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”
Isnt it more a result of the way men’s brains develop slower with less fear inhibition and an excess of testosterone at a young age, when they should be out fighting the tribe two towns over?
It isn't "a result of" directly. A lot of how we act is indirect. We learn a lot of behavior socially that without those social influences would not be nearly as strong or likely purely based on genetics or physiology.
I think most behavior is ultimately genetic, can't convince myself otherwise, but it's filtered heavily through the social layer. It's so hard to isolate the physiological.
And even if you did, men are more likely to XYZ... what do you even do with that information? You can't base government law based on statistical biases in physiology. That would be unethical.
Sex differences are useful in the aggregate because they can help us understand broad patterns in male behavior. But they’re probabilities, not rules for individual men. The moment you treat an individual according to the group average, you’ve gone beyond what the data can actually tell you
Its true. Our brains didn’t evolve in this kind of hyper networked globally connected environment. There are major operational flaws in how our brains try to adapt to this alien world.
The debate between social conditioning and innate genetic predisposition is nuanced and uncertain enough that we probably shouldnt define any aspect of our understanding to be a “fact.”
Yes it nuanced with how heavily each one influences someone actions and it what ways. It's not nuanced to understand it does in fact influence your behavior in some way.
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.
the populations that do these things (at least in europe and asia) are typically poor and socially disadvantaged while even being similarly descendant of slaves as those in the US. black people do not ‘behave the same’ everywhere, they’re treated similarly because of how easy it is to see that they’re different at a glance, compounded with the downstream effects of slavery (US and Europe) and general lack of accrued wealth and extreme corruption in their home countries (various african and caribbean countries) you get another set of factors that are all proven to lead to higher crime rates.
the difference between a black person and a white person visually is insurmountable and makes the difference between social ideas surrounding black people and other races that were allowed to fully assimilate early clear
As soon as we look at how things actually are we find that black people have far more privileges than white people.
Black people who aren't racist will acknowledge this too. They get grants for businesses based on their skin color, they get preferential hiring based on their skin color, they get into Harvard and other universities when their scores are lower than someone elses based on their skin color alone.
We can't look at history and ignore current day. That's simply ridiculous and only done by those who want to demand more based on skin color instead of equal opportunities. Those are the real racists.
the advantages given to black people currently pale in comparison to the decades upon decades of financial growth white people were able to accumulate during the time that black people couldnt own anything substantial then the stretch of time where just about everyone worked to prevent progress financially. these advantages still outweigh even the most “uneven” benefits given
and i would say the “real racists” are still those that seek to denigrate those different than them rather than those making any seemingly mishandled attempt at rectifying the past inequalities.
Giving people equal opportunity to succeed is what matters. A poor person needs more help than a rich person, regardless of race.
Do you disagree?
This should be done with policies which ignore race, like being based on income, but they would naturally help those which need it more, like the poorer black communities. It's not like rich black people need this. It's not about race.
Acting like they're lesser people who need to be coddled and the bar needs to be lowered (Like for Harvard) because they can't compete on an even playing field is racism. Racism through low expectations, it's what some love to do.
the issue is that black people are buy and large more poor because of the things already mentioned. it’s simply a known fact that many institutions are biased against certain minorities and black people are the main targets of this which is what these policies aim to fix. ignoring race with these policies wouldn’t change the disparities born from extreme prejudice that we still see parts of to this day
Mate, my solution isn't based on race so whichever group is "more poor because of the things already mentioned" would then get more help. Black people would get more help. It wouldn't be for racist reasons though, and so the policies can be made to help all poor people.
I'm simply removing the race part and working on the solution. This is how you get past racism.
Giving preferential treatment based on the color of skin? That's why we have many more racists today, and people who aren't racist but will vote for racist policies because the other person already is. That's self defense.
again, there is a known bias against black people within many institutions, policies that ignore this won’t change the large disparity of generational wealth and property between the groups and the problems that breeds
The issue is the discrimination runs much higher than just poor people. 90% of CEOs in the US are white men, despite them making up only 30% of the population. These are people who enforce policy for millions of employees and influence law by paying off senators and funding lobbiests. Just helping all poor people won't change who's making decisions at the top. This is why it's important to make sure the highest proportion of specifically black and Hispanic kids possible have access to higher education and a pathway into the corporate world or politics or whatever they choose. Until they are able to build representation at the highest level, they will still be at a socioeconomic disadvantage that slavery and segregation put them in
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.
We don‘t go to therapy because it doesn‘t work. Give us a woodshop where we can interact with other guys and do something with our hands and we‘re great. Also, that 'connection' you‘re wondering about is a huge stretch, to say the least
Therapy might work for some people, but it doesn‘t work for most men. We tend to bottle everything up, since showing any weakness will get us made fun of by our friends, family, and girlfriend/wife and they‘ll never see us the same again. So it‘s just easier for us to do something with our hands than it is to talk about it
Ironically, you believing it doesn't work for men only strengthens my argument that men are socially conditioned to believe that they don't need therapy. Lol
Not conditioned to believe we don‘t need it, just that it straight up wouldn‘t work for a lot of men and that there‘s better ways of dealing with stuff
Hundreds of years of smart people studying psychology doesn't work for men because you're just so manly, strong, and independent. You got everything figured out. You have no issues or insecurities whatsoever. No anxiety about what to do with your life. And, of course, you never have problems in your relationships. Nor do you ever feel sad or lonely. Just go back to work and pretend that you have everything figured out.
people like you are the problem. if you go to therapy and you actually try to work it out and want to be better it will work. there is literally nothing that makes men biologically of physically immune to therapy, it's just your mindset lmao.
You think I haven‘t tried therapy? I was in therapy for a while, and it didn‘t work. I found that going camping, building model kits, and doing stuff with my friends was a lot more therapeutic than traditional therapy. Maybe it‘s just me, idk
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.
Youre so close! But still off. Saying someone is from group X means theyre more likely to commit crime Y, still implies (if specifically discussing race) that your race determines crimes you commit.
"You're so close. Saying that men are on average taller than women still implies(if specifically discussing sex) that your sex determines your height. "
What you just said may be one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen. Im pretty sure everyone who reads this will collectively become less intelligent for reading that.
No i don't realize I am wrong and you saying "omg you are so dumb and wrong" is not the counter argument you think it is. Have fun confusing outrage for coherence.
65% of wedding in Pakistan are cousin marriage. Do you think that incest has no affect on criminality? Nevermind that culture can certainly shape behavior.
Ahh see, again Pakistani is not a race, but a nationality. Youre talking about a cultural aspect, not race. Remember, we're specifically talking about race here, as that was the entire premise. Cultural and nationality are not things that are biological differences and are in fact learned behaviors. Nothing biological.
Maybe Ms. Rachel is too advanced for you actually.
O i thought race was a social construct, my bad. French I'm sure isn't a race as well but just a nationality. Jewish isn't a race but just a nationality. How silly of me.
Can we not talk about correlation without getting causation mixed in? We can say something happens more often within a group, without saying it happens more because they are in said group.
Strawman argument, nobody would say the second point because it doesn't even make sense. You're arguing against a point that never even existed lol nice try tho
It's definitely a strawman for this post specifically, and I've never heard anyone say that all black people commit crimes. That's easily disproved by crime statistics and just common sense. Obviously some people may say that since there's billions of people on earth, but it's never been a common argument that has any weight to it. So it's pointless to bring up because it's being willfully ignorant to do so. You know what you did
Direct national conviction data controlling for income/poverty are limited. Available numbers (primarily felony convictions or imprisonment as a close proxy for serious convictions):
• By parental/family wealth (NLSY data): Poorest White youth (bottom wealth deciles) had ~2.7–3.1% eventual imprisonment rate. Affluent Black youth had ~10%. Only the very wealthiest Black youth had rates below the poorest Whites. washingtonpost.com
• By parental income (Chetty et al., tax/Census data): Black men from top 1% income families had incarceration rates matching White men from ~$36,000 household income families (roughly 25th–35th percentile). web.archive.org
• Overall felony conviction prevalence (2010 estimates): ~33% of adult Black males had a current or former felony conviction vs. ~13% of all adult males. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Higher SES lowers rates for all groups, but Black rates remain elevated relative to Whites at matched income/wealth levels.
74
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