as welfare (0 = no, 1 = yes)." So, the question then becomes: is asking whether you're receiving public assistance, enough to control for SES? Again, this isn't the matching of participants called for in the blog, but instead a controlling of it.
Lastly, in regards to controlling for I.Q, the study claims: "almost no study examining racial disparities in criminal justiceprocessing has controlled for both offense severity/frequency andintelligence. What this necessarily means is that IQ and offensefrequency/seriousness may explain the association between raceand criminal justice processing, ruling out the ‘‘biased system’’explanation." Probably the most important distinction to make is that the study did appear to control for "verbal I.Q". "Composite I.Q." is referenced a similar number of times, but that seems to be merely calculated for the races, as opposed to controlled for.
So, for any future study you cite, I will contend that it doesn't control for the participant's verbal IQ and their self reported history of violence, like the Booker report doesn't, and hence the racial sentencing gap is a myth.
I am not quite sure, but I did find this as a top result when I searched around. [SOURCE FOR QUOTE] Page 45
Yes. Age certainly seems to be a predictor of sentencing severity. Therefore, age needs to be controlled for in a crime severity study.
I'll read it and respond in the near future. I'm strapped for time and wanted to give a better response and defense of our original contention.