OMG UPDATE: Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get updates on updates!

Updated on Wednesday, July 29

#21136

OMG: Change my view: If men are incarcerated more than women, its because they are more likely to be criminals, not female privilege. So, if black men are incarcerated more than white men, it is because they are more likely to be violent criminals, not white privilege.

38 comments

  1. I'm not sure about things in general, but the example you give is pretty cut and dry. The differences between men and women (both physical and psychological) are far greater than those between people of different races. While women are less likely to be violent criminals regardless of other circumstances, men of all races are just as likely to be criminals if put in the same situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "men of all races are just as likely to be criminals if put in the same situation"

      This is blatantly false, try again without lying (or at least get some sources if you actually think this is true).

      Delete
    2. See the responses below which went into more detail on this 1a.

      What do you imagine happens in slums around the world where there are no black men? There is no crime? Violent crime in South East Asia are committed mostly by South East Asian men. Violent crimes in Russia are committed mostly by white men who grew up in criminal area and poverty. Its still most often men, but the races change based on who's down-trodden.

      I don't need a source to tell you there aren't many black criminals in Russia and South East Asia :P

      Delete
    3. "there aren't many black criminals in Russia"

      Yes, exactly. Which is probably why Russia has four times less crime than the US which is notorious for its black population.

      http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes

      You literally just showed that under shitty conditions white people commit less crime.

      Try again, still not convinced.

      Delete
    4. Oh man, if only there were other factors at play in Russia (http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/features/10-most-corrupt-police-forces-in-the-world.html)

      Total "crime" statistics aren't a great comparison point. What we're talking about it likelihood rather than anything else. Russia might have less "crime" but they also have a far less urban population, less incarceration, more corrupt police force, etc etc. The way I understood the question, we're discussing the likelihood of committing a violent crime as an individual and whether it depends on race.

      Delete
    5. Also, living in Russia isn't a "shitty condition" and while Russia does have a huge disparity of haves and have nots, their culture is much better adapted to living off of much less than NA's are used to.

      Delete
  2. Correlation doesn't imply causation. At the moment (depending on where you live), black men ARE more likely to be violent criminals, but not because their skin happens to be a different colour. It's more likely because of the circumstances in which they are raised/the sorts of challenges and disadvantages they're confronted with throughout their lives which leave them with a particular worldview.

    Hypothetically, if you had a population where you could control all social factors, and flipped the tables so that white men were born into the place in society that many black men currently are, you'd find your statistics would flip as well - white men would be the most likely to be violent criminals.

    Those socio-economic differences are literally the DEFINITION of white privilege. And that's not an inherently bad thing - I don't think anybody sane is suggesting that white men should live under the conditions that black men are forced to endure for some twisted notion of 'fairness' or something. But it IS something that it's important to be aware of! So that way, when you're confronted with a statistic like "black men are incarcerated more than white men," you don't ask yourself "what does this tell me about black men as a 'race'?" (because they're as human as anybody else), but "what socio-economic differences are causing this statistic to exist?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See I've never been able to accept this argument either. Sure, maybe I can see them stealing if they're poor.

      But I don't understand how being poor forces you to murder and rape.

      Its also kind of racist to say this. Its all from their socio-economic status? You're basically saying they don't have the agency to make the right decisions on their own.

      Delete
    2. 2a, you missed my point. "Being poor" is not the only socio-economic condition I was referring to. But 3 went into more detail on some of this, try reading their post.

      When you're born into a world where everything is always being taken away from you, and you only get the things you're strong enough to take for yourself by ignoring the 'correct' systems, eventually that changes the way you think. It takes an incredible amount of work to overcome a barrier like that.

      Delete
    3. Everything taken away from you?

      Like what? Poor income housing? Welfare? Affirmative action?

      White taxes pay for billions in hand outs to black people.

      Delete
  3. actually no, leading political scientists and analysts have long since established (as is known within the higher intellectual community) that black and hispanic males are specifically targeted by police in the united states to create a controlled prison labor force, and this dates all the way back to the slave era as in, when the slaves were freed the american government moved quickly to target black males and imprison them to create a subservient prison labour force. now this occurs simultaneously with blacks being funnelled into slums, where poverty is rampant and in such conditions crime will grow. now add the supposed black crime culture which grew out of these slums and became adopted and perpetuated by corporations and major media, and finally, the historical residues of centuries of being enslaved extremely recently and subjected to the most violent, abhorrent mental, physical, and sexual violences, and what do you expect? a race that will be all smiles and peaches and sunshine and candy? every cause has an effect and the historical ramifications and reverberations echo through time. now, this is not to say that black people have no responsibility and are completely not to blame. but rather, my point is they are born into a world where they almost immediately face massive disadvantages that are centuries old and extremely complex and also well-established, a world in which they are pretty much expected to be criminals, and these things are difficult to overcome. it is a self-fulfilling prophecyand self-perpetuating cycle of viciousness. now the slums and ghettos are exploding with violence but nobody bothers to look at the causes and history behind such states of affairs. things aren't simple and your analogy just shows how narrow minded you are. the above truth has some merit to it as well

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3 here, there are actually a couple of major things I forgot to mention. After the slaves were freed, in addition to targeting and mass imprisoning black males to create a subservient labor force, they were also removed and depraved from normal society - this is the basis of the civil rights movement, as in, there was literally police- and gov't-enforced apartheid for decades. add this into the mix of wrongful mass imprisonment, crime cultures growing out of poverty-stricken slums blacks were forced into, being removed from holding influential, politlcal, or even basic institutional positions (ie. blacks were forced into blue collar jobs and banned from white collar jobs) and importantly, the mass media literally ingraining into general society that blacks are inherently evil, that they need to be removed from society, etc. now if there were a race of people who suffered this much, who went through this much depravity and suffered to this extent, picture what will happen. there will most certainly be a backlash against the society that has wronged them so grandly, so anciently, and so powerfully, and this will become manifest in violent reactionary behavior. obviously there are black elites like athletes, musicians, etc. who are pretty much cash cows as well, and many of them are also eventually discredited and robbed of their wealth by legal fees paid to the government, but this is usually after those industries that saw them rise extracted as much money from them as possible (be it the NFL, the music industry, et.). so thinking about all this now, regarding black north americans, can you blame them for reacting against the establishment, this same establishment who has done all of the above? how can they place trust to an establishment that has basically raped their entire people (both literally and metaphorically). so as 2 said in their next post, they live on the fringes, outside of the establishment, and do what they can to survive. and such conditions of existence will surely decay the moral fiber of any people, leading to, well, crime. puny minds like yourselves make these grand generalizations and live ina fantasy world, without actually thinking, hey wait a second, what's actually happening in the real world right now, why is it happening, what is causing it, what is the history behind it, and only then will you be able to stop it

      Delete
    2. >now if there were a race of people who suffered this much, who went through this much depravity and suffered to this extent
      You mean like Jews, right?

      Oh wait.

      Delete
  4. I've always been baffled by statements like these.

    I'm a big believer in the universality of human nature. Regardless of race, culture, gender, or really anything else, I think we all experience the world and relate to it in fundamentally the same ways. Our basic natures aren't all identical, but they aren't all that dissimilar either - and they certainly aren't divided by silly superficial things like skin colour.

    However, we are not all born into equal conditions than life, nor do we all grow up with the same life experiences and values. As a result, even if our basic NATURE is fundamentally the same, the way in which we see the world (and how we choose to interact with it) is very much going to be a product of how and where we're raised.

    That's what 2 is getting at, and what 2a is failing to understand. Socio-economic conditions aren't "forcing" anybody to rape and murder, but they absolutely are creating conditions where people can (and do) grow up seeing rape and murder as societal norms. The lengthy history that created these conditions is long, and you could literally fill up books trying to explain it adequately (and people have).

    But if you don't accept a certain universality to human nature - if you think black people are just 'fundamentally' different from white people, and are 'genetically predisposed' to acting violently or something like that... then we have nothing more to talk about, and I won't comment any further.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I accept a universality in humans. But clearly different races are fundamentally different from eachother (you're telling me that skin colour is the ONLY difference?).

      Its like how all dogs are dogs, but pitbulls are big and strong but border collies are gentle and smart.

      >then we have nothing more to talk about

      See, what the fuck? You can't say something as intellectually dishonest as "all races are the same", and then plug your ears so your view can ever change. Why would I believe you're right when clearly evidence can't ever sway your biased opinions?

      Delete
    2. I'm pretty sure that its been determined with scientific rigor that the variability between characteristics is greater between individuals within the same "race" than between the averages of the "races". This article isn't anything peer reviewed but it references some pretty good studies: http://www.newsreel.org/guides/race/whatdiff.htm

      Delete
    3. 4a, humans with black skin are not to humans with white skin as pit bulls are to border collies. We're all the same damn species, equally sentient and fully capable of rational thought.

      I'm not asking you to believe I'm right. I'm saying that if you aren't approaching this with AT LEAST the rationale that we're all "equally human," then our worldviews are too different for there to ever be a hope of common ground in discussion, and it's better if all discussion ends here. Any argument I have to offer is predicated on the basis that we're all just human, that skin colour actually IS the only real difference between us, and if you see that as intellectual dishonesty, then that's your problem, not mine.

      Delete
    4. We are all equally human, but we arent all equal.

      This discussion is ending here since you cannot ignore your emotions in favour of any kind of logic.

      Why say something so demonstrably false? You understand this totally nullifies the rest of your arguments right? I can't be convinced be someone who refuses to acknowledge basic truths.

      Delete
    5. @4d You can't be convinced because you've already made up your mind and decided to be quite wrong. Totally within your rights and fine; some people spend their entire lives being wrong.

      Delete
    6. @4a Eugenics. What you're talking about is eugenics.

      Delete
    7. 4d, there's a big difference between "we aren't all equal" and "whole populations are 'naturally' predisposed to different kinds of behaviours because of [something other than historical and sociological differences]." We. Are. All. The. Same. Damn. Species! We aren't mere animals - we're ALL sentient human beings capable of rational thought. What society calls racism is simply the non-acceptance of that fundamental ethical truth.

      I'm not saying we can't have discussions about why some populations in certain areas wind up living in particular ways - but those discussions have to start from that fundamental premise (that differences in skin colour are just that - superficial differences), or we aren't even speaking the same language. This is the core assumption ALL sociological discussions are predicated on - there is no data (hell, not even a legitimate study) to support the idea that blacks (or chinese, or any ethnic group) are "genetically predisposed" to any particular behaviour, or that their existence as humans is in any way different than a white existence.

      Furthermore, a discussion of human nature must also by its very nature BE emotional. Our nature is essentially a big mass of emotions connected by our ability to reason. The moment you take an entire population and scrutinize its behaviour and describe it as something purely 'logical' you've stripped the human element from the mix. You're now evaluating a population of animals, not your peers.

      ...And you've repeatedly made it clear you aren't onboard with any discussion that actually looks at black people as human. So I'm out. I've said everything I have to say now, and I won't be replying to any more of your comments. I hope that one day you'll develop a little bit of empathy, and rethink the narrow-minded, scared worldview you currently seem to have regarding human coexistence. But I won't be the one to make you do that.

      Delete
    8. Haha ok sure, run away. You know and anyone reading this knows that you're wrong.

      CLEARLY, the races are different. Of course differences in skin colour are superficial, but this isnt about skin colour (as much as you like to ignore the real issues and call out racism so you can feel better than everyone).

      Of course there aren't any legitimate studies, do you know what would happen to anyone that did it and eventually found out the truth? People like you would crucify him because facts are racist.

      And lol at you trying to say that any emotional conclusion is a valid way of determining truth, ever. We are all animals. You have a pretty fucked up worldview.

      In fact I've repeatedly stated black people are human (but ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments seem to be your only weapons).

      You know what the logical conclusion is? Life isn't fair. Don't be so dishonest as to actually try and argue it was fair enough to equalize the races.

      Delete
    9. 4h, 4b here. Any thoughts on that article? I know your already used all caps for CLEARLY which everyone knows means you're right, but maybe people who've done actual studies know something too?

      Delete
    10. ^ that article was about geographic location, not race.

      Most of the genetic variations were within the continent? No shit, we've absorbed people from all over the world, we're a multicultural continent, of course there is a lot of variation.

      We can't tell which continent people live on by their genetic information? We no shit once again, half our ancestors came from a different one.

      Just another race-baiting article designed to increase bad race relations to give SJWs something to complain about.

      Also, no real facts (or only misinterpretations of real facts with no conclusions based on the given sources).

      Delete
    11. And don't call that "actual studies" when that article is literally saying that a peer reviewed study is wrong without providing any peer reviewed evidence of their own.

      Its kind of sad that you actually thought that article was valid.

      Delete
    12. Straight from the article: "The idea of biological race assumes traits come packaged together, even color-coded for our convenience [...] In otherwords, if biological race were real, we'd find that skin color or other "racial" markers would correlate with a suite of other genetic traits. Knowing an individual's "race" should enable us to predict his or her other genes and traits."

      "That's because most human variation falls within, not between populations. About 85% of all genetic variation can, on average, be found within any local population, be they Swedes, Kikuyu, or Hmong. About 94% can be found within any continental population, consistent with what the Rosenberg Science study found. In fact, there are no characteristics, no traits, not even one gene that turns up in all members of one so-called race yet is absent from others"

      Delete
    13. ^ Since we're discussing Universality in humans, I think that this article went quite well. They were talking to professionals in the field for a three-part documentary and referencing studies that reported no significant variability between populations. Now, this article didn't talk about behavior much, but with physical traits and all genetic traits already proven universal, I think its a safe leap.

      Delete
    14. 4a, since you seem to reject both the humanist philosophy of 4, AND the facts provided by 4b/i/l, you must have some pretty concrete science behind your opinion! How about you provide those ironclad facts YOU seem to value so highly? Because from where the rest of us are standing it seems like all you've got are personal biases, which you're using loose correlations and conjecture to self-confirm.

      If the facts confirming your opinion are no more grounded than the weak standards you're identifying 4b with, then maybe the philosophical approach IS the best avenue at this point? It certainly seems it'd be the most compassionate.

      Delete
  5. Women and blacks are designated victims, so any advantages they specifically have are underplayed while any disadvantages are overplayed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What about we compare how many human beings have been exterminated by white people throughout history compared to every other race combined?
    You're so smart with your preconceived ideas and blanket statements. Why don't you go read a book instead?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps, but the whites clearly brought civilization to many countries. Seriously - just look at all the coloured people around here now. They're eating from plates and drinking from cups. All those people would just be flinging shit around and jumping around like baboons if it weren't for the white people. Sure, many groups of people were exterminated by white people, but they were clearly asking for it because of disobediance and disrespect. I tremble and crap my pants in fear of what the world would've became if it were someone other than the whites who colonized the world.

      Delete
    2. Wow 6a, I thought 6's "read a book" comment was a little harsh but shit, you proved him more than right. Not only were "whites" not the first "civilization" in the modern sense, they weren't even the 10th. Not a single place (to my knowledge) colonized by "whites" in modern times was better off for it. India suffered famine to feed the British Empire, South Africa doesn't need explaining, and North America was a white-supremacist wet dream. Hell, plates and cups are not at all a "white" invention either.

      I'm a white guy in Engineering and I know all this. I tremble and crap my pants in fear at the thought that people like you are in control...of anything

      Delete
    3. Lol 6b South Africa is a terrible example.

      South Africa was a developed nation under white rule. Black people weren't happy with their lives and, as always, obviously it must be whiteys fault. So we gave it to them.

      How is it 20 years later? Only the most violent shithole on the planet. Fucking white people ruin everything.

      Delete
    4. ^So to recap, pre-colonialism people were living the way they had for a very long time and pretty happy, then in colonialism the white man made a home for themselves and mistreated everyone else, then they left and things are worse than before. Sounds like you're agreeing with me.

      Delete
    5. Lol. Heres what went down.

      Black people living in mud huts and general poor squalor. White people come in and make a home for themselves while building a modern infrastructure.

      Black population of South Africa explodes because black people from everywhere see how good black people have it. Average life expectancy of black raises by 20 years.

      But black people still unhappy they cant quite live like white people and they get pissed and revolt. White people fired from jobs or just straight up murdered until black people in charge.

      Affirmative action (yes, South Africa has a majority black population but still has affirmative action to keep whites out of jobs) leads to black people controlling the infrastructure whites built. They have no fucking clue how to use it, slowly revert to barbarianism to survive while cursing the white man the whole time.

      That good enough of a history lesson?

      Delete
    6. @6a And now "civilization" is killing the planet - destroying all of its resources and forcing its norms on everyone. I'd say people were doing okay for quite a long time before colonialism.

      Delete
    7. 6e, you're actually a perfect example of how colonialism was justified. The underlying assumption is that without running water, pants, tea, and bowler hats people are "barbarians" and their lives are worthless, meaningless, and irrelevant. Colonialism imposes a foreign system on a native population and then punishes them for not being good at it.

      Delete
  7. ^ 5/8 great effort

    ReplyDelete