Black on Black Violence in the USA

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Gorfias:
Your thoughts?

I don't think there's a lot of complication here. Broadly:

1) American cities are full of very poor people with very poor prospects for whom crime is more enticing and profitable than otherwise.
2) Americans have easy access to weaponry.
3) Black people are disproportionately represented amongst the (especially urban) American poor.
4) Most people commit crime in their own neighbourhood.

Add all these together, black people will both disproportionately commit and be victims of violent (/ lethal) crime.

Catnip1024:
Nobody is keeping black people trapped in poor neighbourhoods.)

That is true in the most technical sense, but false on numerous levels of practical reality.

It's a social environment which encourages it, and the social environment that should be dealt with.

Correct... but it is precisely this social environment which creates the practical reality that poor people (thus many blacks) effectively are trapped in poor neighbourhoods.

The American ethos, broadly, leans heavily to individualism and tells individuals to sort themselves out. And thus it condemns those at the bottom to tend to have the least resources and skills to improve themselves and/or escape damaging social environments. Those not in those environments tend to not view it as any of their business (except in terms of increased law enforcement).

Agema:
Correct... but it is precisely this social environment which creates the practical reality that poor people (thus many blacks) effectively are trapped in poor neighbourhoods.

The American ethos, broadly, leans heavily to individualism and tells individuals to sort themselves out. And thus it condemns those at the bottom to tend to have the least resources and skills to improve themselves and/or escape damaging social environments. Those not in those environments tend to not view it as any of their business (except in terms of increased law enforcement).

Yep. See my other posts about funding projects and the like.

I am aware of many of the problems obstructing any sort of investment, and no, I don't hold much hope for it getting sorted. There needs to be a major change in US culture, first of all.

Gorfias:
Your thoughts?

Well I'm simply left wondering why you don't care about white-on-white violence? Do poor white people stuck in cycles of violence in the inner city and rural areas simply not matter to you?

Let's be real here Gorfias. You couldn't care less about the actual causes of violence in the inner cities of the US; this topic is simply a deflection away from what you felt was criticism of "white people" in that other thread. Here's a pro-tip: When you're trying to deflect from one topic to another, using the exact same script that right-wingers use daily and in every conversation about white privilege makes it exceedingly obvious that you're just trying to run away from a topic that might make you do some introspection towards one that lets you feel morally superior over a different group of people.

If you truly did care about the violence in inner cities, your topic would be addressing poverty driven violence instead of making it a race issue.

Avnger:

Gorfias:
Your thoughts?

Well I'm simply left wondering why you don't care about white-on-white violence? Do poor white people stuck in cycles of violence in the inner city and rural areas simply not matter to you?

Let's be real here Gorfias. You couldn't care less about the actual causes of violence in the inner cities of the US; this topic is simply a deflection away from what you felt was criticism of "white people" in that other thread. Here's a pro-tip: When you're trying to deflect from one topic to another, using the exact same script that right-wingers use daily and in every conversation about white privilege makes it exceedingly obvious that you're just trying to run away from a topic that might make you do some introspection towards one that lets you feel morally superior over a different group of people.

If you truly did care about the violence in inner cities, your topic would be addressing poverty driven violence instead of making it a race issue.

I can't respond to a lot of what you've written here because I guarantee it would take us way off topic.

Black on Black violence, in short, matters. It is a big part of what makes crime rates among blacks about double what it is in other demographic groups. That isn't just double the victims but double the number in prison, wasting their lives that could have been lived better if there is something the larger culture can change something to help.

So, call me selfish: this is an issue that effects everyone in our society. If it is selfish to care about that, so be it. I don't see much in your post that shows you care at all. Pity.

Gorfias:
Black on Black violence, in short, matters. It is a big part of what makes crime rates among blacks about double what it is in other demographic groups.

Violent crime is a big part of what makes crime so prolific? Would you like to give that another shot?

Interesting one by Sargon:

He cites information suggesting that poverty, more than anything explains the severity of this issue.

I imagine his suggested "cures" would be controversial.

In my experience, when white people start talking about "black on black crime", it doesn't seem like they do it because they particularly care about black people, but because they want an excuse to take the focus off other legitimate issues that they're uncomfortable talking about.

In my experience.

Gorfias:
I can't respond to a lot of what you've written here because I guarantee it would take us way off topic.

Black on Black violence, in short, matters. It is a big part of what makes crime rates among blacks about double what it is in other demographic groups. That isn't just double the victims but double the number in prison, wasting their lives that could have been lived better if there is something the larger culture can change something to help.

So, call me selfish: this is an issue that effects everyone in our society. If it is selfish to care about that, so be it. I don't see much in your post that shows you care at all. Pity.

May I chime in?

I think the problem that people have with this type of mindset is that it seems like a needless distraction. In truth, it's an insulated issue. Very rarely does the violence of the black community spill out to other races.

Meanwhile, there are now active shooter drills, a plethora of active shooter response kits, and the most tremendously sad of all: Child Bullet Proof vests.

My Ex-Boss's daughter lost a friend in Sandy Hook. So sadly, I can see the reason for that.

Why does this mean anything? White males are the majority (over 50 percent) of active shooters. But we never talk about what we have to fear from white people, because it IS a topic that most people need to be concerned about.

Let's play devil's adovcate. Let's say you're understating Black on Black Violence. Let's say it's even worse than you ever want to admit for fear of being labeled a racist. Fine. That's here. We all have to deal with that.

Except we don't. Because if you aren't black, it isn't an issue to you, it's a talking point. Something to shake your head over. To condemn and feel superior about. You know what's an issue for you? Going to the movies, because there were mass shootings there. Going to the schools, because mass shootings tend to happen there all the time. Going to concerts, going to malls, going to churches.

You can avoid black neighborhoods, or just not be black. Black on Black Violence won't affect you other than it being displeasing. We actively have to worry about going to events because some whack job with a cause that you just happened to wander into will take you out for virtue of you being an easier target than others.

But we don't talk about what's wrong with the white community. We don't ask for more police presence around white communities to make sure the public will not be marred by them. We don't even kill them in the same numbers that we do unarmed black men.

We have scores and scores of white people who get their day in court regardless to the threat they explicit put on to cops but just the idea that a black man could threaten them is enough to draw their gun and shoot... and get off scot-free.

We live in a world where a white teen can kill a campus cop and have his day in court juxtaposed a black man following the law and order of having a concealed weapon being shot dead in a ridiculously short amount of time and that cop being found innocent.

It feels disingenuous at best. Counter-productive at a fault. There are actual problems being placed on the doorstep of most of these communities that make it nigh impossible to live, and stuck in an endless cycle of no chance of advancement, little to no true education, horrible jobs, and people who won't even look at you to hire because you come from "that" community. You have no way out, but you still have a stomach that needs to be fed.

In truth, we point to Chicago often to show the evils of the black society, and ignoring the absolute poverty most black people live in Chicago. Why don't we talk about Woodmore, MD, who boasts a high population of Rich Black Americans with a really low crime rate? Or Ladera Heights, CA a predominantly black area that makes more than most residents in Beverly Hills with a low crime rate as well?

Simply put, why are Blacks always judged by the worst examples we can find, and the positive examples are ignored entirely? And why must every horrible thing a white person does must be treated as a one off thing, not an issue for the nation to worry over? It's true not every white person will be an active shooter, but the majority of shooters are white males. That's supposed to be ignored and attributed to the amount of guns and lone wolves instead of something indicative of the white community. But one city (Chicago) or multiple cities with blacks making up the lion share of the poverty population must be quoted at and looked upon as the summation of the black experience. It completely rings hollow.

ObsidianJones:
Except we don't. Because if you aren't black, it isn't an issue to you, it's a talking point. Something to shake your head over. To condemn and feel superior about. You know what's an issue for you? Going to the movies, because there were mass shootings there. Going to the schools, because mass shootings tend to happen there all the time. Going to concerts, going to malls, going to churches.

You can avoid black neighborhoods, or just not be black. Black on Black Violence won't affect you other than it being displeasing. We actively have to worry about going to events because some whack job with a cause that you just happened to wander into will take you out for virtue of you being an easier target than others.

And if you aren't in certain run down urban locations, it probably isn't an issue for a lot of black people either. The argument that you can't talk about black issues if you aren't black is flawed and helps nobody.

ObsidianJones:
if you aren't black, it isn't an issue to you,

This is really the crux of your post (which was a thoughtful one, thank you). It isn't correct though for so many reasons, not the least of which is that it is a scandal. My country is failing a whole segment of its population. I've posted before, there are people that should be in jail. But no man is an island. WHY would so many deserve to be in jail? What is failing in our society? Education? The economy? Social structures? Anyone that is part of humanity should care about this, is impacted by this.

The more I read, the more I think it a combination of things.
If I have to be selfish, I'll write that B.o.B. crime impacts non-Blacks regarding taxes, government spending, increased over all authoritarianism, communities that I dare not go into for fear of violence, lost human resources for my business, an impact on real estate prices... and that's just off the top of my head.
But I have thought a lot more about this topic being brought up by, I think, a lot of good and well meaning people, particularly in response to Black Lives Matter. I think there is a reason beyond deflection. That would make a whole other topic.

In the meantime, Sargon makes a convincing argument: fight poverty, you fight crime. And Black people are disproportionately poor.

Solutions, methods for fighting poverty promise to be controversial as well.

Catnip1024:

ObsidianJones:
Except we don't. Because if you aren't black, it isn't an issue to you, it's a talking point. Something to shake your head over. To condemn and feel superior about. You know what's an issue for you? Going to the movies, because there were mass shootings there. Going to the schools, because mass shootings tend to happen there all the time. Going to concerts, going to malls, going to churches.

You can avoid black neighborhoods, or just not be black. Black on Black Violence won't affect you other than it being displeasing. We actively have to worry about going to events because some whack job with a cause that you just happened to wander into will take you out for virtue of you being an easier target than others.

And if you aren't in certain run down urban locations, it probably isn't an issue for a lot of black people either. The argument that you can't talk about black issues if you aren't black is flawed and helps nobody.

That isn't the argument. The Argument is why are we focusing on Black Issues and giving handwaves to what I guess would be called White Issues? Simply put, why does Black on Black Violence have to be a national conversation about what's happening with the black community and why is it failing when it's confined to black community borders, yet we don't have to have a discussion on why so many white males are shooting at random people for random reasons, or building bombs at a frightening uptick of pace?

Don't get me wrong. The issues of the black community NEEDS to be address. At once. The lack or redirection of funding, overpolicing and dehumanizing, lack of job opportunities... I touch on them all and I think it's a big issue we need to handle. But that's not the talking issue that many people in this very thread have.

That talking issue is when you focus on a confined segment of the population and its problems that rarely reaches outside its borders, and but do not address the very reality that I might decide to shop at the wrong day where a statistically most likely white male madman decides to open up fire for reasons that only matters to him... I find that to be disingenuous. Most people do.

It does not take away from the black plight. It must be addressed and the social ills put to them must be overwritten so they can have the same chances. And then the black community themselves need to step up and police their own once they have those opportunities themselves, just like the other communities. But admittedly, that's hard to do when you're starving yourself, you're pulling down 60 hours per week and still need government help to feed your family, and you barely get enough sleep to keep yourself functioning, let alone handle the lack of proper education that are afforded to your kids.

That was a tangent, but meaningful enough that I'll keep it in. I think I'll sum this up like this; When we see equal numbers of conversations of what's going on with the white community that so many of their numbers go to random places and kill people they don't even know for no other reason than having a point along with these conversations about what's happening with the black community, you'll have much more people willing to engage in the conversation. Because as you can see, there are plenty of people who actually care. But when all people here is "BLACK" like they are the only ones who do crime, people tend to drift off and focus less.

Gorfias:

ObsidianJones:
if you aren't black, it isn't an issue to you,

This is really the crux of your post (which was a thoughtful one, thank you). It isn't correct though for so many reasons, not the least of which is that it is a scandal. My country is failing a whole segment of its population. I've posted before, there are people that should be in jail. But no man is an island. WHY would so many deserve to be in jail? What is failing in our society? Education? The economy? Social structures? Anyone that is part of humanity should care about this, is impacted by this.

The more I read, the more I think it a combination of things.
If I have to be selfish, I'll write that B.o.B. crime impacts non-Blacks regarding taxes, government spending, increased over all authoritarianism, communities that I dare not go into for fear of violence, lost human resources for my business, an impact on real estate prices... and that's just off the top of my head.
But I have thought a lot more about this topic being brought up by, I think, a lot of good and well meaning people, particularly in response to Black Lives Matter. I think there is a reason beyond deflection. That would make a whole other topic.

In the meantime, Sargon makes a convincing argument: fight poverty, you fight crime. And Black people are disproportionately poor.

Solutions, methods for fighting poverty promise to be controversial as well.

One thing I ask of you: You are trying to have a conversation. And as respectful as you can. I thank you for that. You don't have to say "If I have to be selfish". Your points are valid, and everything can be discussed. Please, this is your topic of conversation. Don't feel restrained.

I definitely agree that the country is failing this segment of the population. As it is failing many.

Honestly, the reasons why blacks are in jail is a financial one. The Prison industrial complex numbers are big, big business. Does anyone remember the Kids for Cash scheme a couple of years back? That was simply to keep the head count up in a For Profit Facility. People were outraged when that happened because it was ruining kids' lives.

But it was big business. Just the Judge sending these kids away received a 2.2 million dollar payout for 2000 young lives.

So, what do we do? We institute Quotas which police officers themselves said ""They'll tell you to your face: blacks, Hispanics, from 14 to 21, they must get stopped," said NYPD officer Pedro Serrano". With the same crime being committed, Blacks received tougher sentences with all factors being completely the same. And to what purpose?

This one

At least 37 states have legalized the contracting of prison labor by private corporations that mount their operations inside state prisons. The list of such companies contains the cream of U.S. corporate society: IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, AT&T, Wireless, Texas Instrument, Dell, Compaq, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel, Lucent Technologies, 3Com, Intel, Northern Telecom, TWA, Nordstrom?s, Revlon, Macy?s, Pierre Cardin, Target Stores, and many more. All of these businesses are excited about the economic boom generation by prison labor. Just between 1980 and 1994, profits went up from $392 million to $1.31 billion. Inmates in state penitentiaries generally receive the minimum wage for their work, but not all; in Colorado, they get about $2 per hour, well under the minimum.

And in privately-run prisons, they receive as little as 17 cents per hour for a maximum of six hours a day, the equivalent of $20 per month. The highest-paying private prison is CCA in Tennessee, where prisoners receive 50 cents per hour for what they call "highly skilled positions." At those rates, it is no surprise that inmates find the pay in federal prisons to be very generous. There, they can earn $1.25 an hour and work eight hours a day, and sometimes overtime. They can send home $200-$300 per month.

Thanks to prison labor, the United States is once again an attractive location for investment in work that was designed for Third World labor markets. A company that operated a maquiladora (assembly plant in Mexico near the border) closed down its operations there and relocated to San Quentin State Prison in California. In Texas, a factory fired its 150 workers and contracted the services of prisoner-workers from the private Lockhart Texas prison, where circuit boards are assembled for companies like IBM and Compaq.

[Former] Oregon State Representative Kevin Mannix recently urged Nike to cut its production in Indonesia and bring it to his state, telling the shoe manufacturer that "there won?t be any transportation costs; we?re offering you competitive prison labor (here)."

It's the ultimate win-win. The cushy jobs in the community can stick with people the corporations deem 'acceptable'. They can charge the black communities outrageous rates for housing and food without having to give good quality. Because the education funding is not reaching the black community, they can't get better jobs to get out or afford to look else... Or more importantly, have enough financial power to be given a damn about. So they live in poverty, and some of those who don't want to deal with that their whole lives and want something better can turn to crime.

Boffo! We wanted to give power to the police anyway. To 'Long Story Short' it, "One of the executive orders seeks to 'define new federal crimes, and increase penalties for existing federal crimes, in order to prevent violence' against state and federal police". Now the police get to define new forms of crimes and new penalties. Because they had 'too little' power before.

Erstwhile, those blacks who still see their only chance for a decent life (not a better one) is still selling drugs or robbing because there are no opportunities at home. Again, great. That just 'proves' the point that not only do we need more police, but they need more power to deal with crime, like the president signed into order. The criminals are put behind bars, everyone claps themselves on the back for being so meritorious and upstandingly, while at the same time shaking their heads in disapproval of the community spawned the criminals and not the conditions they were born and forced into due to governmental meddling.

Blacks go into prison. They make so much money for those 37 and climbing states in the quote before. No one they care about was hurt, so yup, let's do it some more.

But the question is why. Why blacks?

Why not? It's no different than what's been done for generations. Distrust and dislike of blacks still are very strong in this country. There IS a lot of crime in their communities, as there is in all communities of abject poverty. So make them the scapegoats, play into bias, and make billions.

Because why not?

ObsidianJones:
snip

The difference is, your white nutjob shooter isn't as likely to be in poverty, and is generally a bit more nutjobby than poverty stricken criminally. Sure, it's an issue, and steps could possibly be taken to deal with it. But that's hard, because there are a swathe of causes, often down to regular mental health issues triggered by something ludicrously petty (as opposed to those exacerbated by extreme poverty / shit conditions).

Surely, the much easier issue to solve is to put some funding towards helping out the rundown areas, get some policing liaison stuff going and eliminate the factors that play a major part in poverty related violence? It would help everybody who lived in those areas. It isn't race specific by target, but it would help address the black on black violence statistical anomaly.

Or, you know, gun control, but that's never gonna happen.

EDIT - I will clarify that imhop the reason there isn't a "white narrative" is because there are too many distinct causes, rather than major prevailing ones.

Catnip1024:

ObsidianJones:
snip

The difference is, your white nutjob shooter isn't as likely to be in poverty, and is generally a bit more nutjobby than poverty stricken criminally. Sure, it's an issue, and steps could possibly be taken to deal with it. But that's hard, because there are a swathe of causes, often down to regular mental health issues triggered by something ludicrously petty (as opposed to those exacerbated by extreme poverty / shit conditions).

Surely, the much easier issue to solve is to put some funding towards helping out the rundown areas, get some policing liaison stuff going and eliminate the factors that play a major part in poverty related violence? It would help everybody who lived in those areas. It isn't race specific by target, but it would help address the black on black violence statistical anomaly.

Or, you know, gun control, but that's never gonna happen.

EDIT - I will clarify that imhop the reason there isn't a "white narrative" is because there are too many distinct causes, rather than major prevailing ones.

I agree with everything you say. But that doesn't mean the conversation shouldn't happen. Solving the issues that plight blacks won't happen over night, but it needs to happen to stem violence. Likewise, yeah, research on why everyone has lost their freaking mind and wants to kill innocent people needs to happen. If both are a problem, both need speaking time. And a lot of us wonder why both don't get the same amount of discussion.

Gun Control is somewhat meaningless, as I said before. Let it be known, while I am a Gun owner, I have NO problem with stricter background checks.

One more time. I Have No Problem With Stricter Background Checks. I, in fact, love the idea. We see what happens when a government institution is derelict in their duties and allowed the Texas Church Gunman to buy weapons he shouldn't have. The idea that you should be an upstanding citizen with a clear record to get a gun sets very well with me.

I've lived in an area (New York Tristate area) where if you stopped in the middle of a city with a gun in your car, you can be pulled over and ticketed for it. It's strict here. There are still shooting deaths.

Gorfias:
Interesting one by Sargon:

Sargon is never a credible source.

ObsidianJones:

You don't have to say "If I have to be selfish". Your points are valid, and everything can be discussed. Please, this is your topic of conversation. Don't feel restrained.

Thanks, I only meant by that that sometimes, purely altruistic statements may lack credibility. Given what we were discussing, I just wanted to point out that there are credible, self-interested reasons to care about this issue.

..[prison/governmental industrial complex and profits]?

But the question is why. Why blacks?

Why not? It's no different than what's been done for generations. Distrust and dislike of blacks still are very strong in this country. There IS a lot of crime in their communities, as there is in all communities of abject poverty. So make them the scapegoats, play into bias, and make billions.

Because why not?

The Prison-governmental-Industrial complex is horrifying. We?ve been discussing it in this thread and there is talk of not renewing ANY such contracts in 2020. Yeah, we?ll see. Even then, we?ve discussed that even cops, without private sector interference can have a ?profit motive? of a sort? ie, speed ticket quotas and more. A total return of prisons to the public sector is only a 1st step.

But, why Blacks? I?d have to guess (and, with my limited knowledge only intuition): due to historical racism and institutional discrimination, black people were in a uniquely bad position to take the full brunt of a number of initiatives that disproportionately harmed them in ways that had a destructive social and economic effect. All ?new? ideas have some merit, making challenging them all the more controversial.

These can include new ideas about crime, feminism, expansion of the welfare state, immigration changes in 1965 (that took effect in 1968) new education ideas (new math, look say reading rather than phonics) and more.

I think some of these ideas have been turned around (ie some schools are going back to phonics: maybe a good thing). Others, I don?t think will ever change whether they should or not. In that case, moving forward with the cards we have is required.

But reading this thread and links, I?m convinced that fighting poverty, however done, is vital. Change the prison industrial complex. Good. Change certain aspects of crime and social control. Fine. Change government and social policies. Swell. But expanding economic opportunity, ending poverty? After the things listed and linked here? Seems primary.

Saelune:

Gorfias:
Interesting one by Sargon:

Sargon is never a credible source.

Why?
I love the guy.
Seems a radical centrist. By that I mean, I don't think he fits neatly into any camp. Gives me a lot of good things to think about.

And he can admit when he's wrong. Which we all are time to time. Example was his apology to Lacy Green. He went over board, was out of line, and admitted it.

Doh. Off topic. You can message me if appropriate.

McMarbles:
In my experience, when white people start talking about "black on black crime", it doesn't seem like they do it because they particularly care about black people, but because they want an excuse to take the focus off other legitimate issues that they're uncomfortable talking about.

In my experience.

I can believe that. But believe this: crime, even when not directed toward your particular group (racial/ethnic/religious) in a diverse society such as the USA has an impact upon all.

Quick example: Men are MUCH more likely to be victims of violent crime then women. Can we believe that women care and are impacted a great deal by violence perpetrated against the men they love? I think so.

Saelune:
]Sargon is never a credible source.

Doesn't stop him being occasionally being right, even if only in a "stopped clock" sense.

Gorfias:

I love the guy.
Seems a radical centrist.

A problem is perhaps more that no matter how "interesting" he is, he's is pretty much never coming from a position of any relevant expertise. He's essentially a bloke expounding the way the world theoretically is from a barstool, except he's got the internet and a load of YouTube followers rather than just a drunk drowning his sorrows.

These people don't have to get their hands dirty collecting and analysing evidence, maintaining professional standards, coherence, consistency, and laying out a detailed intellectual underpinning for their hypotheses. That's part of why they can be so interesting - no irritating baggage of a duty to deeply defend anything they say, or a body of work and professional reputation to maintain. Freedom to thunder from the pulpit on anything they just spent half an hour reading in a Time magazine article.

I suppose what's really so stupid is that Sargon is no more an authority (and potentially quite a lot less) on most topics than many of the people citing him and the people they are arguing against.

Gorfias:
Why?
I love the guy.
Seems a radical centrist. By that I mean, I don't think he fits neatly into any camp. Gives me a lot of good things to think about.

He's a right wing libertarian. By UK standards, he's actually borderline far right (he was endorsed by the EDL for a while, who are a group of ex-football-hooligans who go around physically intimidating and occasionally attacking non-white people). True, he didn't ask for that endorsement, but you don't get support like that by being a centrist and his retrospective attempts to get rid of his blatantly racist fanbase kind of illustrates the degree to which he courted a racist fanbase.

But no, the big problem with him is that he cannot read for meaning, or rather he doesn't try to read for meaning. He decides ahead of time what he's reading and whether he likes or dislikes it and then fits it to his interpretation (in fact, sometimes he doesn't read at all, as in his whole treatment of the 1 in 5 "myth"). I don't normally post youtube videos because I hate screwing up my recommendations and I assume everyone else does too, but this guy is actually pretty good on the research and analysis side and kind of deserves more views, and he pointed out a pretty excellent example of this.

I mean, sure, Sargon points out when he's blatantly factually wrong, I think it's pretty clear he at least has the intention to be reasonable, which is more than you can say for some of the people posting on youtube. He doesn't, however, point out all the times when he's more insidiously wrong, or when he seemingly deliberately misread something to make it seem like it fit with his crude cultural touchstones (in particular, enlightened free market libetarians who love freedom vs. stupid, delusional SJWs who don't).

As Agema pointed out, this doesn't stop him being right sometimes, but with him unless you go and actually check his sources you're essentially gambling that he's bothered to do the reading or is reading in good faith. You could argue that, as an internet personality, he's doing this primarily to entertain rather than to inform, but ultimately people take his stuff as factual and assume he is an authority, and he isn't.

See also his campaign to ban "SJW courses" from universities. Beyond not actually defining what an SJW course was, it's very obvious he hasn't read any of the basic literature which is taught on this courses (either that or he utterly failed to understand it). It's clear that he assumes he doesn't need to, that it's just like a religious doctrine which is only relevant to those immersed in the SJW "faith" (hence why he believes white supremacy is a myth, even though its existence as a stable historical object can be clearly demonstrated) but reading in bad faith is not the same thing as lacking faith. One can be skeptical and still be able to understand what one is reading. Unfortunately, Sargon/Carl clearly isn't able or isn't willing to make the effort to understand what he's reading (again, assuming he reads it at all).

evilthecat:

Gorfias:
Why?
I love the guy.
Seems a radical centrist. By that I mean, I don't think he fits neatly into any camp. Gives me a lot of good things to think about.

He's a right wing libertarian. By UK standards, he's actually borderline far right (he was endorsed by the EDL for a while, who are a group of ex-football-hooligans who go around physically intimidating and occasionally attacking non-white people). True, he didn't ask for that endorsement, but you don't get support like that by being a centrist and his retrospective attempts to get rid of his blatantly racist fanbase kind of illustrates the degree to which he courted a racist fanbase.

But no, the big problem with him is that he cannot read for meaning, or rather he doesn't try to read for meaning. He decides ahead of time what he's reading and whether he likes or dislikes it and then fits it to his interpretation (in fact, sometimes he doesn't read at all, as in his whole treatment of the 1 in 5 "myth"). I don't normally post youtube videos because I hate screwing up my recommendations and I assume everyone else does too, but this guy is actually pretty good on the research and analysis side and kind of deserves more views, and he pointed out a pretty excellent example of this.

I mean, sure, Sargon points out when he's blatantly factually wrong, I think it's pretty clear he at least has the intention to be reasonable, which is more than you can say for some of the people posting on youtube. He doesn't, however, point out all the times when he's more insidiously wrong, or when he seemingly deliberately misread something to make it seem like it fit with his crude cultural touchstones (in particular, enlightened free market libetarians who love freedom vs. stupid, delusional SJWs who don't).

As Agema pointed out, this doesn't stop him being right sometimes, but with him unless you go and actually check his sources you're essentially gambling that he's bothered to do the reading or is reading in good faith. You could argue that, as an internet personality, he's doing this primarily to entertain rather than to inform, but ultimately people take his stuff as factual and assume he is an authority, and he isn't.

See also his campaign to ban "SJW courses" from universities. Beyond not actually defining what an SJW course was, it's very obvious he hasn't read any of the basic literature which is taught on this courses (either that or he utterly failed to understand it). It's clear that he assumes he doesn't need to, that it's just like a religious doctrine which is only relevant to those immersed in the SJW "faith" (hence why he believes white supremacy is a myth, even though its existence as a stable historical object can be clearly demonstrated) but reading in bad faith is not the same thing as lacking faith. One can be skeptical and still be able to understand what one is reading. Unfortunately, Sargon/Carl clearly isn't able or isn't willing to make the effort to understand what he's reading (again, assuming he reads it at all).

I will do some reasearch on him trying to ban SJW classes ASAP. Seems odd for a libertairian that says he wants more, rather than less, discourse on ideas.

EDIT: He does catch hell from multiple perspectives. Here is one taking him to task for not understanding the need for racism:

Catnip1024:

ObsidianJones:
Except we don't. Because if you aren't black, it isn't an issue to you, it's a talking point. Something to shake your head over. To condemn and feel superior about. You know what's an issue for you? Going to the movies, because there were mass shootings there. Going to the schools, because mass shootings tend to happen there all the time. Going to concerts, going to malls, going to churches.

You can avoid black neighborhoods, or just not be black. Black on Black Violence won't affect you other than it being displeasing. We actively have to worry about going to events because some whack job with a cause that you just happened to wander into will take you out for virtue of you being an easier target than others.

And if you aren't in certain run down urban locations, it probably isn't an issue for a lot of black people either. The argument that you can't talk about black issues if you aren't black is flawed and helps nobody.

But if you talk about black issues, maybe you should do it because you give a shit about black issues, not for the purpose of saying "Hey, look over at the bad thing they're doing and stop talking about the bad thing white people are doing!"

Gorfias:

evilthecat:

Gorfias:
Why?
I love the guy.
Seems a radical centrist. By that I mean, I don't think he fits neatly into any camp. Gives me a lot of good things to think about.

He's a right wing libertarian. By UK standards, he's actually borderline far right (he was endorsed by the EDL for a while, who are a group of ex-football-hooligans who go around physically intimidating and occasionally attacking non-white people). True, he didn't ask for that endorsement, but you don't get support like that by being a centrist and his retrospective attempts to get rid of his blatantly racist fanbase kind of illustrates the degree to which he courted a racist fanbase.

But no, the big problem with him is that he cannot read for meaning, or rather he doesn't try to read for meaning. He decides ahead of time what he's reading and whether he likes or dislikes it and then fits it to his interpretation (in fact, sometimes he doesn't read at all, as in his whole treatment of the 1 in 5 "myth"). I don't normally post youtube videos because I hate screwing up my recommendations and I assume everyone else does too, but this guy is actually pretty good on the research and analysis side and kind of deserves more views, and he pointed out a pretty excellent example of this.

I mean, sure, Sargon points out when he's blatantly factually wrong, I think it's pretty clear he at least has the intention to be reasonable, which is more than you can say for some of the people posting on youtube. He doesn't, however, point out all the times when he's more insidiously wrong, or when he seemingly deliberately misread something to make it seem like it fit with his crude cultural touchstones (in particular, enlightened free market libetarians who love freedom vs. stupid, delusional SJWs who don't).

As Agema pointed out, this doesn't stop him being right sometimes, but with him unless you go and actually check his sources you're essentially gambling that he's bothered to do the reading or is reading in good faith. You could argue that, as an internet personality, he's doing this primarily to entertain rather than to inform, but ultimately people take his stuff as factual and assume he is an authority, and he isn't.

See also his campaign to ban "SJW courses" from universities. Beyond not actually defining what an SJW course was, it's very obvious he hasn't read any of the basic literature which is taught on this courses (either that or he utterly failed to understand it). It's clear that he assumes he doesn't need to, that it's just like a religious doctrine which is only relevant to those immersed in the SJW "faith" (hence why he believes white supremacy is a myth, even though its existence as a stable historical object can be clearly demonstrated) but reading in bad faith is not the same thing as lacking faith. One can be skeptical and still be able to understand what one is reading. Unfortunately, Sargon/Carl clearly isn't able or isn't willing to make the effort to understand what he's reading (again, assuming he reads it at all).

I will do some reasearch on him trying to ban SJW classes ASAP. Seems odd for a libertairian that says he wants more, rather than less, discourse on ideas.

EDIT: He does catch hell from multiple perspectives. Here is one taking him to task for not understanding the need for racism:

There used to be a character in Dilbert called "Dan the Illogical Scientist". His thing was that he'd insert himself into a situation that he had no business being in and claim that he was an authority on it because he's a scientist and scientists are authorities on things. I thought it was a humorous exaggeration but damn if that isn't a perfect description of Sargon.

Gorfias:

evilthecat:

Gorfias:
Why?
I love the guy.
Seems a radical centrist. By that I mean, I don't think he fits neatly into any camp. Gives me a lot of good things to think about.

He's a right wing libertarian. By UK standards, he's actually borderline far right (he was endorsed by the EDL for a while, who are a group of ex-football-hooligans who go around physically intimidating and occasionally attacking non-white people). True, he didn't ask for that endorsement, but you don't get support like that by being a centrist and his retrospective attempts to get rid of his blatantly racist fanbase kind of illustrates the degree to which he courted a racist fanbase.

But no, the big problem with him is that he cannot read for meaning, or rather he doesn't try to read for meaning. He decides ahead of time what he's reading and whether he likes or dislikes it and then fits it to his interpretation (in fact, sometimes he doesn't read at all, as in his whole treatment of the 1 in 5 "myth"). I don't normally post youtube videos because I hate screwing up my recommendations and I assume everyone else does too, but this guy is actually pretty good on the research and analysis side and kind of deserves more views, and he pointed out a pretty excellent example of this.

I mean, sure, Sargon points out when he's blatantly factually wrong, I think it's pretty clear he at least has the intention to be reasonable, which is more than you can say for some of the people posting on youtube. He doesn't, however, point out all the times when he's more insidiously wrong, or when he seemingly deliberately misread something to make it seem like it fit with his crude cultural touchstones (in particular, enlightened free market libetarians who love freedom vs. stupid, delusional SJWs who don't).

As Agema pointed out, this doesn't stop him being right sometimes, but with him unless you go and actually check his sources you're essentially gambling that he's bothered to do the reading or is reading in good faith. You could argue that, as an internet personality, he's doing this primarily to entertain rather than to inform, but ultimately people take his stuff as factual and assume he is an authority, and he isn't.

See also his campaign to ban "SJW courses" from universities. Beyond not actually defining what an SJW course was, it's very obvious he hasn't read any of the basic literature which is taught on this courses (either that or he utterly failed to understand it). It's clear that he assumes he doesn't need to, that it's just like a religious doctrine which is only relevant to those immersed in the SJW "faith" (hence why he believes white supremacy is a myth, even though its existence as a stable historical object can be clearly demonstrated) but reading in bad faith is not the same thing as lacking faith. One can be skeptical and still be able to understand what one is reading. Unfortunately, Sargon/Carl clearly isn't able or isn't willing to make the effort to understand what he's reading (again, assuming he reads it at all).

I will do some reasearch on him trying to ban SJW classes ASAP. Seems odd for a libertairian that says he wants more, rather than less, discourse on ideas.

EDIT: He does catch hell from multiple perspectives. Here is one taking him to task for not understanding the need for racism:

There is always someone who is more extreme on the political spectrum. The fact that internet alt-right poster-boy Sargon gets some flak from those even further right doesn't mean that he isn't right-wing himself.

Gorfias:
I will do some reasearch on him trying to ban SJW classes ASAP. Seems odd for a libertairian that says he wants more, rather than less, discourse on ideas.

Here you go..

https://www.change.org/p/universities-suspend-social-justice-in-universities

Again, the issue is that Sargon has no idea what is actually going on in the humanities and social sciences, he has no idea what fields like gender studies or queer studies or critical race studies or other fields which he would likely consider to be "social justice" oriented actually entail. It's telling that he describes these courses as "illiterate", because that's essentially an interesting way of saying "there isn't any literature, and therefore I didn't have to read any or cite it in this petition." In the real world of course there is, but remember, we aren't talking about real universities, just imaginary universities populated by made up bad people.

Gorfias:
I love the guy.
Seems a radical centrist. By that I mean, I don't think he fits neatly into any camp. Gives me a lot of good things to think about.

Sargon doesn't really have a coherent political ideology. He keeps changing the label he applies to himself, though he seems to prefer to self-identity as a classical liberal despite the fact that he holds very few classical liberal stances. His platform is inconsistent with frequent reversals, contradictions and a lot of polemic without much substance behind it.

At the heart of it all, Sargon is knowingly or otherwise playing on a strange quirk of the human brain. He never plays defense if he can help it and almost always takes an accusatory stance. On a surface level, people mistake that aggressive stance for authority and winning. In fact, this is one of the most critical tools to demagogues. It makes it far easier to control the conversation.

McMarbles:
In my experience, when white people start talking about "black on black crime", it doesn't seem like they do it because they particularly care about black people, but because they want an excuse to take the focus off other legitimate issues that they're uncomfortable talking about.

In my experience.

BeetleManiac:

Gorfias:
I love the guy.
Seems a radical centrist. By that I mean, I don't think he fits neatly into any camp. Gives me a lot of good things to think about.

Sargon doesn't really have a coherent political ideology. He keeps changing the label he applies to himself, though he seems to prefer to self-identity as a classical liberal despite the fact that he holds very few classical liberal stances. His platform is inconsistent with frequent reversals, contradictions and a lot of polemic without much substance behind it.

At the heart of it all, Sargon is knowingly or otherwise playing on a strange quirk of the human brain. He never plays defense if he can help it and almost always takes an accusatory stance. On a surface level, people mistake that aggressive stance for authority and winning. In fact, this is one of the most critical tools to demagogues. It makes it far easier to control the conversation.

Sargon to me is just a contrarian with a Youtube account. Whatever valid points he might make are drowned out by his consistent issues on misreading, intentionally or otherwise, his own sources and just outright being against anything left-of-center on principal. Same thing with Roaming Millennial and other similar Youtubers as of late. I actually used to follow a number of them, but they've become less about critiquing some of the admittedly not well substantiated aspects of contemporary leftism such as privilege theory, cultural appropriation, or the nature of being genderqueer, and just be opposed to leftism because it's leftism regardless of what's actually behind the specific tenant or goal.

Just to jump on the Sargon train for a bit. I haven't followed him in a few years (though I should see what he's doing now, my brother watches him regularly and takes him at face value). Going on the last video I saw of him, which admittedly was around the time of the Brexit vote, he seems to think of himself as some sort of truth-giver instead of making video editorials. My brother told me about the video where he talks about the study that climate models weren't accurate. Sounds like he latched onto whole 'climate models are WRONG' train of thought. However, the conclusion of the study says that things are still going to shit if we don't change, but we have a bit more time to change course.

I also got annoyed with his self-righteous attitude, the thing that made me unsub from him was a video where he complained about the guy he was.....debunking I suppose calling everyone right of him silly names, saying let's be adult about this......and spent the rest of the video calling the guy silly names. It wouldn't surprise me if he was doing that all along, but that time was so blatant that it really made it clear to me what was rubbing me the wrong way. The guy was (wont say is, as I haven't watched him a while) no where near as rational as he liked to believe he was.

BeetleManiac:

At the heart of it all, Sargon is knowingly or otherwise playing on a strange quirk of the human brain. He never plays defense if he can help it and almost always takes an accusatory stance. On a surface level, people mistake that aggressive stance for authority and winning. In fact, this is one of the most critical tools to demagogues. It makes it far easier to control the conversation.

This is one of my main problems with the New Rationalists (tm). From what I've seen it always seems to be a case of matching up the least favourable arguments with shallow, inconclusive counter-arguments.

In a perfect world the internet would actually be used for debates (i.e. at very least arguments that have someone representing each side) so people couldn't just argue against an entirely constructed position and then claim victory whenever they please. I imagine we would have a lot less anti-feminists et al if that were the case.

Saelune:

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Its called poor on poor violence then. Stop keeping black people to be trapped in poor neighborhoods, and I bet it will get better for them.

A few selected examples of black crime does not mean that we should suddenly condemn an entire ethnicity of people.

We do need to identify causes and contributors, which is why labeling it as 'black on black' is a racist red herring. The causes and contributors are racism from white society, particularly that white society keeps black people as poor as possible.

Nobody is keeping black people trapped in poor neighbourhoods. It's a social environment which encourages it, and the social environment that should be dealt with. As part of fixing the root causes of why statistically black on black violence is more common than other types of killing.

And your refusal to accept ethnic differences is absurd. The fact is, different groups have different likelihoods of committing crime. Poverty is a factor, location is a factor, and race in the US is a factor particularly in how a person sees the law. Rightly or wrongly.

I mean, to take a couple of UK examples - Northern Ireland has it's own distinct brand of crimes, which you don't get elsewhere and can't fix in the same manner as elsewhere. Certain ethnic groups are more prone to "honour killings" or to FGM. If you don't acknowledge differences, you can't deal with them.

And to make it crystal clear, I'm not claiming this as some sort of inherent inferiority thing - I'm stating this as being 100% down to environmental factors - poverty, population density, breakdown of respect between population and police, and the ethical framework in which people grow up (if half of your class are in gangs, you are more likely to be too). The only reason it is black on black violence that we refer to is because of the USA's bizarre borderline segregation.

"A few selected examples" - you do understand the point of statistics, yes? Quibble about police reporting and the metrics used if you like, but statistics provide an unemotional, impartial view of a situation. (Also feel free to argue with how statistics are used, though)

You can say its not racist to say what you're saying, doesnt make it not racist.

Like it or not, "race" is a biological fact of life. Ever see a health form where they ask you if you're black? It's because black people have been found to have higher predispositions to certain conditions, as are white people to others, or women/men to others yet.

If people are going to cry racism or sexism over mere physiological differences then it's no wonder why our society is a bigger mess than ever.

hanselthecaretaker:

Saelune:

Catnip1024:
Nobody is keeping black people trapped in poor neighbourhoods. It's a social environment which encourages it, and the social environment that should be dealt with. As part of fixing the root causes of why statistically black on black violence is more common than other types of killing.

And your refusal to accept ethnic differences is absurd. The fact is, different groups have different likelihoods of committing crime. Poverty is a factor, location is a factor, and race in the US is a factor particularly in how a person sees the law. Rightly or wrongly.

I mean, to take a couple of UK examples - Northern Ireland has it's own distinct brand of crimes, which you don't get elsewhere and can't fix in the same manner as elsewhere. Certain ethnic groups are more prone to "honour killings" or to FGM. If you don't acknowledge differences, you can't deal with them.

And to make it crystal clear, I'm not claiming this as some sort of inherent inferiority thing - I'm stating this as being 100% down to environmental factors - poverty, population density, breakdown of respect between population and police, and the ethical framework in which people grow up (if half of your class are in gangs, you are more likely to be too). The only reason it is black on black violence that we refer to is because of the USA's bizarre borderline segregation.

"A few selected examples" - you do understand the point of statistics, yes? Quibble about police reporting and the metrics used if you like, but statistics provide an unemotional, impartial view of a situation. (Also feel free to argue with how statistics are used, though)

You can say its not racist to say what you're saying, doesnt make it not racist.

Like it or not, ?race? is a biological fact of life. Ever see a health form where they ask you if you?re black? It?s because black people have been found to have higher predispositions to certain conditions, as are white people to others, or women/men to others yet.

If people are going to cry racism or sexism over mere physiological differences then it?s no wonder why our society is a bigger mess than ever.

So how or what does this have to do with crime within African American communities, or how it's handled? Yes, race has some basis in biology since race is based on grouping similar appearances, but that's about it.

NemotheElvenPanda:

hanselthecaretaker:

Saelune:
You can say its not racist to say what you're saying, doesnt make it not racist.

Like it or not, ?race? is a biological fact of life. Ever see a health form where they ask you if you?re black? It?s because black people have been found to have higher predispositions to certain conditions, as are white people to others, or women/men to others yet.

If people are going to cry racism or sexism over mere physiological differences then it?s no wonder why our society is a bigger mess than ever.

So how or what does this have to do with crime within African American communities, or how it's handled? Yes, race has some basis in biology since race is based on grouping similar appearances, but that's about it.

And it's rather arbitrary which physical appearances we choose to group people. And why base it on appearance (read: skin color)? Why not base race on certain genetic markers? Or eye color?

I can't think of a single person that 'cries racism' over differences in predispositions to certain diseases, that's nothing but a red herring.

Jux:

NemotheElvenPanda:

hanselthecaretaker:

Like it or not, ?race? is a biological fact of life. Ever see a health form where they ask you if you?re black? It?s because black people have been found to have higher predispositions to certain conditions, as are white people to others, or women/men to others yet.

If people are going to cry racism or sexism over mere physiological differences then it?s no wonder why our society is a bigger mess than ever.

So how or what does this have to do with crime within African American communities, or how it's handled? Yes, race has some basis in biology since race is based on grouping similar appearances, but that's about it.

And it's rather arbitrary which physical appearances we choose to group people. And why base it on appearance (read: skin color)? Why not base race on certain genetic markers? Or eye color?

I can't think of a single person that 'cries racism' over differences in predispositions to certain diseases, that's nothing but a red herring.

Exactly. Biological, phenotypical differences between groups of people obviously exist, but we categorize them superficially. Just because two people happen to share dark skin, fuller features, and thick hair doesn't mean they share anything more than that; I probably have more in common genetically with most African Americans than those living in the countries where my family came from.

NemotheElvenPanda:

hanselthecaretaker:

Saelune:
You can say its not racist to say what you're saying, doesnt make it not racist.

Like it or not, ?race? is a biological fact of life. Ever see a health form where they ask you if you?re black? It?s because black people have been found to have higher predispositions to certain conditions, as are white people to others, or women/men to others yet.

If people are going to cry racism or sexism over mere physiological differences then it?s no wonder why our society is a bigger mess than ever.

So how or what does this have to do with crime within African American communities, or how it's handled? Yes, race has some basis in biology since race is based on grouping similar appearances, but that's about it.

If biology plays a part, then naturally this will extend to other facets. Let's take the prevalent theory that human life originated in Africa. That would literally mean that at the point of origin, everyone was technically equal and "one" race. So....fast forward a few thousand years across multiple migrations and all the physical changes that come from being exposed to Earth's many differing environments. What causes some to leave, while others chose to stay? How did all we end up so different if it's not supposed to matter?

Have Earth's conditions changed so much that it's not supposed to matter anymore? I doubt it. Simply existing and surviving has gotten exponentially easier and more convenient in terms of getting around and adapting well, but it's difficult to fathom these various character traits of ours are based on a fluke. The world isn't that small.

The takeaway appears to be that, while human life on Earth has proven to be very malleable, the idea that race isn't a factor in our differences is plain man made social ignorance. I simply think we're going about the whole idea of it wrongly, and it's no wonder conditions among various races are still in such turmoil. Then again, maybe human existence is meant to be some sort of twisted paradox. We simply can't seem to get over the fact that race doesn't have to be a bad thing seeing as it's a natural occurrence. What we should be focusing on improving is the unity that comes after it. The only thing that will truly bring all the races together is unifying the culture first. If that sounds impossible, then perhaps it's asking too much.

Agema:

Gorfias:
Your thoughts?

I don't think there's a lot of complication here. Broadly:

1) American cities are full of very poor people with very poor prospects for whom crime is more enticing and profitable than otherwise.
2) Americans have easy access to weaponry.
3) Black people are disproportionately represented amongst the (especially urban) American poor.
4) Most people commit crime in their own neighbourhood.

Add all these together, black people will both disproportionately commit and be victims of violent (/ lethal) crime.

Worth noting that crime in general is the most obvious form of "innovation" that poor people can engage in.

Innovation: using socially unapproved or unconventional means to obtain culturally approved goals. Example: dealing drugs or stealing to achieve financial security. ("surviving poor")

hanselthecaretaker:

NemotheElvenPanda:

hanselthecaretaker:

Like it or not, ?race? is a biological fact of life. Ever see a health form where they ask you if you?re black? It?s because black people have been found to have higher predispositions to certain conditions, as are white people to others, or women/men to others yet.

If people are going to cry racism or sexism over mere physiological differences then it?s no wonder why our society is a bigger mess than ever.

So how or what does this have to do with crime within African American communities, or how it's handled? Yes, race has some basis in biology since race is based on grouping similar appearances, but that's about it.

If biology plays a part, then naturally this will extend to other facets. Let?s take the prevalent theory that human life originated in Africa. That would literally mean that at the point of origin, everyone was technically equal and ?one? race. So....fast forward a few thousand years across multiple migrations and all the physical changes that come from being exposed to Earth?s many differing environments. What causes some to leave, while others chose to stay? How did all we end up so different if it?s not supposed to matter?

Have Earth?s conditions changed so much that it?s not supposed to matter anymore? I doubt it. Simply existing and surviving has gotten exponentially easier and more convenient in terms of getting around and adapting well, but it?s difficult to fathom these various character traits of ours are based on a fluke. The world isn?t that small.

The takeaway appears to be that, while human life on Earth has proven to be very malleable, the idea that race isn?t a factor in our differences is plain man made social ignorance. I simply think we?re going about the whole idea of it wrongly, and it?s no wonder conditions among various races are still in such turmoil. Then again, maybe human existence is meant to be some sort of twisted paradox. We simply can?t seem to get over the fact that race doesn?t have to be a bad thing seeing as it?s a natural occurrence. What we should be focusing on improving is the unity that comes after it. The only thing that will truly bring all the races together is unifying the culture first. If that sounds impossible, then perhaps it?s asking too much.

All the differences between the races that we decide that defines race are adaptations to the environment. That's it. The social aspects of race are entirely fabricated and imposed on other people.

While the physical differences of race certainly exist, it's how they're treated and handled by a given society that causes such turmoil.

NemotheElvenPanda:
All the differences between the races that we decide that defines race are adaptations to the environment. That's it. The social aspects of race are entirely fabricated and imposed on other people.

While the physical differences of race certainly exist, it's how they're treated and handled by a given society that causes such turmoil.

The social aspects of race were initially created BY the environment those races adapted to. Take note that humans exist in three areas here: they adapt to the environment, they adapt their environment, they ARE their environment.

Humans will adapt to their environments should you take them out of their "native" one, but they will also adapt their environment to suit themselves more should they move, and their environment includes other humans who they will in turn attempt to adapt or potentially be adapted by.

This means when two cultures come together they mix in various ways, both affecting and being affected by the other. American urban poor black culture has unfortunately become a culture that is self-cannibalizing and doesn't interact outside itself in an adaptable way. There are many reasons how this came to be but the massive disadvantage of slavery, segregation, discrimination, and the lack of education opportunities compounded together to forge that culture. The heavy-handedness of the American justice system against the urban poor black demographic has simply become a predator in that environment. Urban poor blacks don't adapt to it any more, they're adapted BY the justice system - especially when those who are released return the community hardened by further association with criminals (for prison is another environment that is changed by and changes those who enter it) and contaminate the community further with criminality.

It's a feedback loop and the only way to break the loop is for the environment to change, removing poverty from the equation would be the most likely solution. But it will take a concentrated and constant effort, the current culture of the urban poor blacks will be resistant to it - not because they're black, but because the environment doesn't reward or encourage legal productive growth, it simply consumes it.

Those areas won't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, but they won't be pulled up by someone else either. It needs to come from both within and without at the same time.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here