Why are so many resilient to fact-based truth regarding black criminality?

To date I have been permanently suspended from Instagram, Facebook and Twitter directly (and very specifically) due to posting fact-based truth backed by criminological (and other scientific) data that clearly demonstrates that black Americans, namely half of the roughly 6% of black male population in the US do in fact commit over 50% of the entire nation's murders and non-negligent manslaughters; and that they are also disproportionately represented among other violent crimes like robberies and rapes. And yet those on the left, brainwashed black Americans, white guilt liberals and democrats deny these truths. They twist and manipulate the news to fit their agenda in order to divide people by race, class and more poignantly by gender/sex.

Nearly every single day there is a video posted online across various social media platforms of some black person acting a fool, and intelligent blacks rip them apart for being just that, acting a fool. Former Officer Brandon Tatum is one of them. Larry Elder. You name it. In fact, I am impressed by the number of black American's who are posting their reactions on YouTube to what they see/hear from Thomas Sowell, one of the greatest scholars of this time, regarding black history across the world; but namely America since he too is an American and wanted to understand the plight of blacks on this side of the planet (North America, Central America, South America and the Caribbean).

Blacks, like Hispanics, are moving to the right and for good reason. Yet so many try to keep them under the Democratic bootheel. 

Thoughts for discussion?

1.The nubians came much after the original Egyptians, so they piggy-backed off of non-black innovation. They pulled a South Africa where blacks piggy-backed off of white innovation.

2.The Mali Empire was in direct contact with the outside world and so that is how they developed. Again sub-Saharan advanced societies never develop on their own, instead it took a massive volume of trade for the Mali Empire to grow. That and Ethiopia are the two only exceptions in ALL of sub-Saharan history.

have you considered running those same statistics specifically for "economic status" ?

@Novice_II

factors or variables outside of racism

like what ?

"black culture" ?

why not just say "black culture" in the resolution ?

Yup. 

It's Not Race, It's Culture (Thomas Sowell) (thehayride.com)

My post is based on your words: “white guilt liberals and democrats deny these [crime stat] truths”. That’s the premise of the post title, and the central theme of the op. That is indeed your premise - both explicit and implicit, your reply here is underpinned by it, your original post stated it. And it’s inherently untrue as I outlined.

 

Data doesn’t generally lie. Data is just data. Interpretation of the data, the choice of datasets you include, the conclusions and causal links inferred from them, and the value judgements you make, and the tone you use when conveying them - those lie. Those can lie an awful lot.

And this is the issue, you seem to be unable to draw a distinction between the data you are using, and all the things you’re piling onto it. Your argument here appears to treat those both as the same thing - that if the data is accurate, then your speculative assertions about cause, the implicit value judgements you appear to be baking in with all the negative tone and language - are also accurate and valid. They are not.

Sure, the data is largely - but not entirely accurate - no one contests that a great deal. But what you’re concluding from it, the subtle negative blame laden language, and other subtleties - that’s all from you, not from the data.

 

Racism, broadly speaking, is the belief or opinion that one race is inferior to another in some respect.

 

White supremacy, broadly speaking, is where racism is used in some fashion to justify specific racist policy and dominance of white people. That’s my own words, it doesn’t catch everything - but it’s what I mean when I am talking about racism and white supremacy in this context.

 

Now, your issue is the same as before - you keep conflating the validity of data with the validity of the opinions you inelegantly draw from it.

 

In this respect, you can indeed show the “truth” of some statistic or data point - and draw racist or white supremacist conclusions from it by injecting a bunch of value inferences that don’t appear in that data point.

 

Perhaps, "many," have gleaned from your attempt to qualify criminality by one's so-called "race" as a platitude, which attempts to ascribe a pathological property to the demographics who bear your concern.

What is so-called "Black Culture"?

I have not tried to qualify any criminality "by one's so-called 'race'". 

Why are so many resilient to fact-based truth regarding black criminality?

The data across all interrelated relative areas, clearly demonstrate black males are far more of a problem for America than what the left claims.

And when I present the data that proves them wrong, they refuse to accept such data could be attributable to blacks in America,

Perhaps, "many," have gleaned from your attempt to qualify criminality by one's so-called "race" as a platitude, which attempts to ascribe a pathological property to the demographics who bear your concern.

falsely claiming it whites and then calling me a racist for even putting for that fact-based truth.

When conservative blacks bring forth the same positions I have, they get called names and accused of being in black face for white supremacy. It's a joke. 

Clearly you didn't click the link and educate yourself. *sigh*

There are broad correlations in unemployment, poverty, welfare, incarceration rates, and a few others, with rise of single family homes. That’s the data. Your reply is inferring causation from that correlation, and then completely speculating an underlying cause; it’s not even a particularly good inference; given man in the house rules (which forced unwed women to not have a man in the house) were state level, and ended in 68; and that the welfare rules otherwise didn’t promote fatherlessness as much as promoting not getting married (rules for married couples, and rules for unmarried or unrelated individuals were different), and would not necessarily have had little impact on people already unwed. So this assessment seems largely speculative, driven by correlation = causation.
 

 
Ignoring all the huge variety of specific economic factors here; it doesn’t even make sense with respect to what you said mere sentences before:
 
You stated, that black people in the 1960s had strong families, had pride, wanted to be successful, and had determination - despite being victims of racism; but this assessment is very much at odds with the suggestion that these exact same people would happily give up, break up their families, and live on handouts when offered. So it seems your argument doesn’t fully believe in the positive attributes you assigned to blacks in the 1960s; given that your follow up implies they leapt at the opportunity for handouts, and instead serve only to imply negative attributes in blacks today.
 

I can follow up, the same welfare was also available to whites up for arguably longer; who also had stable families structure - one set of stable families with pride and determination deteriorate into mass incarceration because of welfare but the others didn’t?
 

 
These sort of statistical comparison shows that the data you’re using is incomplete given the conclusion - or your conclusion is inherently based on an inherent bias that somehow one is better at dealing with things than others.
 

You’re right - crack is a drug, using drugs is a choice. However - social trends are clear, poverty and economic factors are indeed associated with high level of drug use, and substance abuse - so redlining, and racial inequality raised unemployment and increases poverty disproportionately in black communities; that alone puts those communities at higher risk for substance abuse.
 

When a new, super cheap drug, comes out on the market, and is sold to them; it’s reasonable to expect areas with higher unemployment and economic hardship to be worst affected.
 

Imagine, if instead of that; opioid abuse is viewed as a crime problem, painted as criminals that were damaging the country - laws were changed to make inordinately steep penalties for possession or supply of opioids were meted out, and three strikes policy means that you could go to prison for decades for it. In locales with high poverty and high drug use - this would destroy families, increase poverty more, increase police involvement, increase arrests, and lead to overwhelming mass incarceration - for a health problem.
 

 
 
ME: “Mass incarceration was a direct result of the 72% out of wedlock birth rates leading to the home to prison pipeline. The family structure was already collapsed prior to incarceration due to the lack of a nuclear family.
 
Mass incarceration began in the mid 1970s, this is when incarceration went from stable, and began increasing. The 72% out of wedlock number has only been hit in the last decade. Kids born out of wedlock did get a bit worse, but actually collapsed in the mid 1970s, coinciding with mass incarceration and obviously. The wedlock birthrates for all races today are at all time lows -
 

This is what I mean by cherry picking - you’re only using the data that confirms the prejudicial conclusion you wish to make; when you look more broadly at wider data to support the correlation - the correlation falls apart.
 

 
Given that you’ve blamed the problem on “lbj”, black mothers wedding the government the collapse of the black nuclear family - despite no causal correlation - you’re now going for black culture. This doesn’t seem to be a coherent position, more than you’re flitting around a bunch of things that you haven’t really thought through.
 

 
Which black culture exactly - can you define and measure it? starting when and where? Can you correlate crime trends with the rise and prevalence of black culture - what statistics support this claim? Given that you’re claiming all this started happening before mass incarceration - before any of what is often pointed to as “black culture” was around, and that violent crime rates have halved despite there being some growth (especially in media and social media), of various black cultures that are widely criticized. This doesn’t really correlate, and is not something fact based.
 

ME - Also, there is no racial skew in crime statistics.
This is factually untrue - ironic given that this post is about rejection of facts.
 

 
Of the top of my head…
 

 
As shown, you’ve used sloppy logic, poor correlations, and partial cherry picked data sets to draw conclusion that you then used to make a huge number of broad value statements about a given race that is not - at any point - clearly supported by any data you presented.
 

There’s two elements to my argument that the data doesn’t support your conclusions.

The first is that you’re drawing causal conclusions, and making a number of value statements that aren’t supported by the data you’re holding up; and your making broad value judgements that clearly aren’t part of the data sets you use. This is 95% of my argument above, and is pointing errors in your logical errors on your argument and reasoning.  As such, for these, data citations aren’t relevant.

I do cite specific statistics (but don’t link a source) that whites also have access to the same welfare, that mass incarceration began in the mid 1970s, crime rates have massive dropped since the 90s, that black out of wedlock births are at a peak of 72% today but wasn’t in 1975, and that white out of wedlock births are at about the same level today as blacks in the late 1960s. These should be relatively uncontroversial pieces of data, no? 

@TWS1405

I have not tried to qualify any criminality "by one's so-called 'race'". 

This:

Why are so many resilient to fact-based truth regarding black criminality?

And this:

The data across all interrelated relative areas, clearly demonstrate black males are far more of a problem for America than what the left claims.

would suggest otherwise.

And when I present the data that proves them wrong, they refuse to accept such data could be attributable to blacks in America,

You're only reinforcing my previous point:

falsely claiming it whites and then calling me a racist for even putting for that fact-based truth.

Your being a racist or not is irrelevant. The conclusions you render from your interpretations of "the data" is relevant. That is the focus of my scrutiny.

When conservative blacks bring forth the same positions I have, they get called names and accused of being in black face for white supremacy. It's a joke. 

What does this have to do with anything?

Clearly you didn't click the link and educate yourself. *sigh*

Clearly, I did. I'm well aware of Thomas Sowell--having written several papers on his findings while I was at university--and I actually do own a copy of Black Rednecks and White Liberals. But I did not ask Thomas Sowell what "black culture" was. I asked you, since you're both the author of this thread and the instigator of the subject's discussion. In your words, what is "black culture"?

“Well, as one academically trained in criminology”

“Other knowledge that I possess having researched, read, and kept myself informed about black American history “

“I have all the criminological and scholarly resources at my fingertips”

“I never get involved let alone make any initial position that I cannot back up. I can back it up. I have all the criminological and scholarly resources at my fingertips. And no, I am not talking about the internet. I’ve kept every book used getting my criminology and criminal justice degree, and I have amassed a personal library of over 1200 books, much of which cover psychology, racial issues, sociology, juvenile delinquency, and black American history. I [know] what I am talking about; and I only divulge information that I deem necessary at the time. I am not going to show all my cards before not seeing any of yours.”

I assure you the data does support my position. Studies go back to the 80s on this matter, and many blacks as of late have been openly speaking about these truths.

“I could go on and on, in addition to numerous books to suggest as well. Many of which I have in my personal library.”

Black is the adjective/descriptor for the noun, criminality. It identifies the nature of the topic I want to cover, but it in no way infers directly or indirectly that I am stating as any measure of fact-based evidence that blacks, as a race, in and of themselves, are racially prone to criminality. I am merely identifying what part of the population I want to address regarding criminality that America has to do deal with.

I could have just as easily said white criminality, Asian criminality...makes no difference, as it merely addresses a specific part of the population (the adjective) that I want to discuss regarding a measure of criminality (the noun).

Still the same. Black males are not [the] black race. They are a demographic segment with a high level of violent criminality that surpasses other demographic segments. I cannot just say some males are more violent than other males.

Makes no more sense than putting out an APB for a male in their mid-age at about 5-6' tall with a shaved head. Well, okay. What specific age. What clothing. But more importantly, what is the adjective describing their racial demographic.  

No, I am not.

Since the very specific crimes I have/am addressing are specific to a subset of the population

that subset needs to be described just like a suspect in an APB needs to be described.

The data is broken down by racial demographic descriptors in order to separate the criminological data into their respective subsets to show who is doing what and to whom. 

Nothing I have said in regard to what the criminological data shows as to who is doing what and to whom in greater numbers than others is all factually accurate.

It has a lot to do with everything whereas the point I am making is concerned. It matters not where the factual information comes from, white or black, the left simply refuses to accept the reality that the crime statistics provided are not attributable to black males in the population for which those numbers are clearly representative thereof.

It's denialism. It's intellectual cowardice. 

Well, if I am citing Sowell that means I agree with his definition and elaboration on that definition of black culture harming some within the black community.

I do not see the need to mince words or paraphrase something he already said when you can hear it for yourself. And according to you, you are already well aware of his definition. So why do I need to repeat him or Ben Shapiro or John McWhorter or Larry Elder or numerous others who have clearly identified and described the black culture harming blacks in the past to present day. 

have you considered running those same statistics specifically for "economic status" ?

How does economic status dictate moral content and responsibility?

Why are you parsing criminality among demographics if the identifier you've chosen to create distinction, i.e. so-called "race," provides no particular qualification? 

Then what is your point?

because given the title of this thread it would be ironic if you were found to rejecting valid, factual data.

Me: Data does not lie, [but all the ways you can interpret the data can]

I have not disclosed any dataset, source of data, etc. for you to evaluate to come to this patently fallacious assertion. 

Again, I have given you NO DATA SETS! None!

I have not given you enough of my objective opinion to draw this conclusion

my objective opinion 

Thats a funny anecdote...I dont know how old you are but it surprised me to learn that majorities said they didnt approve of interracial marriage until the 90s. I'm sure some of the people who say yes in the polling are lying but no doubt there's been a huge cultural shift in a short period of time

There's always going to be some friction in a multiracial society, I think to talk about "oppression" is something totally different. 

A shop owner following around a black lawyer who never committed a crime in his life is obviously a humiliating and negative experience but I also don't know how you can possibly get rid of people holding stereotypes. It's pretty weaksauce compared to state oppression past or present. Some of the drug crime stuff might actually qualify, I haven't looked into it that much but I know the true purpose of the drug war was to create a justification for locking up potential criminals BEFORE they committed violent crimes so I can see how that would tangle up a lot of people who did nothing wrong in communities with lots of crime, which would disproportionately impact black people. I feel like the entire thing is a tangled web. Some people hold and act on stereotypes of black people being criminals... but they actually are significantly more likely to commit crimes. There's a way to take in that information that's a healthy middle ground between being racist and refusing to believe your own lying eyes. And the very best thing that could happen is if this violent crime stopped which I really don't think is too much to ask. 

That was some interesting information. To address your other question, I think affirmative action doesn't actually move the needle that much because it often ends up being counterproductive for the student because it puts them in classes with harsher competition that makes them more likely to drop out. But that's not the *intent*...it really would a hell of a benefit if used correctly.

We know that high crime rates aren't unchangeable to this because the big changes to the social and economic environment in the 1960s resulted in enormous (like 4x) increases in violent crime that slowly declined throughout the 80s and 90s as policies changed and the economy got better.

A social environment that condemns crime unequivocally and doesn't attempt to excuse it would help a lot. 

It truly shocks me how much some white liberals will bend over backwards to dismiss, deny, and ultimately justify crime. 

When true believers get elected such as the District Attorneys of San Francisco and Los Angeles (who will likely be recalled soon, thank God) they simply don't prosecute a lot of violent crimes because of equity concerns.