Limbaugh v StewartFollow

Touche'. Btw, that elephant really is awesome.

Daughter of the great Gorilla Monsoon?

That's one hefty chick.

No. What you claimed was this:



You claimed that my statement (that poor white kids are more likely to be assaulted than rich black kids), was false.
You also claimed that this was "easy to establish".

Then you refused to support either of those claims. So. Want to try again? You're the one who said that this was easy to establish, so by all means establish it



If we're defining rich as "greater than $50k annual income" sure. See how that works? I'm more than happy to say compare white men earning $20k/year or less to black men earning $500k/year or more if that's a more comfortable definition of "rich and poor"?




But that's not what you said. You said that a "rich black kid" was as likely (or more likely) to be assaulted as a "poor white kid". No mention of middle class was involved. I'm just trying to get you to place the goal posts in reasonable positions here Smash. I'm not afraid at all of talking about the middle ground here (which is actually where your argument is strongest). I'm just trying to get us past the ridiculous and exaggerated claims you started out with. Can we do that?



Hah! You think?



That's a great question Smash. And it's a discussion we should have. But that discussion isn't helped by making wild claims that we're talking about "rich" black men and comparing them to "poor" white men. Let's stick to actual facts.



Why is it "obviously" racism? Assuming by "racism" you mean some kind of direct and intentional act by the members of one racial group to harm or disadvantage the members of another, I don't buy that one bit. It's certainly not "obvious". A far more likely explanation is internal, not external factors within each racial group. That's why I linked that other paper earlier. It discussed cultural and environmental factors among each group in order to look at those factors absent race and make a comparison. See, when you divide people up by race, and find differences among the resulting groups, it's easy to assume that race must be the cause of the outcome, right? But that's selection bias at work. If we took the same set of data and divided people up by whether they wear blue jeans or slacks, we'd be able to find differences between them, and thus could blame those differences on their choice of pants. If we divide them by height, we'll find a correlation there too. It's incredibly poor methodology to use because you'll *always* get an answer based on the selection criteria. It's not always the right answer though.


A far more likely explanation is about cultural and community differences. I'm not at all discounting the historical racial aspect to this, but the fact is that blacks are far more likely to live in self segregated communities than other groups (ie: all or nearly all black). This tends to have an effect (always negative) on the population within those communities. They're more insular, less trusting of other groups, much less likely to experience success, and more prone to violence. And guess what? We see this even when income ranges grow. Whites and Latinos are more likely to move neighborhoods as their incomes increase. Blacks are much more likely to continue to live in a predominantly black (and poor) neighborhood, even when their income reaches levels which would allow them to move out. I'd speculate that this has to do with the whole "self segregated" aspect of black culture and black communities, but that would just be a (almost certainly correct) guess on my part.

Point being that if we accept that theory regarding the "black community" factor, it explains why black victimization is less resistant to income changes than whites and latinos (although latinos actually surpass blacks in this regard in the $50k+ range, so go figure). I suspect what we're seeing is a statistical artifact based on communities and income, and it doesn't really disprove the idea that violence is most strongly correlated with income. It's just that at various income levels, members of different racial groups are more or less likely to remain in a lower income area and are thus more likely to be victimized as a result. There's also an extended family effect. Assuming that not every member of a family will be equally successful, then the lower the overall economic success rate of a given racial group, the greater the odds that a member of the immediate family of someone who has succeeded will have not (and thus be living in a lower income and higher crime area). Put more simply, the odds of a middle class white man traveling to the ghetto to visit a sibling is much lower than a middle class black man. Ergo, that puts the black man in the same economic status at a higher risk of victimization.


Those factors seem far more likely than your vaguely stated "it's racism!" claim. My position has a logical and rational explanation. You're relies on some kind of vaguely defined action occurring. So how exactly does racism cause black people to shoot and kill each other at such a high rate? Do we possess mind control powers or something? Silly me, but I'm going to assume environmental factors are involved, and not any direct racism. Cause that makes far far more sense. Crime rates tend to be static based on area. The houses owned by black people in my neighborhood are no more likely to be broken into than my house. A parked car in my neighborhood is no more likely to be broken into based on the race of the owner either. And the odds of someone getting mugged while walking down the street in my neighborhood isn't going to change based on their skin color either.

Victimization is massively more correlated with geography and income than with race. The reason black people are more likely to be victims of violent crimes is because they spend a statistically greater amount of time in areas with low income levels and high crime rates. You asked for an alternative to racism, and there it is. I happen to think it's a far better explanation, and frankly one that's more socially useful. Blaming "racism" is great for a political slogan and to get people fired up, but it's terrible at actually addressing the problem and solving it. Identifying the factors which cause increased victimization rates among different groups is the first step towards solving it.

And black people spend a greater amount of time in areas with low income level because...???

Racism. The answer is Racism, not whatever drivel you're going to write.

Anyone who reads gbaji's posts is almost as much of a joke as he is.

Point being that if we accept that theory regarding the "black community" factor,

Then we're racists. Not complicated. It's like lex parsimoniae, sort of in reverse. If you have to cling to every possible explanation, including "it's the victim's fault" to avoid dealing with race, you're a racist. So, good work demonstrating that, not that anyone was unsure.

But that's selection bias at work

Wait, is that when you start with a proposition like "racism doesn't exist" and then back into the data and spend a long time re-arranging it attempt to mitigate the obvious very strong correlation even when adjusting for all other factors? I'm not going to read the rest of your post because you don't understand statistics. Or, apparently, logical fallacy, but we knew that already.

If you want to continue the discussion, please tell me what you think R is for Race, and then what R is for Income level or geography, or whatever the imaginary factor that correlates more strongly is. Then demonstrate how you achieve that.

Hahahah, ahh, just kidding. Keep making **** up instead, we all know you can't do basic math.

I already linked a paper which discusses this Smash. Why don't you go read it? I'll give you the short version. It found that most of the differences between racial groups could be adjusted for by environmental and cultural factors (internal cultural factors within the group that is). I'm not claiming that racism doesn't exist, but I am saying that focusing on racism as the cause while ignoring all those other factors is extremely counterproductive.

Ok. What's R? Trivial question, why can't you answer it?

Creating hypotheticals that place your talking points in a positive light and slightly easier positions to defend, but ignoring reality.

Sure. I can't say that it *isn't* a contributing factor. But bugs and dirt on your windshield is a contributing factor to drag on your car, yet we usually worry more about the shape and angle of the windshield. It's all about putting these factors in perspective.



I'm not saying to ignore race. I'm saying that we should not be ignoring other factors in favor of focusing on race. Right now we are focusing 99% of our social/political effort on something that maybe has a 5% effect on the issue we're discussing. And it's entirely possible that in the course of fixing those other much larger factors, we will end out eliminating the racial factor as well. Let's not forget that racism is often driven by social perceptions and stereotypes. The mere fact that the statistics show a higher percentage of criminality among black populations drives the perception that black people are more likely to be criminals, which affects how people view and interact with black people (ie: racially drive discrimination), which in turn affects poverty and environment, which results in perpetuating the starting condition.

Fix the environmental conditions and get black people into a more aligned statistical condition and the racial component will tend to disappear as well. We fix the racism part by focusing on things other than racism. What I'm trying to say is that focusing on racism isn't productive. It doesn't fix the core problem. It just makes people angry and actually creates more of a wedge between racial groups. Focus on the behavior and environment and the rest will follow.



Because it's not a "root cause" of poverty, crime and social dysfunction. Period. The problem is that far far too many incorrectly think that it is.



I can't walk a mile in a black guy's shoes. That's the problem. If I could, I might be able to do my part helping change perceptions about black people by focusing on improving my own life and position (of course, I'd likely be called an Uncle Tom for suggesting this approach to anyone else). If every single black person in the US focused on improving their own lives instead of trying to "end racism", they'd all collectively be vastly better off. But, for purely political reasons, they've been sold on the assumption that all of their woes are caused and perpetuated by racism. So instead of having a tangible thing to act on, like getting a job, avoiding gangs and drugs, etc, they focus on "fighting institutionalized racism which makes it impossible for me to ever get ahead".

It's completely unproductive, and arguably perpetuates the statistical disadvantages black people face in this country. But sadly, the assumption that racism is the cause is so entrenched that merely suggesting that there might be other causes (and other perpetrators!) gets you labeled as a racist. And the cycle of poverty and crime just continues as a result.

Edited, May 29th 2014 6:25pm by gbaji

Right. Racism is the shape of the windshield in this case.

Umm...no. This being a part of your belief system is certainly what colors the rest of your argument.

Oh, like EOE laws and quotas? Ok, then. I had guessed you were no fan of those based on your past writings, here.

Stopped being related to the narrative, had to be abandoned. Because, yannow, consistency.

In that everyone else takes responsibility for your personal failings.