’)They say things like this and honestly can’t see what the problem is.
On his radio show, Mark Belling said: ‘Whether it’s blacks, Mexican-Americans, whatever, people who live in a neighborhood should not have to put up with newcomers deciding that that neighborhood is going to be ‘Crimeville.’ ‘ Belling continued: ‘You wonder why racism occurs. Why people fear ‘look what’s happening to the neighborhood’ when some — when a minority person moves in. The answer is because sometimes it does mean an increase in crime.’
Belling has been the scourge of Milwaukee radio for a long time. He got yanked for a VERY brief period a few years back for using the term “wetback.”
LOL,
Oliver is being deliberately provocative. Everyone knows there is no statistical correlation between race and crime.
Yes, let’s brand everyone with the sins of the worst of their race. You go first, idiot.
No Amused Dumbass, it’s actually poverty that’s connected to crime. The Irish were supposedly all criminals. The Italians were all criminals.
When is Oliver going to change his atavar to a pic of Obama’s next door neighbor who kindly helped him out, Tony Rezco?
When you mock white people for not wanting more crime in their neighborhoods you are absolutely asking for politically incorrect but statistically correct correlations.
“Yes, let’s brand everyone with the sins of the worst of their race.”
Substitute political persuasion for race and you’ve described Olivers editorial stance perfectly.
“LOL”
What you said wasn’t funny. Saying “LOL” at the top of your post makes you sound like a 13-year kids who hangs around 4chan way too much.
“When you mock white people for not wanting more crime in their neighborhoods…”
Holy shit, you are such a fucking racist bastard that you don’t even recognize when someone is racist.
There’s a huge fucking difference between not wanting crime in your neighborhood, which is something everyone wants, and thinking “New Black Neighbour = Crime”, which is incredibly racist.
“Substitute political persuasion for race and you’ve described Olivers editorial stance perfectly.”
The Southern Strategy. This is not a few bad apples, this is the fucking leadership deciding to attack some Americans for political gain.
Again, if you can’t see the difference, you need to shut the fuck up.
Hey Amused, can you tell me why you White Nationalists are quiet about the financial crimes committed by White Men, especially the ones on Wall Street that affect far more people and has far more repercussions
than an action of a black/latino gangbanger? This $700 billion bailout was caused by crooked White Men, no? (and don’t blame the Jews because I see many WASP types behind this)
CS,
Take a deep breath and wait for your meds to kick in. Racist bastard, LOL, as if.
Oliver is deliberately mocking conservatives as is his standard procedure and specifically bringing up the idea that whites associating an increase in crime with changing neighborhood demographics is a reason for minorities to shun conservatism.
That is a foolish opening as the statistics correlating crime and race kept by the federal government do not bolster an argument that crime is race neutral.
Oliver replied to my post with his branding everyone with the sins of the worst post. Which I find funny since he does that with Republicans and conservatives all the time.
I know nothing about the commentator who made the remarks about crimeville. He may be a member of the Klan for all I know but in the context supplied there is nothing inherently racist about noting correlations between changing neighborhood demographics and crime.
It is a sad fact of life, crime exists. There is more of it in some places than in other places. Correlation is not causation yet time and time again certain patterns emerge. It is not racist to be cognizant of that. As I pointed out this is dangerous ground for the politically correct and both provocative and foolish of Oliver to use race and crime as a way of ridiculing conservatism.
I’m not sure where you got your Southern Strategy bit, seems a bit out of context. I suppose this is where I should tell you to shut the fuck up , you’re a idiot etc. but there is no need. It’s never really an effective argument although it fits your style of rhetoric.
I’ve heard Mark Belling for (seems like) fifteen years…
He’s got a radio audience, but it isn’t from here, it’s a bunch of (smaller and smaller) yahoos in Waukesha County and some white guys without a brain…
Standing up for Milwaukee…
Yeah, whatever. Fortunately my car now has a radio that allows me to listen to sports all the time, and Mark can go to hell.
“Take a deep breath and wait for your meds to kick in. Racist bastard, LOL, as if.”
Every time you say LOL it makes you look like a child.
“Correlation is not causation…”
Exactly. And perhaps cops will respond faster to crime reports in all-white neighbourhoods, which is why there is some correlation seen the the statistics.
However, to say “Black person moves in = more crime” is racist. And this moron is defending that racism by pointing to statistics that simply don’t support the racist argument.
“I’m not sure where you got your Southern Strategy bit, seems a bit out of context. I suppose this is where I should tell you to shut the fuck up , you’re a idiot etc.”
It wouldn’t work here, because you are the idiot if you don’t get why I brought it up. I even explained why I brought it up, so you would have to be an idiot to be confused.
Everyone knows there is no statistical correlation between race and crime.
Do you understand what the word “correlation” means, AO? If you do, then let’s see your cards. Show us any reputable analyst who has run the numbers and found this supposed correlation.
When I first read OBSERVER’s comments I immediately believed that he is either dishonest, ignorant or a bit of both. If Oliver is correct, that only leaves the ignorant factor. So, I understand OBSERVER’s concern over Oliver’s post.
So… what is OBSERVER to do?
Observer decides to play a game. His goal? To make Oliver the subject of conversation and the “real” controversy (Because it sure beats focusing on the racist and bigoted comments of their kind that are born out of the creation of talking point memos and bumper sticker sayings and used extremely well to communicate with the conservative masses who are looking to be afraid of something… anything even!). One of the other reasons for this game is because he agrees with Belling. So the “observer” is naturally offended that Oliver (and most of the folks who read Oliver’s posts) believes Belling to be a bigot.
Naturally, the “observer”, like Belling, has no clue as to what the problem is. Not only is it “Belling who “honestly can’t see what the problem is” but it is also other conservatives as well, like “observer”.
Whatever the case, Observer pretends/believes that when a minority moves into the neighborhood, more crime will eventually follow. See, when a neighborhood is all white, there is little, if any, crime.
To some extent, OBSERVER IS actually correct. But he doesn’t know why he may be correct.
What he fails to acknowledge or is not aware of is that when a person of minority status moves into the neighborhood, crime doesn’t go up; not so long as the neighbors who are offended by someone different looking than them moving in can rise up beyond their bigotry and prejudice to help keep the neighborhood stable.
It’s only after folks have moved out – because there’s a different looking family in that house now – and the neighborhood destabilizes that crime can then follow. It’s after the destabilization of the neighborhood that causes property value to fall which of course attracts poorer folks and the cycle is begun.
Am I to assume that you two would be honestly surprised if the crime rate rose in a neighborhood as the demographics of that neighborhood changed from white to black or Hispanic?
Quaker,
Knock your self out. But why rely on the research of others, why not do a little real world research, flash a roll of twenties around various neighborhoods whose demographics are readily identifiable by race and let us know how it works out.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/2000_6_1/page2.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXK/is_24_18/ai_82770922
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/viocrm.pdf
After this thread I’m gonna get yelled at by everybody!
“Poverty” is to “street/violent/stupid/drug” crime, as “Wealth” is to “white collar/embezzlement/computer crime” crime. Crooks is crooks. It’s just that poorer people don’t have as much opportunity to be discreet.
(MY PERSONAL OPINION) However, about AA crime, (I just KNOW I’m gonna get yelled at)I believe RACISM has been a BIG reason why there is so much “gang” “street” “drug” type AA crime. When “whites” have for generations systematically BARRED, or at the very least, STRONGLY DISCOURAGED AA’s from NORMAL employment – normal promotional opportunities then you get two main things….Ghetto’s and AN UNDERGROUND ECONOMY. In the case of the US of A that economy was, and is – mostly DRUGS. The only employers that didn’t discriminate against AA’s were local AA gangs.
SERIOUSLY, it takes a real God fearing, hard working, very honourable but slightly stupid AA to work for peanuts with little chance of advancement from “the man” when he could become “middle class” by getting involved in the “underground economy.”
We will need a few more generations of GENUINE and HONEST – “equal opportunity” before minorities become greedy and shallow enough to desire membership in the Republican Party.
Ain’t life a bitch?
After this thread I’m gonna get yelled at by everybody!
Nuh-uh.
You might be simplifying a bit much here and there, but you described a facet of reality pretty well.
“You might be simplifying a bit much here and there, but you described a facet of reality pretty well.”
Agreed. It’s like that scene from Traffic where Topher Grace talks about suburban demand is the reason for urban drug dealers.
If someone with a white sounding name gets a call back from their resume 50% more often than someone with a black sounding name, then that’s massive racism that is costing the black community a huge chunk of change. And that will make then turn to areas of the economy that don’t limit career advancement based on race. Like stealing cars, for instance.
Oliver is deliberately mocking conservatives as is his standard procedure and specifically bringing up the idea that conservatives associating an increase in crime with changing neighborhood demographics is a reason for minorities to shun conservatism.
Fixed.
“You might be simplifying a bit much here and there, but you described a facet of reality pretty well.”
That’s funny, I thought Quaker didn’t think there was a correlation between neighborhood demographics and crime.
“conservatives associating an increase in crime with changing neighborhood demographics”
Yes it’s fixed, It appears Quaker, MyLegacy, and CS must be conservatives. So now that we all agree, why are you guys bitching about what the subject of Oliver’s derision said. You’re basically agreeing with him.
But my favorite line is from MyLegacy claiming only slightly stupid blacks aren’t criminals. I would think Oliver might be offended by the thought that he is slightly stupid. These comments are far more offensive than those from the radio dude and go far further than what he said. Although they are not just agreeing with him but adding fuel to the fire he is branded as racist while they are thoughtful liberals. The hypocrisy is stunning.
Stephen Jay Gould and others have utterly destroyed the ‘theory’ of genetic determinism, but there are those flat-earthers who cannot but bitterly cling to it.
“That’s funny, I thought Quaker didn’t think there was a correlation between neighborhood demographics and crime.”
It’s not skin color, it’s economic opportunities. Certain people are not given equal opportunity because of their skin color. This is racism. Blaming them for not getting ahead the honest way is a second layer of racism.
“But my favorite line is from MyLegacy claiming only slightly stupid blacks aren’t criminals.”
My favorite line is when you quoted MyLegacy out of context so you could lie about him.
Parthenon is building a strawman and getting far from the premise that whites do or do not have a legitimate fear that changing neighborhood demographics may reflect a higher crime rate. Nobody but he has brought up the idea of genetic determinism.
Most popular amongst the apologists for criminal behavior are socioeconomic traits. It’s not their fault because people won’t treat them the same. Or it’s not their fault because they are poor. Taking the positions of Legacy, CS., and Quaker to their logical conclusion leads one to the notion that these criminals are living in a culture where crime is an acceptable choice.
Which begs the question what person in his right mind would think it a good thing to have a neighborhood change culturally from one where crime was considered out of the norm and unacceptable to one where a culture of criminality is tacitly condoned.
CS, the complete quote: ” SERIOUSLY, it takes a real God fearing, hard working, very honourable but slightly stupid AA to work for peanuts with little chance of advancement from “the man” when he could become “middle class” by getting involved in the “underground economy.”
Words have actual meaning, the sentence above is not hard to understand. Legacy is saying an American African needs the following traits; religiosity, diligence, extreme honor, and intelligence ranking in the bottom half of the bell curve to undertake conventional not criminal means as a way to make a living.
Not my position but one that is echoed by yourself and Quaker. A position I might add that adds much weight to the original topic of discussion.
LOL, I said at the start that Oliver was opening a can of worms ridiculing white conservatives for having apprehensions regarding racial demographics and crime. In the end we are quibbling over WHY certain demographic groups have higher rates of criminality not WHETHER it is true.
That’s funny, I thought Quaker didn’t think there was a correlation between neighborhood demographics and crime.
Neighborhood demographics? No, your assertion was about race and crime. And so far you have provided…let’s see here…six…carry the two…uh, zero evidence.
Still waiting.
Taking the positions of Legacy, CS., and Quaker to their logical conclusion leads one to the notion that these criminals are living in a culture where crime is an acceptable choice.
Do you lie deliberately or is it something you can’t control?
LOL Quaker,
Didn’t follow those links did you?
“You might be simplifying a bit much here and there, but you described a facet of reality pretty well.”
Your words referring to this post: “SERIOUSLY, it takes a real God fearing, hard working, very honourable but slightly stupid AA to work for peanuts with little chance of advancement from “the man” when he could become “middle class” by getting involved in the “underground economy.””
Your words, not mine. Now you appear to be arguing that statistics regarding race and crime and statistics regarding neighborhood racial demographics are unrelated.
It must be mighty hard to find a forest when the view is blocked by all those trees.
Parthenon is building a strawman and getting far from the premise that whites do or do not have a legitimate fear that changing neighborhood demographics may reflect a higher crime rate. Nobody but he has brought up the idea of genetic determinism.
AO yesterday: It is a sad fact of life, crime exists. There is more of it in some places than in other places. Correlation is not causation yet time and time again certain patterns emerge. It is not racist to be cognizant of that. As I pointed out this is dangerous ground for the politically correct and both provocative and foolish of Oliver to use race and crime as a way of ridiculing conservatism.
AO yesterday again: flash a roll of twenties around various neighborhoods whose demographics are readily identifiable by race and let us know how it works out.
Care to tell me exactly how you’re not being deterministic? If so, I’ll cheerfully rescind my earlier comment.
AO today: Most popular amongst the apologists for criminal behavior are socioeconomic traits. It’s not their fault because people won’t treat them the same. Or it’s not their fault because they are poor. Taking the positions of Legacy, CS., and Quaker to their logical conclusion leads one to the notion that these criminals are living in a culture where crime is an acceptable choice.
AO, it is a simple fact. More poverty = more crime, irrespective of race or culture, culturally acceptable or not. You can have one of every ethnicity in the world in a community, and if half are struggling and the other half are not, the struggling half will have more crime.
LOL Quaker,
Didn’t follow those links did you?
I overlooked them. Thanks for pointing them out once again. Perhaps you should review them yourself. Not one posits a correlation between race and crime.
You have proven, as I initially suggested, that you don’t know what teh word “correlation” means. To assert one on the basis of race is by definition racist.
Most popular amongst the apologists for criminal behavior are socioeconomic traits.
If this is incorrect, what do you suggest is the root cause of criminality? Genetics?
By definition, racist.
OBSERVER: Am I to assume that you two would be honestly surprised if the crime rate rose in a neighborhood as the demographics of that neighborhood changed from white to black or Hispanic?
Absolutely.
Anyone who believes that blacks and Hispanics are naturally likely to be of a criminal mind has to be a bigot and racist. Anyone who believes that the act of a non-white person moving into the neighborhood changing the diversity of that neighborhood causes crime to rise is a bigot and a racist. Don’t you agree with that?
As I explained already, It’s the destabilization of neighborhoods that allows crime to rise in neighborhoods rather than having white people being replaced by minority families.
It isn’t any different than the destabilization of society at large that leads to rising criminality. For instance, allowing political leaders to get away with crimes and unethical behavior helps to destabilize a Nation or a State.
Quaker,
If you actually opened those links then you did not understand what was there.
“as I initially suggested, that you don’t know what teh word “correlation” means. To assert one on the basis of race is by definition racist”
To observe relationships between statistics is not racism.
For example one can measure and accurately state the number of black men in this country. One can do the same with a bit less accuracy of the number who commit murder. This can be broken out as a percentage. The same can be done for any other demographic one has the numbers for. This is not racism but math.
You don’t have a leg to stand on.
Rockroq,
“Anyone who believes that the act of a non-white person moving into the neighborhood changing the diversity of that neighborhood causes crime to rise is a bigot and a racist. Don’t you agree with that?”
Crime need not rise with the act of a non white person moving into a neighborhood. Yet if we examine neighborhoods of differing demographic populations will they have identical rates of crime? It is neither bigoted or racist to observe and discuss such differences as may exist.
So do you think different communities that can be identified by racial demographics will have identical crime rates?
Your original post is an exercise in circular logic. Yet in the end you posit that as demographics change and the rate of minority population increases while the original white population diminishes crime rates will rise. You seem to find that the fault of the original residents for failing to enforce their cultural norms upon the newer minority residents and fleeing to more lawful areas. What do you suggest vigilantism?
Your second post further posits that it is “destabilization” not an increasing minority population in a neighborhood that leads to a rising crime rate. I would put forth the theory that it is an increase in the numbers of active criminals that creates the destabilization that characterizes the neighborhood.
Whether something is politically correct or not has no bearing on accuracy. To think otherwise is naive at best and creates a fog of ignorance that makes a clear view difficult.
The liberal position here has basically painted itself into a corner. It is very hard for someone to defend the position that neighborhoods characterized by different racial demographics have identical crime rates with a straight face.
For example one can measure and accurately state the number of black men in this country. One can do the same with a bit less accuracy of the number who commit murder. This can be broken out as a percentage. The same can be done for any other demographic one has the numbers for. This is not racism but math.
It may be math but it is not correlation. Can you think of any variables that were not controlled in deriving this “relationship”? An increased instance of a variable among a population is not a correlation.
It’s high school statistics, AO.
If you believe that race indicates an inclination toward criminality, that is, by definition, racist.
Try it this way AO:
Take a group 1,000 white men between the ages of 35 and 50, all employed and earning between $60,000 and $100,000 a year. Take a similar sample of black men.
If there’s a correlation between race and crime, you should be able to predict a higher instance of criminal behavior during the next 12 months among one of the groups.
Go for it.
Quaker,
Quite obviously you don’t actually know what the word correlation means. I could cut and paste a definition for you but perhaps you might remember what the word means longer if you find it for yourself.
The idea you are trying to express is that correlation is not causation. Yet correlation alone is enough to make educated guesses of anticipated outcomes with a level of accuracy corresponding to the degree of correlation. Again it’s just math. It is not racist to be cognizent of and speak of such correlations.
The more variables you use the better your chances of accuracy yet that does not invalidate simpler filters. We can look at two men and knowing nothing but their race we can accurately say that the chances of one man committing murder are greater than another.
That does not mean one or the other will commit murder, only that the chances are greater. As we are able to use more variables we can make better choices as to liklihood of the crime being committed. You might not like it but that doesn’t make it racist to point it out.
Quite obviously you don’t actually know what the word correlation means. I could cut and paste a definition for you but perhaps you might remember what the word means longer if you find it for yourself.
Shorter AO: “I am busted. Therefore I obfuscate.”
We can look at two men and knowing nothing but their race we can accurately say that the chances of one man committing murder are greater than another.
There it is.
It is very hard for someone to defend the position that neighborhoods characterized by different racial demographics have identical crime rates with a straight face.
Who said that?
Me, an hour ago: More poverty = more crime, irrespective of race or culture, culturally acceptable or not.
Good point, Parthy.
AO, let’s say you look at the demographics of neighborhoods and you group them according to the percentage of minority population. If there’s a correlation between race and crime, we should expect there to be a straight-line relationship between percentage of minority population and crime rate, right?
Let’s see it.
LOL quaker,
I wish I could debate you for money in a classical debate format. Easy money. I don’t think you are stupid but where you fall between ignorant and intellectually dishonest is hard to say.
Why don’t you give us your definition of correlation. I know it is a big word with lots of those syllable thingies. It’s an open book test but most folks can probably answer off the top of their heads. Since words have actual meanings this is an objective not subjective process.
“LOL quaker,
I wish I could debate you for money in a classical debate format. Easy money.”
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
No please, go back to 4chan where they will appreciate your LOLs.
Do laziness and arrogance run in your family? Is it genetic or cultural?
You brought up “statistical correlation,” so you certainly ought to be able to define it.
Damnit. That’s supposed to say, “Now please, go back…”
Maybe the moderator can fix that.
LOL, AO
If your intent is to amuse, you have succeeded.
Tell you what, I’ll provide the definition of correlation for you:
Correlation (often measured as a correlation coefficient) indicates the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two random variables.
(courtesy wiki)
And what was QiB’s original request, again? Oh yeah, it went something like this:If there’s a correlation between race and crime, we should expect there to be a straight-line relationship between percentage of minority population and crime rate, right?
So, um, yeah, I think QiB is okay on the definition of correlation.
As for your own amused ramblings, The idea you are trying to express is that correlation is not causation. Yet correlation alone is enough to make educated guesses of anticipated outcomes with a level of accuracy corresponding to the degree of correlation.
No, it’s not, dimwit. Not unless you control for other possible variables. Like, say, poverty for example.
We can look at two men and knowing nothing but their race we can accurately say that the chances of one man committing murder are greater than another.
How do mixed race people fit into your interesting theory, AO. If someone has just one black parent are they only half as likely to commit murder?
Or do you subscribe to the one-drop theory?
Quakers,
A collective swing and a miss. The Southern version has correctly pasted a definition but is quite selective in applying it. He is incorrect however when he opines that one must control for other variables for a correlation to exist.
Perhaps this definition from Merriam Webster will be easier:
Main Entry: cor·re·la·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌkȯr-ə-ˈlā-shən, ˌkär-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin correlation-, correlatio, from Latin com- + relation-, relatio relation
Date: 1561
1: the state or relation of being correlated ; specifically : a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone
The basement version is building a specialty of his, a strawman. Either you don’t understand probability or you’re being deliberately argumentative.
As for the one drop rule you mischievously put on the table I will leave that to Oliver. He has already come out in favor of the 50% mark for Obama, he can deal with the finer graduations that also define “black”.
I see. Cut and run, is it?
He is incorrect however when he opines that one must control for other variables for a correlation to exist.
Not necessarily. One might pick two variables entirely at random that produce a perfect correlation–a straight line relationship.
Still waiting to see that one.
Well, Amused Observer cannot in fact, in a statistical sense, *prove* anything.
As to likelihood > null, on the basis of ONE variable (race), no self-respecting researcher would do more than pee on AO’s pet ‘likelihood’ from a great height. Are we talking instead using an ANOVA, or something simpler like a chi-square, or something really complex, like a multiple linear regression? Only the chi-square might lend itself to the single-variable example, but the power of such a result would be tiny, really. Also, we need between- and within-group calculations to explain variance as well, if we are going to have a good r-value.
Still waiting for AO to explain why one family of a different race in a neighborhood would be likely to ‘correlate’ with anything.
Observer’s central thesis is, “When minorities move into the neighborhood, crime goes up.”
Observer’s central thesis is basically, “When minorities move into the neighborhood, crime goes up.” He wants us to know he really believes that he hasn’t come to that conclusion through any sort of bigotry in his part and is in no way a racist view.
Of course, he purposely omits a part of my paragraph and refuses to answer the question; to wit:
(rockroq) “Anyone who believes that blacks and Hispanics are naturally likely to be of a criminal mind has to be a bigot and racist. Anyone who believes that the act of a non-white person moving into the neighborhood changing the diversity of that neighborhood causes crime to rise is a bigot and a racist. Don’t you agree with that?”
OBSERVER pretends to answer the question by responding to something that was made up in his mind since it’s clear I never said or asked such things:
(OBSERVER): “Crime need not rise with the act of a non white person moving into a neighborhood. Yet if we examine neighborhoods of differing demographic populations will they have identical rates of crime? It is neither bigoted or racist to observe and discuss such differences as may exist.”
Then OBSERVER moves back into position to continue his argument that neighborhood crime will either increase or decrease depending on the color of the peoples’ skin that live in those neighborhoods:
(OBSERVER): “So do you think different communities that can be identified by racial demographics will have identical crime rates?”
No. As I have already said, neighborhood crime will rise in neighborhoods that have been destabilized. Regardless of the racial make up of a neighborhood, the crime rate depends on whether or not that neighborhood is stable.
OBSERVER then goes on to outright fabricate what I have said.
Then OBSERVER asserts: “Whether something is politically correct or not has no bearing on accuracy. To think otherwise is naive at best and creates a fog of ignorance that makes a clear view difficult.”
Let me make this clear: this has nothing to do with being PC. It has everything to do with knowing what causes crime rates to rise in neighborhoods as well as having everything to do with ignorance; which apparently has caused you to believe what you do.
But, see? That’s what happens when you base your beliefs on bumper sticker sayings and simple talking points, OBSERVER.
OBSERVER believes: “It is very hard for someone to defend the position that neighborhoods characterized by different racial demographics have identical crime rates with a straight face.”
To which I say, “RUN WITH THAT!” Make sure that is the message to which conservatives rally to. Make sure you scream it from the mountain tops.
Make sure that everyone knows, when it comes to a human being’s race, conservatives (since our liberal position is flawed and all) believe that minorities moving into the neighborhood alone is going to cause crime rates to increase.
The fact of the matter is that whether or not it is whites, blacks, Hispanics or a majority of any other race that lives in a particular neighborhood, the only decisive factor in whether or not that neighborhood may or may not have a higher crime rate than other neighborhoods is because that neighborhood has become unstable somewhere along the line. It is a socioeconomic factor that will help decide which neighborhoods are more crime ridden than the next one. A person’s race has nothing to do with whether or not that person is more inclined to be a criminal
Rockroq,
At all times I have been speaking of probabilities. Probabilities built on actual numbers. The greater number of variables you can use the greater the accuracy of predictions built upon probabilities.
You bring up the factor of instability. Perhaps you could define that. What metric would you use to measure instability? But let us concede that stability is a factor. And further more let us concede that defining instability and giving it an accurate metric increases the accuracy of predictions built upon probability.
Be that as it may, it changes not the level of accuracy of predictions built upon the probabability of a different factor.
Correlation is not causation, yet it doesn’t change the probabilities based on correlation.
“A person’s race has nothing to do with whether or not that person is more inclined to be a criminal”
I suppose Bill Clinton would say it all depends on what inclined means. However you can state that a person’s race does have something to do with the probability that he is a criminal.
Oliver loves to put conservatives and Republicans in a bad light. In fact it is his day job. There is going to be pushback when he does that. This post of his was a can of worms begging to be thrown back in his face.
Minorities commit crimes out of proportion to their numbers. A sad fact, the country is worse off because of it.
AO today:
AO yesterday:
Conservative “logic,” ladies and gents.
Quaker,
As usual you won’t address what is actually said. Karl Popper has a famous quote that you would make a perfect poster child for.
Why don’t you order someone to go look it up for you?
And, by the way, I have been addressing “what was actually said” for two solid days. Making judgments about “the chances of one man committing murder” based on his skin color is a textbook example of bigotry.
If you take this judgment as validation of the idea that “those people” shouldn’t live in our neighborhoods, then it’s bald racism.
Quaker,
Making judgments about “the chances of one man committing murder” based on his skin color is a textbook example of bigotry
In this case Quaker it is an illustration of a concept you choose to not understand. Probability. In this context abrasive, perhaps. PC, definitely not. But bigoted, we’re talking about probability, based on real numbers. Probability lets the chips fall where they may.
Bald racism seems to be a more apt description for the idea you signed off on that a black man had to be slightly stupid to not opt in to a criminal lifestyle.
Quaker, have you come to grips yet with what the word correlation actually means?
I missed this over the weekend.
AO,
As my boss keeps hammering home, results and findings are two different things. In most peer reviewed research articles, the Results section is followed by Discussion and Conclusions section.
Conceding that there is a significant positive bivariate correlation between percent AA or Hispanic in a neighborhood and crime rate, what findings do you draw from this result?
Quaker, have you come to grips yet with what the word correlation actually means?
I have. You must have already gone nighty-night when Mr. Renn showed up. Turns out you’re wrong in ways I hadn’t even imagined.
In this case Quaker it is an illustration of a concept you choose to not understand. Probability.
Probability does not apply to the behavior of individual members in a sample population. Especially not a sample population of one.
AO,
Suppose you flip a coin five times and it comes up heads four times. What prediction can you make about the next flip of the coin?
Here’s a hint: the individual instance is not affected by previous results.
I’ve got one for you, AO:
Nearly 70% of those serving time for violent crimes against children are white males. In fact, it seems likely to me, based on these statistics, that crimes against children should correlate with the percentage of white men in a community. Ergo, I should be highly concerned for the safety of my children if a white male moves in next door, right?
LOL,
Quaker I’m wrong in ways you can’t imagine! Well that doesn’t surprise me since there is much you don’t understand. LOL Why do you think a black man has to be slightly stupid to not be a criminal?
Southern quaker,
You might be modestly alarmed but whites are roughly 70% of the population so the numbers don’t seem that far off. What might give you pause for thought is black men are roughly 7% of the population yet they commit over 50% of the murders.
Hick,
Ask a taxi driver or better yet make the experiment that was suggested to Quaker and flash a roll of bills around different neighborhoods and get back to us with the results.
“What might give you pause for thought is black men are roughly 7% of the population yet they commit over 50% of the murders.”
AO,
Yes, it does give me pause for thought. And that’s the point I (and I think others) was trying to make. Why are minorities more likely to be involved in crime and what do you propose we do about it? Let’s say I conduct your experiment, and I get mugged 10 times more often by minorities than Whites. What then? It’s important to note these figures, but as I said, there’s more to research than just presenting raw results (thought that’s the important first step).
Southern Quaker: “I’ve got one for you, AO:
Nearly 70% of those serving time for violent crimes against children are white males.”
Here’s another one…
If a white person and a black person commit the same crime, the black person is six time more likely to be featured on the news. If AO doesn’t think that colors the judgment of future juries, well, then he truly is a Republican.
Speaking of which, it is clear to me if AO was on the jury in two cases with the exact same evidence, he would vote guilty to convict a black man and vote innocent for the white man.