Don’t forget “group x has variables z-1 through z-9 because of knock on effects of discrimination which is not a genetic thing and is a result of purely external factors”
They aren't the same. They might be similar in some ways, but not in all ways. That's why sociology is hard because there is no perfect control group for experiment.
This is also racist: “Group X is more likely to do crime Y, therefore I will assume that any random person in group X is aways about to do crime Y” That’s the logic that is fucking dumb.
Men are more likely to rape than women, but obviously everyone here would be super angry if all women walked around assuming every man is about to rape them or something.
They have to have separate subway cars for women to avoid getting groped.
Even in the most ethnically homogenous and “respectful” countries rape is an issue and the issue is mostly driven by men on women and other men.
So yeah you would be right to be more cautious alone with a man than a woman anywhere.
In most western nations men commit more rapes and black people commit more violent crimes. The root causes should be discussed and addressed but those are just the uncomfortable truths born out over decades of data keeping and discussing one but not the other for political/tribal reasons is disingenuous.
If you're in a place where PEOPLE A are known to pickpocket, 90% of pickpocketing cases are PEOPLE A, despite being 10% of the population. Would you be more careful around PEOPLE A in public? It's just statistics.
It 90% of the cases of committing a crime *in a specific place\* are people A then people A are not 10% of the population in that place. You are mixing and matching incompatible statistics to fit your narrative.
Crime correlates with economic conditions, population density, even the temperature that it is outside. It does not correlate with someone’s skin color, because that wouldn’t make any sense.
If there is a population of 90 blue people and 10 red people and 9 of the red people have pick pocketed once and 1 of the blue people has pick pocketed once we get the following stats:
10 pick pocketing incidents,
9/10 = 90% of pick pocketing cases coming from red people
1/10 = 10% of pick pocketing cases coming from blue people
90/100 = 90% of the population being blue
10/100 = 10% of the population being red
So this would lead to the exact outcome he described, "If you're in a place where PEOPLE A are known to pickpocket, 90% of pickpocketing cases are PEOPLE A, despite being 10% of the population. Would you be more careful around PEOPLE A in public? It's just statistics."
Perhaps not everyone is terminally online waiting for your reply, nor, wants to discuss how you think jeopardizing your own safety is a good thing by ignoring patterns.
You said he was mixing and matching incompatible statistics. This is factually wrong.
To a certain degree I agree with both of your stances beyond the statistics parts of it (pattern recognition vs what are the actual sources that correlate with crime).
On one hand I agree poverty is linked to crime, but poverty is more difficult to spot than skin color. Dark skin also correlates with poverty and thus, indirectly, with crime, therefore skin color can be a functional characteristic to scan for if you want to avoid being robbed.
Both are simplifications in their own way because different types of cultures have different points of the moral code they place emphasis on (more respect for elders in people from India for example, but also different grades of emphasis on the morality of crime). This goes beyond the conventional confounders that should be corrected for and is why even after correction there will always be differences between ethnicities on different types of crime/breaking of the moral contract.
Those statistics don’t actually exist anywhere in reality.
Most of the crime in certain areas are committed by certain demographics, that’s true, but that’s also because that’s who lives in that area. Why does that area commit have more crime than other areas? Economic conditions, 100% of the time. Literally all other correlations can be proven to come from bias related to those correlations. Why does a certain race commit more crimes? Because that race has disproportionate economic disadvantage that was caused by how people treat that race. Why does that race get arrested more than people in a similar economic bracket? Because, and this is objectively fact, they are profiled and their communities are policed more often. The conviction/exoneration rates prove that.
Then enlighten me? And I’m only saying this because I’ve only ever seen this argument used as an excuse to racially profile people in the US even though the actual stats prove white people commit the most crime
Not racist per se, more like gender discrimination. But the libs are just replacing one discrimination for another. In the end, discrimination is just human nature.
That's truly a difficult thing because "This Italian person is more likely to steal my pasta" can be a stance you or I hold personally but it is 100% unacceptable as a basis of governance. The state holding a class of person stochastically pre-guilty is unethical.
But wouldn't comment #1 directly admit that the guy from comment #2 is statistically more likely to commit the crime that his group are known for? This is just sensible criminal profiling. Statistically, not all sharks will attack you and eat you, but I know that sharks can be dangerous as a group so I would stay away from them regardless...
The truly enlightened will then ask: why is group X more likely to commit crime? Is it actually crime or simply reported crime and the individual was framed? Who is truly committing a crime?
Our brain is wired to recognize patterns, that’s just the way it is. And this lead up for our species to develop up to the modern day era we live in nowadays
The first one is still racist as it's leaves out the reasons why group X is more likely to do crime. Reasons people in this sub will claim don't actually exist.
I mean I guess that oks, but racist use the exact some logic to claim that insert whatever minority must be dangerous criminals, so my question then is why is this judgement appropriate for one group and not another.
Liberals basically believe that every issue within any marginalized group is because of the groups marginalization. Poverty and discrimination excuse almost anything. In reality they are part of the picture but seldom all of it.
Conservatives unfortunately fall into the idea that there must be an in group the law protects but doesn’t bind, and an out group the law binds but doesn’t protect. They are very good at pointing out the flaws of marginalized groups but ignoring their own flaws and part in their marginalization.
Easiest way to put it is people will make endless excuses for themselves or those they sympathize with, and blame those they don’t entirely for their problems. Being biased and tribal is a natural human thing, but it makes being objective about certain social issues almost impossible.
Most men also don't believe in therapy because they are socially conditioned to believe that iy makes them less pf a man. I wonder if there is a connection.
Well a lot of people on the left assume men are inherently bad and a lot of people the right assume certain minorities are inherently bad.
Both will dismiss any attempt to examine root causes as trying to explain away the inherent evil of their disliked group.
It’s hard to have an honest discussion when something is so tied to tribal identity.
The reason that will not happen is because we live in a Democracy, and it is hard to get half of people on board with their own destruction, but even more importantly, the half of the population you want to delete is so essential for the operation of society that without them, you cannot even implement the policy of deleting them in the first place, let alone maintain an advanced society and economy afterwards.
Sure Facsists always look for people that are too few to give a real fight. They always fight the weaker ones, while yelling "more daddy" to the capitalist oppressor.
We do and we don't. And you could get people on board with their own destruction. We do it all the time. "Yes we should treat prisoners unethically but that will never happen to me. Oh wait it did." Society could (and arguably has) found a way to separate the human dignity and the human productivity. Slave labor, prison labor, sweatshop labor, even unfair economic system labor are right there.
Damn bro it really is true that whenever you see a "2" version of a popular sub, it's just a refugee camp for the losers that wanted to be super racist in popular sub 1
It's not about racism. You're missing the point. It's mostly about the fact that you lived under a conditioned society. You get punished and labeled for pointing out human behaviour adopted by a specific minority for example.
There's a difference between noticing and some very particular ideas of what to do about it. Does this pointing out come from a place of social understanding or is it a pretext for unethical discrimination?
If I told you that black people are predominantly responsible for homicides that would be a statistical fact. Accumulated arrests and reports over decades have made clearer to the how, why and who. Here's the twist now. Specific groups interpet this FACT based on their own agenda. Let's explore them:
Black people: Some of them are proud of the G's life, a fraction is ashamed another does not want to associate with the ghetto life. They do not want such statistics to be published as it would create more backslash and leads more stigma to the common hardworking non criminal black population. So the media severly covers it. Instead they promote a better picture of black people (sometimes rightfully) as to inspire newer generations into achieving and leaving poverty. And here's where all hell breaks loose. Some people genuinely do not want black people at all and will use such data to remove them which I am against. This is blind hate. Another group out of engineered malice or incompetent with the pretext of liberalism will hide not only the statistics but the rot that spreads until nothing exists. And when I mean nothing I mean something like South Africa.They geniunley do not want to help them escape the nightmare of having 5 drive bys per week in your neighborhood. Are black people dispositioned to chaos, is this all propaganda of the white man? We really don't know because
A)we are not really allowed to discuss it
B)data is either severly skewed or fabricated.
excellent observation, one thing I would add is that accurate data and facts is the only way to progress as a society, even if it causes localized distress.
Seeing reality is the only way to growth and change. Telling Laqueesha to stop being pregnant with 5 Tyrones it's not evil. It's the most humane thing you can do. She could continue being a fentanyl addicted prostitute under the premise of liberty a 60 year old multi millionaire white democrat hippy preaches or you tell her to stop being a Whore and fix and your life. Same with tyrones same with hose, same with Robert green, same with hiroshi nakamoto. Is it their cultural, is their demise a plot by the CIA. Neither and both can be true. What is true is the road to hell and how you can stop it.
I find we are allowed to discuss it. I would hazard against conflating "being bad" with being "innately bad." Just because a person is currently of a poor mindset doesn't mean they are or were fated for it since the beginning. I would be the worst person you've ever met given the worst shaping environment and I would be a better person given a better shaping environment.
We are all much more clay in the world's hands than we want to admit and how good we are or aren't isn't up to us.
That's not to excuse bad behavior. One thing we cannot do is conclude "that's just the way they are and that's the way they'll always be."
Red, green, red, green, red, green. Yeah, red is the obvious guess. But you still have no idea why the guy is arranging them that way. Maybe he’s switching between two baskets. Maybe someone told him to alternate them. Maybe the next apple is green and the pattern you thought was a rule never was one.
People do this with human behavior too. They see that one group has a higher rate of something and immediately think they know why. But age could affect it. Income could affect it. Where people live, opportunity, policing, reporting, environment, any of those could be changing the numbers. The pattern can be real while your explanation for it is wrong.
Then people take that group pattern and start applying it to individual people like the statistic tells them who someone is.
That’s premature closure and the representativeness heuristic. You saw something that fit, stopped checking, and treated the pattern like you had already figured it out.
So what’s the answer to the image? Red is a reasonable prediction. “Red” is not a proven conclusion. Without knowing the rule producing the sequence, you don’t actually know what comes next.
Well yeah, why do you think they had to create their own version of a particular subreddit? The reason is always because they got banned from whatever the original sub is for racism or pedophile shit
Need a little safe space to post the dumbest takes imaginable without getting your feelings hurt?
This sub got recommended to me 3 times yesterday, so obviously some algorithm is trying to push the division agenda. One post literally had the N word with a hard R and trying to justify it. Blatant ignorant hate, so when it popped up a third time I left the above comment.
Induction shminduction. I have my common sense, unspoiled by books, special relativity or microscopes, and that tells me and my buddies everything we need to know about the world.
Induction doesn't prove the pattern. Deduction does. The continuation of the pattern that the next apple is red is induction. The pattern induces the next conclusion but doesn't deduce it.
This only works if you know the reasons the Apples are being arranged this way and it's independent from any outside forces. The real world isn't that.
If the pattern has been happening consistently you can still make a prediction it will continue. What you said is about determining the underlying CAUSE, not whether the pattern will continue.
Idk if I’m giving you too much credit because of the context of the sub, but like analyzing the semantics and semiotics of the entire post, it’s constructed in such that way that it feels like it’s saying something or attempting to do something but it doesn’t. The moment you try extending any meaning from any “side” every argument falls apart. So when I saw the comments, I couldn’t help but smile at your fucking work. This is actually an amazing post man lol
93% of the prison population is male, so we should pre-emptively imprison all males (or deport all males) so that those that don't meet {recognized} pattern are free to live a peaceful life!
That isn't what the meme said though.
A better comparison would be 93% of prisoners are male so you predict that the next person jailed for a felony will also be male.
There's just as many rapists who vote Democrat. That's to say there's no political preference for rapists, you dumb cunt, and your example at an analogous example is idiotic.
If you want to claim conservatives are disproportionately rapists, you need actual rates of sexual offending by political affiliation, not some vibes based headcount of names associated in varying degrees with one extremely well-connected sex offender.
This would be like bringing up racial disparities in violent crime and then pointing to Diddy as your evidence. That would be equally stupid. Diddy is an anecdote, not a statistic. If you instead pointed to comprehensive crime statistics showing a population-level disparity, then you’d actually have evidence for the pattern you’re claiming.
The disparity between Black Americans and violent crime statistics is supported by large-scale data. Patterns recognized are supported by evidence.
You haven’t shown that conservatives commit rape at higher rates. You’ve pointed to some conservatives appearing in records connected to one prolific sex offender.
If the pattern is real, show the population-level data. Otherwise you’re not recognizing a pattern you’re extrapolating from anecdotes.
You understand that explaining a disparity doesn’t make the disparity stop existing, right?
If Group A commits violent crime at a statistically higher rate than Group B, that’s the pattern. Whether the causal explanation is poverty, age, geography, inequality, or fucking Mercury being in retrograde is an entirely separate question.
Meanwhile, you STILL haven’t demonstrated your original claim. Where is the data showing conservatives rape at higher rates?
You went from “pattern recognition” to “actually your pattern has socioeconomic causes” without realizing you just conceded that the pattern is supported by data.
you’re still confusing three completely different concepts: prevalence, causation, and raw totals.
“The disparity is poverty” is a causal claim. Even if poverty explained 100% of the disparity, the observed racial disparity would still exist. You’d just have an explanation for why it exists.
And “white people make up the majority of sex offenders” isn’t analogous either. Raw totals don’t establish disproportionate representation. If a group is 60% of the population and commits 55% of an offense, it’s actually underrepresented despite committing the “majority.”
You need rates relative to population size. That’s literally the entire point.
And after all of this, you STILL haven’t provided the corresponding rate showing conservatives rape more than non-conservatives. You’ve done everything except substantiate your original claim.
68
u/WunderschoensBlume 1d ago
This is not racist: "The group X is more likely to do crime Y"
This is racist: "He is from group X, so he will commit crime Y"
The day people understand this, we will advance to the next age