A small % of black men ARE the most VIOLENT in American society

Do you know what else isn't convincing?

Ad Hom.

Try addressing the data and arguments.

Ah. Ok. Typically, if i’m presenting an argument with data, I try to find data from sources that show no bias toward any particular political/social agenda. Objectivity and all that fun stuff. I’ll throw that out the window for this discussion.

I’m actually going to bring up one of your sources to help me begin: Structural Covariates of Homicide Rates: Are There Any Invariances Across Time and Social Space? (thank you for providing a readable version btw). Though this study argues that poverty alone may not explain violent crime rates, it does suggest that it can be explained in conjunction with other factors. The study actually points to the social isolation, segregation, racial discrimination, and single-parent homes in conjunction with poverty as being likely major factors for why the crime rate is higher within the black community. 

These two sources go into more detail about the different ways black and white communities experience poverty: http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief16/PolicyBrief16.pdf

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Long-Shadows_Final.pdf

Imagine this was something like, say, climate change denial, or that the election was fraudulent - or even that Hillary Clinton killed a bunch of people. You could for sure start arguing the level of support for those beliefs - but it’s pretty clear I could spend all week posting links of people holding those specific beliefs on all of those examples with nearly no effort. If all I had, was to point at two members of this forum - and a poll that doesn’t show anything close to as the specific thing in question (more on that later), you’d likely question the support for my conclusion that a bit.

There’s obvious differences there, certainly, and I’m not saying that they’re the same, but the idea that this is a fairly general belief on the left, and yet - almost impossible to find anyone who seems to believe it; kinda bellies the actual position.

Your characterization of what that number really means - however - is again silly. Poll responses are specifically dependent on the interpretation of the question: and for this example; there’s so much baggage baked into the interpretation assuming many, or enough liberals took it in the way you’re implying they did is not worth consideration:

For example: as a snap question; that answer could be reflective of who you feel more threatened by, of who is felt to pose a bigger general danger of violence. It’s influenced also by whether one group seems to be becoming more violent or belligerent.

I could, for example, very easily rank whites more violent than blacks right now - not because I materially disagree with the crime rates - or even that I am judging in reference to crime rates at all; but as part of the general political climate. That answer would not be necessarily be inaccurate in that context.

This poll could be a reasonable indicator that liberals are perceiving a growing threat from whites than blacks - it could also be an indicator of the violence they feel is most significant, or most significant to them  - or even most aware of personally - but to suggest it’s some sort of definitive indicator of liberals thinking, say, the inner city is as safe as the suburbs - or that it’s a specific measure of how liberals view the racial violent crime rate - not so much. The question is generalized enough that it’s hard to draw that sort of concrete conclusion from it. 

Historically, law and order and crime have been used as the pretext for a whole ton of racist policies - both explicitly racist and functionally racist: and with one of the prevailing and pervasive stereotypes of black people in some shape or form being brutes and thugs since the 1800s ; have all in no small part helped in creating and perpetuating the pervading stereotype of the violent, dangerous black man; that has in part been used to make people more comfortable with some pretty nasty laws over the decades - democrat and republican included.

Given the history, there is no longer any slack, or any benefit of the doubt given to people - especially white people - who say things that perpetuate or play up to those historically problematic stereotypes - intentionally or not.

Thus when a white person angrily talks about the black crime rates, like TWS does - it sounds pretty racist.

When someone stamps their feet and complains that they are obviously, totally not racist and stating facts and it shouldn’t matter if it’s true - it doesn’t change that it still sounds pretty racist.

If someone goes onto a bunch of unapologetic rants about black crime rates and how black males have a crime problem, and fixated on solely listing and regurgitating every last negative statistic about black people they can find- any rational human beings know it’s going to sound racist.

You don't understand that you're still Ad Homming.

The truth of an argument exists independent of who says it. If the "bias" or "political agenda" affects the truth of the argument, then it becomes a problem, but "bias" or "political agenda" are not issues in themselves. Hitler can say 'water is wet', and that's true regardless of how many Jews he killed.

No, no.

We're not arguing whether poverty can predict violent crime at all. We're arguing whether race is a better predictor of violent crime than poverty, seeing your comment here: "poverty is more of the greater indicator toward violent crime than race". A small % of black men ARE the most VIOLENT in American society (debateart.com) 

So, the study found that race was a much better predictor than poverty across 3 decades, beating various forms of poverty in most single regression models. Specifically, across these 9 models, race better predicted homicide than unemployment, poverty, and median income in 7/9 of the models, and also income inequality in 8/9 models mccall_1990_amer_j_soc_922.pdf (ncsu.edu) .

You need to contend with that argument, in order to defend your original argument.

Again, we're arguing about whether race is a better predictor of violent crime than poverty. We're not interested in tangential 'how poverty is experienced' arguments. You need to connect what you're saying to what we're arguing about.

I've addressed the arguments in your sources. I believe that bias and political agenda have affected the arguments in your sources. I believe you would be better off studying the statistics and data on your own, and then forming your own arguments. 

You need to address my arguments in the post. I've explained that race will impact how a community experiences poverty (as your source also indicates). I would concede that race could be a greater indicator in so far that many black people experience a systemic racism that keeps them in poverty and provides less resources to get them out than their white impoverish counterparts (as your study also points out).

"Wilson (1987, pp. 46-62) argues that the social transformation of the inner city in recent years (through segregation, selective out-migration by the middle class, and racial discrimination) has resulted in a disproportionate and criminogenic concentration of the disadvantaged. For example, opposition from organized community groups to public housing projects and the decisions of governments to neglect rehabilitation of existing single-family housing have led to the massive segregation of housing projects. The consequences for racial differences in living conditions are striking; according to Wilson's (1987)calculations, in 1980 less than 10% of urban poor whites lived in poverty areas, but 40% of poor blacks did. In addition to sheer economic deprivation, the corre- sponding decreasing vertical integration of middle- and lower-class black families may thus contribute-through a process Wilson (1987, p. 61) calls social isolation-to the disintegration of community social control institutions and the supervision capacity of adults."

This quote is not arguing that race alone indicates high crime. It's not arguing that black people commit more crime because they're black. It's arguing that black people face unique societal obstacles that leave them with less resources than their poor white counterparts.

Again, we're arguing about whether race is a better predictor of violent crime than poverty. We're not interested in tangential 'how poverty is experienced' arguments. You need to connect what you're saying to what we're arguing about.

The problem is that your side wants to argue that being black in and of itself is the problem. You want to end the conversation there, but it would be disingenuous to do so (for the many reasons I've already pointed out). If we see that a particular demographic is more prone to particular outputs, we have to see what is unique about that demographics experience that may influence those outputs. Wanting to leave it just at skin color is lazy at best.

First up: https://www.unz.com/article/race-and-crime-in-america/

This article hammers on two main points: The first, Black people are more likely to commit violent crime than other demographics. The second, the author compares the poverty/crime rates of El Paso and Atlanta as well as Santa Ana and Oakland. Similar poverty rates, very different crime rates. The author points out that the cities with a higher black population is more likely to have the higher crime rate.

The first point, I have no contention with. The second is where it gets bit more complicated. The author doesn’t explore why these differences exist, just acknowledges that they do. So, let’s try to actually explore these differences in a bit more detail:

“Hispanic” as a singular demographic is tricky because it encompasses a much more diverse group of people than “black” does. Typically, you’ll see it broken down between “white hispanics” and “non-white hispanics.” It’s important to acknowledge the different experiences between these two subgroups, because skin color impacts them differently. 

For example: Darker skinned hispanics reported experiencing racism from light-skinned/white hispanics at a similar rate as non-hispanic white people. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/05/02/latinos-experience-discrimination-from-other-latinos-about-as-much-as-from-non-latinos/

A majority of latinos say that skin color impacts their opportunities and their ability to get ahead:  https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2021/11/04/majority-of-latinos-say-skin-color-impacts-opportunity-in-america-and-shapes-daily-life/

With this information, let’s look at the author’s comparison between El Paso and Atlanta. El Paso’s population is majority white-hispanic. Despite the similar poverty rates, we’ve already seen how skin color impacts opportunity, so this comparison is not as compelling as it may look superficially. 

The other comparison the author makes is between Santa Ana and Oakland. Both having similar poverty rates, Santa Ana having a lower crime rate. The main demographic of Santa Ana is non-white hispanic. The author points out the low crime rate among hispanic immigrants. Santa An has an immigrant population of 45% (https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/profile-of-foreign-born-population-santa-ana.pdf) nearly double that of Oakland. 

This is an important point, because crime rates tend to be lower among immigrants from many different backgrounds (regardless of income) including African and Haitian immigrants: https://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_1/02j.pdf https://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-crime-what-research-says https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-013-0799-3

So, it would make sense for a city with one of the highest populations of immigrants to not have a very high crime rate, and this would be true regardless of the skin color of the immigrant.

Moving on, the article then attempts to make its one of its weaker arguments. It suggests that with the election of Obama and mainstream media’s gradual change in representation of black people, that we should expect the crime rates to go down.

Sure, I agree with this. TWS seems to have an unhealthy obsession and negative view on black people. But how can you not see that the logic you lay out here is essentially just justifying the existence of the phenomenon people are complaining about? You're essentially making an argument for why we shouldn't talk about these things

FWIW I agree, it is super uncomfortable to talk about this sort of stuff. But this is a debating website. And policy makers need to know actual information so they can effectively make policy. The fact that the elevated crime rates are so unbelievably concentrated, and so responsive to political and social changes means its a solvable problem if we were actually allowed to try

I think you did lay out why a smart leftist finds these discussions uncomfortable, your view is probably pretty fairly representative. I find it telling though that you express discomfort with people making factually based claims about one groups behavior when their motivations are suspect, but I never see you or any leftist complain (rather than enthusiastically go along with) claims about another group (white people) that are 1) much more widespread in media, politics, and culture, and 2) are either far more subjective or empirically false. Saying "black people commit more crime" does make me really uncomfortable because the vast majority don't commit any crime. The phenomenon is driven mostly by a small group of repeat offenders. But I have to hear "white men this, white men that" absolutely nonstop when the complaints being made aren't even true. Huge double standard!

Why do people insist on ad homming me with "(he has) an unhealthy obsession and negative view on black people..."????

There is NO obsession or a negative view of black people. What I have tried to do, and consistently try to do (which gets me kicked off social platforms) is get others to engage in these discussions precisely for the reasons you outline below:

You see, you do understand perfectly well why I keep bringing up these topics. They are uncomfortable discussions, but why? Because we have been conditioned to be uncomfortable for fear of being called a racist to shut you up.

I am not afraid, because I [know] I am not a racist. When I am called that, it just means the one calling me that is a denialist and an intellectual coward.

Truth =/= racism. Facts =/= racism.

Bringing up tone, ill-perceived idea of another's attitude, etc. etc. is just one excuse after another to deny those truths and facts because those truths and facts scare those on the left. Meanwhile, as you said, there is the obvious double standard where it is perfectly okay to do the exact same thing directed at white people (specifically white males) carte blanche, even when the complaints being made are not factually accurate, as you so aptly pointed out. However, blacks and other POC are off limits per the left, the key element of that double standard.

300 years of slavery and it took a civil war to abolish it where over 700,000 Americans died.

Racism is hardwired in the American DNA.

Black Americans are 3.23 times more likely than white Americans to be killed by police, according to a new study by researchers from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The researchers examined 5,494 police-related deaths in the U.S. between 2013 and 2017. Rates of deadly police encounters were higher in the West and South than in the Midwest and Northeast, according to the study. Racial disparities in killings by police varied widely across the country, with some metropolitan areas showing very high differences between treatment by race. Black Chicagoans, for example, were found to be over 650% more likely to be killed by police than white Chicagoans.

-> @Shila

300 years of slavery and it took a civil war to abolish it where over 700,000 Americans died.

Racism is hardwired in the American DNA.

Black Americans are 3.23 times more likely than white Americans to be killed by police, according to a new study by researchers from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The researchers examined 5,494 police-related deaths in the U.S. between 2013 and 2017. Rates of deadly police encounters were higher in the West and South than in the Midwest and Northeast, according to the study. Racial disparities in killings by police varied widely across the country, with some metropolitan areas showing very high differences between treatment by race. Black Chicagoans, for example, were found to be over 650% more likely to be killed by police than white Chicagoans.

It is 264 years of slavery, not 300; and roughly 620,000 died during the civil war, not 700k. You need to scale back on the over exaggerations here. 

Racism is a part of the human experience, and it is a learned trait, it's not genetic. 

Cops are 19x more likely to be shot and killed by an armed black man than that insignificant 3.2x blacks being shot (and not always necessarily killed) by cops. 

Black Chicagoans commit the most intraracial violence and crime, so yeah, odds are they will be shot more than white Chicagoans. That's just common sense. Cops go where the crime is, not where it is not. And most the crime (especially violent person crimes) is in black communities.

-->

@Shila

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/white-cops-dont-commit-more-shootings

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/19/academic-research-on-police-shootings-and-race/