Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Langston Oklahoma, a "black area " 92% black has a crime rate between 29%-70% lower than the national average. There are about 13 of these small black towns left in Oklahoma. Wealthy predominately black communities have similar stats. Its small, big deal its still over 1000 black people who don't share the same crime stats as an area of Detroit or Chicago with 1000 black people. What gives?
But most blacks in Langston are college students. They're much more interested in earning their degrees, rather than get into trouble doing crime. Pick a better example.
But most blacks in Langston are college students. They're much more interested in earning their degrees, rather than get into trouble doing crime. Pick a better example.
lol... good catch. The town of Langston, Oklahoma is basically just the campus of Langston University an HBCU. Almost all the black people there are students, professors and other university staff.
Where are your sources stating OoW births do not impact the success of these children? What it does is guarantee they will remain in deeper poverty which DOES lead to negative outcomes and therefore, impact success.
Impoverished parents of any race who have multiple children by multiple fathers have the same negative impact on those children.
Divorced parents of any race who are not impoverished and have both parents financially supporting their children and giving them a lot of time do not have negative impacts on those children.
This is about the culture of poverty and he's talking about black poverty because the issue being asked about is systemic racism.
.
Now you're throwing in more factors. Now it's impoverished parents to start with and it's multiple kids by the same Dad.
Your original argument was that kids born out of wedlock automatically equate to becoming failures.
Quote:
The measures of improvement since the '60's you're talking about has nothing to do with the poorest among the black community - but of others within the black community.
Duh. Many of those others also being the product of unmarried parents, and yet still succeeding in life.
Most blacks born out of wedlock are not from a super spreader like in that show, who has 87 baby mommas. Again you are using an extreme.
Him doing that does not mean the resulting children in the household are more or less likely to be successful in their life. What matters is the household income and education levels.
That guy could have had 1 kid with a poor mother and 3 with a middle class mother and 4 with a well off mother. Those 7 kids are not going to have any measurable affect on their success while that 1 kid is going to have a higher chance of negative outcomes. Why? Bc OoW rates do not correlate to negative outcomes. Income and education do.
Right. My sister and her husband both have multiple baby mommas and daddys. For my sister it is husband numbers 1, 2, and 3.
All her kids are fine, with her being the common denominator. His babymomma or wife number 1, IDK which, is a good mom with a good income so his first born is good. Kids number 2 and 3, not so much. Mom is trash. Kid number 4 has the jackpot. Two devoted parents in the same household at a time they are both doing their best financially.
First of all, he's a black professor - I don't know how much authority he has.
Secondly, he never said EVERYONE, he's talking about odds and predictability - or predictive policing, as you say. Everyone profiles for safety and if you don't - you have no street smarts. A woman walking down a dark empty street at night hears heavy footsteps behind her and she's going to cross the street to see if she's followed. That's just one example.
The odds of a cop being shot by a black male in rougher neighborhoods is higher than it is in a suburb or white neighborhood. That's an important fact to have when your life is on the line.
Who are you blaming for the broken windows theory? Broken windows and crime leads to more broken windows and crime? Are you suggesting police are at fault?
Really? No accounting for class, huh? I can tell you you are very wrong. Anyone is safer in a nice black neighborhood than a white ghetto.
White does not = a good neighborhood, but it's interesting that you think so.
I’m simply asking how is this data managed. Telling me that crime is everywhere doesn’t mean anything, telling me that your white neighbors do drugs says nothing of the aggregate. I’ve been searched 5 times without cause, had the k9s called each time. I won’t give them permission to search so they fill the k9s in. I don’t use my experience for the aggregate though.
I think asking about population density and the police presence a locality has, is a valid question. Disproportionately white criminality takes place in areas with lower population densities and lower tax bases, with a very small police force. The author of the article also focuses on disproportionate amounts of violent crime.
Cited from this Stanford study: In our data, the success rate of searches (or the hit rate) is generally lower for Hispanic drivers compared to white drivers; so the outcome test indicates Hispanic drivers face discrimination. For black drivers, search hit rates are typically in line with those of white drivers, indicating an absence of discrimination.
Admittedly there is a lot of confusion and uncertainty around the conclusion of hit rates, but it is viable data to look at. It is just difficult to extrapolate discrimination bias from it.
In this study, I don’t know if they factored in past run ins with the law and warrants and how that affected the rate of searches in the given populace. I will need to comb over the findings and see what they factored into it. It does show on the threshold test some differing results from the previous one I cited.
From your article:
Quote:
In nearly every jurisdiction we find stopped black and Hispanic drivers are searched more often than white drivers.
There you go. Obviously being searched more often things will be found more often.
What I hear here are liberals trying to show that there’s some racism.
The professor never denied that. He said that the EXAGGERATION of racism, where everything is chalked up to racism, is deflecting from problems that blacks themselves could resolve. Yet, liberals, eager to make sure no black person is ever held responsible for his own poor choices, are doing just what the professor says is hurting blacks - and that’s back to focusing and blaming racism for everything.
There was a beautiful example of that in this thread. One of the black liberals said that when she isn’t chosen for a job, she assumes it was because the interviewer was a racist. I called her on it, pointing out that a) she might have been rejected due to shortcomings unrelated to race, such as just doing poorly in an interview or being less qualified than another candidate, and thus is seeing more racism that truly exists, and b) by blaming an interviewer for being a racist, when that may not have been the case at all, she misses an opportunity to analyze her own behavior and figure out what she may have done better to win the job.
As predicted, she did not address that, but came up with some unrelated discussion about racist experiences.
What I hear here are liberals trying to show that there’s some racism.
The professor never denied that. He said that the EXAGGERATION of racism, where everything is chalked up to racism, is deflecting from problems that blacks themselves could resolve. Yet, liberals, eager to make sure no black person is ever held responsible for his own poor choices, are doing just what the professor says is hurting blacks - and that’s back to focusing and blaming racism for everything.
There was a beautiful example of that in this thread. One of the black liberals said that when she isn’t chosen for a job, she assumes it was because the interviewer was a racist. I called her on it, pointing out that a) she might have been rejected due to shortcomings unrelated to race, such as just doing poorly in an interview or being less qualified than another candidate, and thus is seeing more racism that truly exists, and b) by blaming an interviewer for being a racist, when that may not have been the case at all, she misses an opportunity to analyze her own behavior and figure out what she may have done better to win the job.
As predicted, she did not address that, but came up with some unrelated discussion about racist experiences.
She did address you. You just chose to ignore her remarks because it doesn't fit into your narrative.
She did address you. You just chose to ignore her remarks because it doesn't fit into your narrative.
Nope....she ignored my points, and deflected. Which is EXACTLY what the professor said is happening when blacks and “woke” whites blame every poor outcome on racism. You ignore that because it doesn’t fit your narrative.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
