Seattle City Council Moves To Ban Police

1,926 Views | 69 Replies | Last: 6 days ago by whiterock
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Robert Wilson said:

Booray said:

Robert Wilson said:

I hope they do it. Let's see what happens. This is what federalism and local control are all about. I enjoyed watching their autonomous zone police itself.
Except that I have friends living in Seattle, I would agree with you.

Property insurance is going to be hard to come by there.
Yeah, I'm kind of tongue in cheek with that comment (but not totally). If you're a sane person living in Seattle, you should seriously consider moving. Your local governance is going to hell.

But, hey, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. Maybe all these extreme leftists are correct. Only one way to find out for sure. Let 'er rip. I do think we should largely give local governments the ability to govern in the way they see fit. All those various experiments let us see what works. And different things work in different places at different times.

All that said, if I lived in Seattle, I would be marketing my house and deciding where I was going to live next.
I wonder when the next city council election in Seattle is?. There is no way that a majority of voters support this nonsense.

Just looked it up-no one rotates off until 12/31/2021; at that point it is only two members out of nine. The other seven are there until 21/31/2023. Seattle may be screwed.
The problem is that the "majority" do support this. There is an episode of South Park that deals with the "smug" from San Francisco. It's a must watch. The west coast is almost like a completely different country full of people who think they are enlightened and better than the rest of us.
Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Is it racist to suggest a 70% illegitimate birth rate might have something to do with the disproportionately high black crime rate ?




yes
Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Edmond Bear said:


My grandfather (I'm white) had access to capital, commercial warehousing, and a network that his black peers did not. My grandfather started an HVAC company in Amarillo and was able to build a small amount of wealth which enabled my father to go to college. My father was able to get a good job and work his way into a CFO role which enabled me to go to Baylor. I was able to build more wealth because of my job and business ventures.

Privilege.

You need to give it back.
Edmond Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

Edmond Bear said:


My grandfather (I'm white) had access to capital, commercial warehousing, and a network that his black peers did not. My grandfather started an HVAC company in Amarillo and was able to build a small amount of wealth which enabled my father to go to college. My father was able to get a good job and work his way into a CFO role which enabled me to go to Baylor. I was able to build more wealth because of my job and business ventures.

Privilege.

You need to give it back.

Privilege? Yes, absolutely.

Give anything back? It's unrelated. Giving back assumes a zero-sum game which is not how things work in a capitalist society.

Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Edmond Bear said:

Thee University said:

Edmond Bear said:


My grandfather (I'm white) had access to capital, commercial warehousing, and a network that his black peers did not. My grandfather started an HVAC company in Amarillo and was able to build a small amount of wealth which enabled my father to go to college. My father was able to get a good job and work his way into a CFO role which enabled me to go to Baylor. I was able to build more wealth because of my job and business ventures.

Privilege.

You need to give it back.

Privilege? Yes, absolutely.

Give anything back? It's unrelated. Giving back assumes a zero-sum game which is not how things work in a capitalist society.


These lunatics don't recognize capitalism.

By the way...........I support his path to prosperity. More power to him. He and his family deserve every penny.

Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Man gets beaten up for asking protestors NOT to march in his neighborhood at 12AM.


Quote:

Officers met the victim at Swedish Hospital early this morning, where he was receiving treatment for a head injury. The victim told officers that around 12 am, he was attempting to sleep but was kept awake by a protest that had been making its way through the neighborhood. He said that he went outside his home near 10th Ave W and W Lee Street and asked the crowd to quiet down so that he could sleep, video recording the confrontation on his phone. The man said that members of the protest became angry that he was recording them, flashed laser pointers in his eyes, and then struck him in the head with a blunt object, possibly a flashlight. Several other protesters provided first aid to the victim while, according to the victim, a person with the protest deleted the video on his phone. A family member transported the victim to the hospital, where he met with police.

Officers spoke with multiple witnesses who confirmed the victim's story, found surveillance cameras that may have captured the incident, and took photos of blood splatter at the crime scene.


Gruvin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BellCountyBear said:

I just hope they're not all moving to Texas.
They may be building a wall at the wrong border...
BellCountyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gruvin said:

BellCountyBear said:

I just hope they're not all moving to Texas.
They may be building a wall at the wrong border...
I agree. Build it around the whole state.
57Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BellCountyBear said:

Gruvin said:

BellCountyBear said:

I just hope they're not all moving to Texas.
They may be building a wall at the wrong border...
I agree. Build it around the whole state.
Are you sure that you don't want to include Oregon and California??
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Honestly Seattle is one of the cities that might be able to get away with limited police (for a while anyway)

The demographic breakdown of the city is:
White: 69.5%
Asian: 13.8%
.



I have to be reading this wrong because it sounds like you are trying to say that there aren't as many black people in Seattle so they do not need as many police.

That cannot be right. Help me out here.




I think you are reading it right. When blacks commit a much higher percentage of crime, despite being a much lower percentage of the overall population, it makes perfect sense.


Are you suggesting that the color of skin is relevant to likelihood to commit a crime? And, there is not something else that may be driving higher crime rates?

I'm asking because on it's face, your assertion is shockingly racist. We're not talking microaggression or cultural humility racist. We're talking white hood, Robert Byrd racist.

So, help me understand what you mean by this so other people don't get the wrong impression of what Redbrick or you are suggesting.




The color of someone's skin does not make them commit a crime.

Are you suggesting blacks do not commit a disproportionately high percentage of crime, in relation to the overall population? The statistics show that they clearly do. The fact that you appear to be denying that suggests that you are more interested in reassigning blame than anything else.

I live in a predominantly black community that has almost no crime. It is exurban, on the edge of a metro, and not urban.

I'm saying there are a variety of factors that relate to crime but not the color of skin.

According to the FBI, crime is related to:

  • Population density and degree of urbanization.
  • Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
  • Stability of the population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
  • Modes of transportation and highway system.
  • Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
  • Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
  • Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
  • Climate.
  • Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
  • Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
  • Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
  • Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
  • Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2012/resources/variables-affecting-crime

You might consider that as of 1910, 90% of Blacks in the US lived in the South. After that time, a huge migration occurred driven by racism in the south and available jobs in the North. By 1970, about 50% of blacks in the US remained in the South. In the 60's and 70's drugs entered the scene creating an epidemic of drug usage in poor urban areas. In the 80's, we started the War on Drugs which lead to huge increases in the prison population of urban blacks. We doubled down in the 90's with Biden's terrible mandatory sentencing laws hitting black families the hardest. Now, urban black males were going to jail for low-level crimes. Yes, the did crime and deserve punishment. But, Biden didn't just punish black males, he punished black moms and black kids even more.

At the same time, consider that wealth, which does correlate strongly to positive educational outcomes, access to networks, and access to capital is generational. My grandfather (I'm white) had access to capital, commercial warehousing, and a network that his black peers did not. My grandfather started an HVAC company in Amarillo and was able to build a small amount of wealth which enabled my father to go to college. My father was able to get a good job and work his way into a CFO role which enabled me to go to Baylor. I was able to build more wealth because of my job and business ventures.

The black community in the 70's and even into the 80's did not have access to capital and housing like my grandfather had because of racism. No doubt, there are instances of black families that have access to generational wealth, but generally that is not the case across the community.

My answer is that - yes - crime does occur in black communities at a disproportionate rate. However, there is ALOT going on that has nothing to do with the color of skin.

To say that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime and leave it with no other explanation is plain uneducated racism.









Pretty much tracking with most of your post until the end. Data is just data. Obviously, correlation is not causation, but correlation is correlation. Nothing inherently racist in presenting data. You are part of the problem.
Edmond Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Honestly Seattle is one of the cities that might be able to get away with limited police (for a while anyway)

The demographic breakdown of the city is:
White: 69.5%
Asian: 13.8%
.



I have to be reading this wrong because it sounds like you are trying to say that there aren't as many black people in Seattle so they do not need as many police.

That cannot be right. Help me out here.




I think you are reading it right. When blacks commit a much higher percentage of crime, despite being a much lower percentage of the overall population, it makes perfect sense.


Are you suggesting that the color of skin is relevant to likelihood to commit a crime? And, there is not something else that may be driving higher crime rates?

I'm asking because on it's face, your assertion is shockingly racist. We're not talking microaggression or cultural humility racist. We're talking white hood, Robert Byrd racist.

So, help me understand what you mean by this so other people don't get the wrong impression of what Redbrick or you are suggesting.




The color of someone's skin does not make them commit a crime.

Are you suggesting blacks do not commit a disproportionately high percentage of crime, in relation to the overall population? The statistics show that they clearly do. The fact that you appear to be denying that suggests that you are more interested in reassigning blame than anything else.

I live in a predominantly black community that has almost no crime. It is exurban, on the edge of a metro, and not urban.

I'm saying there are a variety of factors that relate to crime but not the color of skin.

According to the FBI, crime is related to:

  • Population density and degree of urbanization.
  • Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
  • Stability of the population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
  • Modes of transportation and highway system.
  • Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
  • Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
  • Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
  • Climate.
  • Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
  • Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
  • Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
  • Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
  • Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2012/resources/variables-affecting-crime

You might consider that as of 1910, 90% of Blacks in the US lived in the South. After that time, a huge migration occurred driven by racism in the south and available jobs in the North. By 1970, about 50% of blacks in the US remained in the South. In the 60's and 70's drugs entered the scene creating an epidemic of drug usage in poor urban areas. In the 80's, we started the War on Drugs which lead to huge increases in the prison population of urban blacks. We doubled down in the 90's with Biden's terrible mandatory sentencing laws hitting black families the hardest. Now, urban black males were going to jail for low-level crimes. Yes, the did crime and deserve punishment. But, Biden didn't just punish black males, he punished black moms and black kids even more.

At the same time, consider that wealth, which does correlate strongly to positive educational outcomes, access to networks, and access to capital is generational. My grandfather (I'm white) had access to capital, commercial warehousing, and a network that his black peers did not. My grandfather started an HVAC company in Amarillo and was able to build a small amount of wealth which enabled my father to go to college. My father was able to get a good job and work his way into a CFO role which enabled me to go to Baylor. I was able to build more wealth because of my job and business ventures.

The black community in the 70's and even into the 80's did not have access to capital and housing like my grandfather had because of racism. No doubt, there are instances of black families that have access to generational wealth, but generally that is not the case across the community.

My answer is that - yes - crime does occur in black communities at a disproportionate rate. However, there is ALOT going on that has nothing to do with the color of skin.

To say that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime and leave it with no other explanation is plain uneducated racism.









Pretty much tracking with most of your post until the end. Data is just data. Obviously, correlation is not causation, but correlation is correlation. Nothing inherently racist in presenting data. You are part of the problem.


Thank you for making my point.

There is a problem in presenting data when you don't explain it or understand it.

For example, saying correlation is correlation is a lack of understanding of how data works. Did you know that ice cream sales and homicides in New York correlate very closely? But, you wouldn't say that eating more ice cream causes murder. There are other factors at play that explain the data.

I'm happy to stand by my stance that presenting a set of data as if it explains another set of data when it doesn't is uneducated. When it's done maliciously (which happens all of the time by activists and the media), it's a lie.

By the way, I have very nerdily used my QBA major from Baylor throughout my career and advise big companies about causal data in forecasting.

JXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack and DP said:

https://christopherrufo.com/seattle-city-council-moves-to-abolish-the-police/


Seattle should move to implement this agenda immediately.
greatdivide
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Robert Wilson said:

I hope they do it. Let's see what happens. This is what federalism and local control are all about. I enjoyed watching their autonomous zone police itself.
Except that I have friends living in Seattle, I would agree with you.

Property insurance is going to be hard to come by there.
then they should vote differently. The naivety of people in the north west is dangerous. Luckily the crazy is contained there for now. I really feel for the Seattle police chief. She seems like the only adult in that city but she can not do it alone.
HashTag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Is it racist to suggest a 70% illegitimate birth rate might have something to do with the disproportionately high black crime rate ?




Bingo!!!!

Democrats, for decades, have spent many a dollar and time convincing black America that they were born victims, that they can't succeed without the great white liberal hand of hope, that they can't build that, that they aren't privileged because they aren't white (racist, by the way), that they can't, can't, can't, can't.....

If Democrats stopped looking at the black community as a lesser race and culture and started to treat them as normal and capable human beings that have the potential to do great things, rise to high levels and accomplish big dreams... then I bet, dollars to donuts, we would see the black crime rate go down, the ghettos be fewer, single mother birth rates drop and their poverty rate go down.

If the democrats actually stopped disguising their racism as compassion (among other things).... well, they would lose a lot of votes and unfortunately, that's the only thing they care about - and they know it, they just do a fabulous job at hiding it.
HashTag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Edmond Bear said:

Thee University said:

Edmond Bear said:


My grandfather (I'm white) had access to capital, commercial warehousing, and a network that his black peers did not. My grandfather started an HVAC company in Amarillo and was able to build a small amount of wealth which enabled my father to go to college. My father was able to get a good job and work his way into a CFO role which enabled me to go to Baylor. I was able to build more wealth because of my job and business ventures.

Privilege.

You need to give it back.

Privilege? Yes, absolutely.

Give anything back? It's unrelated. Giving back assumes a zero-sum game which is not how things work in a capitalist society.


So you're just going to keep your white privileged money for yourself and not give it back, but insist that black people are victims (by birth).

How very "enlightened" of you.
HashTag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Edmond Bear said:

curtpenn said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Honestly Seattle is one of the cities that might be able to get away with limited police (for a while anyway)

The demographic breakdown of the city is:
White: 69.5%
Asian: 13.8%
.



I have to be reading this wrong because it sounds like you are trying to say that there aren't as many black people in Seattle so they do not need as many police.

That cannot be right. Help me out here.




I think you are reading it right. When blacks commit a much higher percentage of crime, despite being a much lower percentage of the overall population, it makes perfect sense.


Are you suggesting that the color of skin is relevant to likelihood to commit a crime? And, there is not something else that may be driving higher crime rates?

I'm asking because on it's face, your assertion is shockingly racist. We're not talking microaggression or cultural humility racist. We're talking white hood, Robert Byrd racist.

So, help me understand what you mean by this so other people don't get the wrong impression of what Redbrick or you are suggesting.




The color of someone's skin does not make them commit a crime.

Are you suggesting blacks do not commit a disproportionately high percentage of crime, in relation to the overall population? The statistics show that they clearly do. The fact that you appear to be denying that suggests that you are more interested in reassigning blame than anything else.

I live in a predominantly black community that has almost no crime. It is exurban, on the edge of a metro, and not urban.

I'm saying there are a variety of factors that relate to crime but not the color of skin.

According to the FBI, crime is related to:

  • Population density and degree of urbanization.
  • Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
  • Stability of the population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
  • Modes of transportation and highway system.
  • Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
  • Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
  • Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
  • Climate.
  • Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
  • Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
  • Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
  • Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
  • Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2012/resources/variables-affecting-crime

You might consider that as of 1910, 90% of Blacks in the US lived in the South. After that time, a huge migration occurred driven by racism in the south and available jobs in the North. By 1970, about 50% of blacks in the US remained in the South. In the 60's and 70's drugs entered the scene creating an epidemic of drug usage in poor urban areas. In the 80's, we started the War on Drugs which lead to huge increases in the prison population of urban blacks. We doubled down in the 90's with Biden's terrible mandatory sentencing laws hitting black families the hardest. Now, urban black males were going to jail for low-level crimes. Yes, the did crime and deserve punishment. But, Biden didn't just punish black males, he punished black moms and black kids even more.

At the same time, consider that wealth, which does correlate strongly to positive educational outcomes, access to networks, and access to capital is generational. My grandfather (I'm white) had access to capital, commercial warehousing, and a network that his black peers did not. My grandfather started an HVAC company in Amarillo and was able to build a small amount of wealth which enabled my father to go to college. My father was able to get a good job and work his way into a CFO role which enabled me to go to Baylor. I was able to build more wealth because of my job and business ventures.

The black community in the 70's and even into the 80's did not have access to capital and housing like my grandfather had because of racism. No doubt, there are instances of black families that have access to generational wealth, but generally that is not the case across the community.

My answer is that - yes - crime does occur in black communities at a disproportionate rate. However, there is ALOT going on that has nothing to do with the color of skin.

To say that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime and leave it with no other explanation is plain uneducated racism.









Pretty much tracking with most of your post until the end. Data is just data. Obviously, correlation is not causation, but correlation is correlation. Nothing inherently racist in presenting data. You are part of the problem.


Thank you for making my point.

There is a problem in presenting data when you don't explain it or understand it.

For example, saying correlation is correlation is a lack of understanding of how data works. Did you know that ice cream sales and homicides in New York correlate very closely? But, you wouldn't say that eating more ice cream causes murder. There are other factors at play that explain the data.

I'm happy to stand by my stance that presenting a set of data as if it explains another set of data when it doesn't is uneducated. When it's done maliciously (which happens all of the time by activists and the media), it's a lie.

By the way, I have very nerdily used my QBA major from Baylor throughout my career and advise big companies about causal data in forecasting.


There's never a problem presenting data. The only time it's an issue, apparently, is when it's at odds with the recit de jour by the left.

To present data and then to explain what it means is offering a conclusion based on an opinion. All too often those opinions are often presented as fact and treated as such.

What we need is more data and less opinion... especially when those opinions are coming from political pundits, activists, politicians and the media in general.

Data should be discussed and debated among many, not "understood" and explained by one.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Edmond Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Honestly Seattle is one of the cities that might be able to get away with limited police (for a while anyway)

The demographic breakdown of the city is:
White: 69.5%
Asian: 13.8%
.



I have to be reading this wrong because it sounds like you are trying to say that there aren't as many black people in Seattle so they do not need as many police.

That cannot be right. Help me out here.
Fair point. Antifa is who's burning cities across the country, and they are overwhelmingly white. I believe it was Pew who actually polled the issue & found 2/3rds of the people who admitted participation in a demonstration were white.

BLM organizes the demonstration; Antifa moves in & turns it into a riot or worse. Democrat militias burning their own constituencies, abetted by Democrat mayors & progressive city councils who withdraw and/or defund police departments.

I tell my Democrat friends every time I see them - "you are standing with tyrants. Eventually, they will bring you to a threshold your innate sense of decency will not allow you to cross. And when you hesitate, they will turn on you like you're wearing a white robe & swastika."

Watch & see what happens to the city council members who do not vote for this resolution. Almost a certainty their house will get a new paint job, or worse....
GoldenBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yes, of course. Let then script their own constitution. DUH!!!
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Edmond Bear said:

curtpenn said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Honestly Seattle is one of the cities that might be able to get away with limited police (for a while anyway)

The demographic breakdown of the city is:
White: 69.5%
Asian: 13.8%
.



I have to be reading this wrong because it sounds like you are trying to say that there aren't as many black people in Seattle so they do not need as many police.

That cannot be right. Help me out here.




I think you are reading it right. When blacks commit a much higher percentage of crime, despite being a much lower percentage of the overall population, it makes perfect sense.


Are you suggesting that the color of skin is relevant to likelihood to commit a crime? And, there is not something else that may be driving higher crime rates?

I'm asking because on it's face, your assertion is shockingly racist. We're not talking microaggression or cultural humility racist. We're talking white hood, Robert Byrd racist.

So, help me understand what you mean by this so other people don't get the wrong impression of what Redbrick or you are suggesting.




The color of someone's skin does not make them commit a crime.

Are you suggesting blacks do not commit a disproportionately high percentage of crime, in relation to the overall population? The statistics show that they clearly do. The fact that you appear to be denying that suggests that you are more interested in reassigning blame than anything else.

I live in a predominantly black community that has almost no crime. It is exurban, on the edge of a metro, and not urban.

I'm saying there are a variety of factors that relate to crime but not the color of skin.

According to the FBI, crime is related to:

  • Population density and degree of urbanization.
  • Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
  • Stability of the population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
  • Modes of transportation and highway system.
  • Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
  • Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
  • Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
  • Climate.
  • Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
  • Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
  • Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
  • Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
  • Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2012/resources/variables-affecting-crime

You might consider that as of 1910, 90% of Blacks in the US lived in the South. After that time, a huge migration occurred driven by racism in the south and available jobs in the North. By 1970, about 50% of blacks in the US remained in the South. In the 60's and 70's drugs entered the scene creating an epidemic of drug usage in poor urban areas. In the 80's, we started the War on Drugs which lead to huge increases in the prison population of urban blacks. We doubled down in the 90's with Biden's terrible mandatory sentencing laws hitting black families the hardest. Now, urban black males were going to jail for low-level crimes. Yes, the did crime and deserve punishment. But, Biden didn't just punish black males, he punished black moms and black kids even more.

At the same time, consider that wealth, which does correlate strongly to positive educational outcomes, access to networks, and access to capital is generational. My grandfather (I'm white) had access to capital, commercial warehousing, and a network that his black peers did not. My grandfather started an HVAC company in Amarillo and was able to build a small amount of wealth which enabled my father to go to college. My father was able to get a good job and work his way into a CFO role which enabled me to go to Baylor. I was able to build more wealth because of my job and business ventures.

The black community in the 70's and even into the 80's did not have access to capital and housing like my grandfather had because of racism. No doubt, there are instances of black families that have access to generational wealth, but generally that is not the case across the community.

My answer is that - yes - crime does occur in black communities at a disproportionate rate. However, there is ALOT going on that has nothing to do with the color of skin.

To say that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime and leave it with no other explanation is plain uneducated racism.









Pretty much tracking with most of your post until the end. Data is just data. Obviously, correlation is not causation, but correlation is correlation. Nothing inherently racist in presenting data. You are part of the problem.


Thank you for making my point.

There is a problem in presenting data when you don't explain it or understand it.

For example, saying correlation is correlation is a lack of understanding of how data works. Did you know that ice cream sales and homicides in New York correlate very closely? But, you wouldn't say that eating more ice cream causes murder. There are other factors at play that explain the data.

I'm happy to stand by my stance that presenting a set of data as if it explains another set of data when it doesn't is uneducated. When it's done maliciously (which happens all of the time by activists and the media), it's a lie.

By the way, I have very nerdily used my QBA major from Baylor throughout my career and advise big companies about causal data in forecasting.




Your assertion that there is a lack of understanding is simply false and/or willfully arrogant. I'm confident that data is just data awaiting analysis and is not inherently racist or possessing any intrinsic negative value in and of itself. It's just a starting point. With a QBA, would have thought you'd grasp that correlation may imply causality, but that's the point of further research isn't it? FWIW, I had an undergrad concentration in Economics and was briefly (thankfully) a grad assistant to Ray Perryman en route to an MBA, not that it matters particularly.
HashTag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

Edmond Bear said:

curtpenn said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Honestly Seattle is one of the cities that might be able to get away with limited police (for a while anyway)

The demographic breakdown of the city is:
White: 69.5%
Asian: 13.8%
.



I have to be reading this wrong because it sounds like you are trying to say that there aren't as many black people in Seattle so they do not need as many police.

That cannot be right. Help me out here.




I think you are reading it right. When blacks commit a much higher percentage of crime, despite being a much lower percentage of the overall population, it makes perfect sense.


Are you suggesting that the color of skin is relevant to likelihood to commit a crime? And, there is not something else that may be driving higher crime rates?

I'm asking because on it's face, your assertion is shockingly racist. We're not talking microaggression or cultural humility racist. We're talking white hood, Robert Byrd racist.

So, help me understand what you mean by this so other people don't get the wrong impression of what Redbrick or you are suggesting.




The color of someone's skin does not make them commit a crime.

Are you suggesting blacks do not commit a disproportionately high percentage of crime, in relation to the overall population? The statistics show that they clearly do. The fact that you appear to be denying that suggests that you are more interested in reassigning blame than anything else.

I live in a predominantly black community that has almost no crime. It is exurban, on the edge of a metro, and not urban.

I'm saying there are a variety of factors that relate to crime but not the color of skin.

According to the FBI, crime is related to:

  • Population density and degree of urbanization.
  • Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
  • Stability of the population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
  • Modes of transportation and highway system.
  • Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
  • Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
  • Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
  • Climate.
  • Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
  • Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
  • Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
  • Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
  • Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2012/resources/variables-affecting-crime

You might consider that as of 1910, 90% of Blacks in the US lived in the South. After that time, a huge migration occurred driven by racism in the south and available jobs in the North. By 1970, about 50% of blacks in the US remained in the South. In the 60's and 70's drugs entered the scene creating an epidemic of drug usage in poor urban areas. In the 80's, we started the War on Drugs which lead to huge increases in the prison population of urban blacks. We doubled down in the 90's with Biden's terrible mandatory sentencing laws hitting black families the hardest. Now, urban black males were going to jail for low-level crimes. Yes, the did crime and deserve punishment. But, Biden didn't just punish black males, he punished black moms and black kids even more.

At the same time, consider that wealth, which does correlate strongly to positive educational outcomes, access to networks, and access to capital is generational. My grandfather (I'm white) had access to capital, commercial warehousing, and a network that his black peers did not. My grandfather started an HVAC company in Amarillo and was able to build a small amount of wealth which enabled my father to go to college. My father was able to get a good job and work his way into a CFO role which enabled me to go to Baylor. I was able to build more wealth because of my job and business ventures.

The black community in the 70's and even into the 80's did not have access to capital and housing like my grandfather had because of racism. No doubt, there are instances of black families that have access to generational wealth, but generally that is not the case across the community.

My answer is that - yes - crime does occur in black communities at a disproportionate rate. However, there is ALOT going on that has nothing to do with the color of skin.

To say that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime and leave it with no other explanation is plain uneducated racism.









Pretty much tracking with most of your post until the end. Data is just data. Obviously, correlation is not causation, but correlation is correlation. Nothing inherently racist in presenting data. You are part of the problem.


Thank you for making my point.

There is a problem in presenting data when you don't explain it or understand it.

For example, saying correlation is correlation is a lack of understanding of how data works. Did you know that ice cream sales and homicides in New York correlate very closely? But, you wouldn't say that eating more ice cream causes murder. There are other factors at play that explain the data.

I'm happy to stand by my stance that presenting a set of data as if it explains another set of data when it doesn't is uneducated. When it's done maliciously (which happens all of the time by activists and the media), it's a lie.

By the way, I have very nerdily used my QBA major from Baylor throughout my career and advise big companies about causal data in forecasting.




Your assertion that there is a lack of understanding is simply false and/or willfully arrogant. I'm confident that data is just data awaiting analysis and is not inherently racist or possessing any intrinsic negative value in and of itself. It's just a starting point. With a QBA, would have thought you'd grasp that correlation may imply causality, but that's the point of further research isn't it? FWIW, I had an undergrad concentration in Economics and was briefly (thankfully) a grad assistant to Ray Perryman en route to an MBA, not that it matters particularly.
That's what I tried to say! Just not as well this
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HashTag said:

curtpenn said:

Edmond Bear said:

curtpenn said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Honestly Seattle is one of the cities that might be able to get away with limited police (for a while anyway)

The demographic breakdown of the city is:
White: 69.5%
Asian: 13.8%
.



I have to be reading this wrong because it sounds like you are trying to say that there aren't as many black people in Seattle so they do not need as many police.

That cannot be right. Help me out here.




I think you are reading it right. When blacks commit a much higher percentage of crime, despite being a much lower percentage of the overall population, it makes perfect sense.


Are you suggesting that the color of skin is relevant to likelihood to commit a crime? And, there is not something else that may be driving higher crime rates?

I'm asking because on it's face, your assertion is shockingly racist. We're not talking microaggression or cultural humility racist. We're talking white hood, Robert Byrd racist.

So, help me understand what you mean by this so other people don't get the wrong impression of what Redbrick or you are suggesting.




The color of someone's skin does not make them commit a crime.

Are you suggesting blacks do not commit a disproportionately high percentage of crime, in relation to the overall population? The statistics show that they clearly do. The fact that you appear to be denying that suggests that you are more interested in reassigning blame than anything else.

I live in a predominantly black community that has almost no crime. It is exurban, on the edge of a metro, and not urban.

I'm saying there are a variety of factors that relate to crime but not the color of skin.

According to the FBI, crime is related to:

  • Population density and degree of urbanization.
  • Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
  • Stability of the population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
  • Modes of transportation and highway system.
  • Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
  • Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
  • Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
  • Climate.
  • Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
  • Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
  • Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
  • Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
  • Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2012/resources/variables-affecting-crime

You might consider that as of 1910, 90% of Blacks in the US lived in the South. After that time, a huge migration occurred driven by racism in the south and available jobs in the North. By 1970, about 50% of blacks in the US remained in the South. In the 60's and 70's drugs entered the scene creating an epidemic of drug usage in poor urban areas. In the 80's, we started the War on Drugs which lead to huge increases in the prison population of urban blacks. We doubled down in the 90's with Biden's terrible mandatory sentencing laws hitting black families the hardest. Now, urban black males were going to jail for low-level crimes. Yes, the did crime and deserve punishment. But, Biden didn't just punish black males, he punished black moms and black kids even more.

At the same time, consider that wealth, which does correlate strongly to positive educational outcomes, access to networks, and access to capital is generational. My grandfather (I'm white) had access to capital, commercial warehousing, and a network that his black peers did not. My grandfather started an HVAC company in Amarillo and was able to build a small amount of wealth which enabled my father to go to college. My father was able to get a good job and work his way into a CFO role which enabled me to go to Baylor. I was able to build more wealth because of my job and business ventures.

The black community in the 70's and even into the 80's did not have access to capital and housing like my grandfather had because of racism. No doubt, there are instances of black families that have access to generational wealth, but generally that is not the case across the community.

My answer is that - yes - crime does occur in black communities at a disproportionate rate. However, there is ALOT going on that has nothing to do with the color of skin.

To say that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime and leave it with no other explanation is plain uneducated racism.









Pretty much tracking with most of your post until the end. Data is just data. Obviously, correlation is not causation, but correlation is correlation. Nothing inherently racist in presenting data. You are part of the problem.


Thank you for making my point.

There is a problem in presenting data when you don't explain it or understand it.

For example, saying correlation is correlation is a lack of understanding of how data works. Did you know that ice cream sales and homicides in New York correlate very closely? But, you wouldn't say that eating more ice cream causes murder. There are other factors at play that explain the data.

I'm happy to stand by my stance that presenting a set of data as if it explains another set of data when it doesn't is uneducated. When it's done maliciously (which happens all of the time by activists and the media), it's a lie.

By the way, I have very nerdily used my QBA major from Baylor throughout my career and advise big companies about causal data in forecasting.




Your assertion that there is a lack of understanding is simply false and/or willfully arrogant. I'm confident that data is just data awaiting analysis and is not inherently racist or possessing any intrinsic negative value in and of itself. It's just a starting point. With a QBA, would have thought you'd grasp that correlation may imply causality, but that's the point of further research isn't it? FWIW, I had an undergrad concentration in Economics and was briefly (thankfully) a grad assistant to Ray Perryman en route to an MBA, not that it matters particularly.
That's what I tried to say! Just not as well this


You said it just as well and were dead on; just a little different perspective.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HashTag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:


Most them looked to be college aged (insert your own pronoun here)
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Edmond Bear said:

curtpenn said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Honestly Seattle is one of the cities that might be able to get away with limited police (for a while anyway)

The demographic breakdown of the city is:
White: 69.5%
Asian: 13.8%
.



I have to be reading this wrong because it sounds like you are trying to say that there aren't as many black people in Seattle so they do not need as many police.

That cannot be right. Help me out here.




I think you are reading it right. When blacks commit a much higher percentage of crime, despite being a much lower percentage of the overall population, it makes perfect sense.


Are you suggesting that the color of skin is relevant to likelihood to commit a crime? And, there is not something else that may be driving higher crime rates?

I'm asking because on it's face, your assertion is shockingly racist. We're not talking microaggression or cultural humility racist. We're talking white hood, Robert Byrd racist.

So, help me understand what you mean by this so other people don't get the wrong impression of what Redbrick or you are suggesting.




The color of someone's skin does not make them commit a crime.

Are you suggesting blacks do not commit a disproportionately high percentage of crime, in relation to the overall population? The statistics show that they clearly do. The fact that you appear to be denying that suggests that you are more interested in reassigning blame than anything else.

I live in a predominantly black community that has almost no crime. It is exurban, on the edge of a metro, and not urban.

I'm saying there are a variety of factors that relate to crime but not the color of skin.

According to the FBI, crime is related to:

  • Population density and degree of urbanization.
  • Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
  • Stability of the population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
  • Modes of transportation and highway system.
  • Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
  • Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
  • Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
  • Climate.
  • Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
  • Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
  • Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
  • Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
  • Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2012/resources/variables-affecting-crime

You might consider that as of 1910, 90% of Blacks in the US lived in the South. After that time, a huge migration occurred driven by racism in the south and available jobs in the North. By 1970, about 50% of blacks in the US remained in the South. In the 60's and 70's drugs entered the scene creating an epidemic of drug usage in poor urban areas. In the 80's, we started the War on Drugs which lead to huge increases in the prison population of urban blacks. We doubled down in the 90's with Biden's terrible mandatory sentencing laws hitting black families the hardest. Now, urban black males were going to jail for low-level crimes. Yes, the did crime and deserve punishment. But, Biden didn't just punish black males, he punished black moms and black kids even more.

At the same time, consider that wealth, which does correlate strongly to positive educational outcomes, access to networks, and access to capital is generational. My grandfather (I'm white) had access to capital, commercial warehousing, and a network that his black peers did not. My grandfather started an HVAC company in Amarillo and was able to build a small amount of wealth which enabled my father to go to college. My father was able to get a good job and work his way into a CFO role which enabled me to go to Baylor. I was able to build more wealth because of my job and business ventures.

The black community in the 70's and even into the 80's did not have access to capital and housing like my grandfather had because of racism. No doubt, there are instances of black families that have access to generational wealth, but generally that is not the case across the community.

My answer is that - yes - crime does occur in black communities at a disproportionate rate. However, there is ALOT going on that has nothing to do with the color of skin.

To say that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime and leave it with no other explanation is plain uneducated racism.









Pretty much tracking with most of your post until the end. Data is just data. Obviously, correlation is not causation, but correlation is correlation. Nothing inherently racist in presenting data. You are part of the problem.


Thank you for making my point.

There is a problem in presenting data when you don't explain it or understand it.

For example, saying correlation is correlation is a lack of understanding of how data works. Did you know that ice cream sales and homicides in New York correlate very closely? But, you wouldn't say that eating more ice cream causes murder. There are other factors at play that explain the data.

I'm happy to stand by my stance that presenting a set of data as if it explains another set of data when it doesn't is uneducated. When it's done maliciously (which happens all of the time by activists and the media), it's a lie.

By the way, I have very nerdily used my QBA major from Baylor throughout my career and advise big companies about causal data in forecasting.


There is affirmed correlation in behavioral statistics and trends. I don't like the fact that we use race as an identifier instead of the behavior actions that are the actual culprit. Skin pigment has little to do with it as opposed to environmental and cultural influences. But people will Inevitably gravitate to saying that those behaviors and influences are manifested at a higher level in a particular race or community. I could add some further context, but this topic probably deserves its own thread instead of distracting from this one.
Edmond Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

Edmond Bear said:

curtpenn said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Honestly Seattle is one of the cities that might be able to get away with limited police (for a while anyway)

The demographic breakdown of the city is:
White: 69.5%
Asian: 13.8%
.



I have to be reading this wrong because it sounds like you are trying to say that there aren't as many black people in Seattle so they do not need as many police.

That cannot be right. Help me out here.




I think you are reading it right. When blacks commit a much higher percentage of crime, despite being a much lower percentage of the overall population, it makes perfect sense.


Are you suggesting that the color of skin is relevant to likelihood to commit a crime? And, there is not something else that may be driving higher crime rates?

I'm asking because on it's face, your assertion is shockingly racist. We're not talking microaggression or cultural humility racist. We're talking white hood, Robert Byrd racist.

So, help me understand what you mean by this so other people don't get the wrong impression of what Redbrick or you are suggesting.




The color of someone's skin does not make them commit a crime.

Are you suggesting blacks do not commit a disproportionately high percentage of crime, in relation to the overall population? The statistics show that they clearly do. The fact that you appear to be denying that suggests that you are more interested in reassigning blame than anything else.

I live in a predominantly black community that has almost no crime. It is exurban, on the edge of a metro, and not urban.

I'm saying there are a variety of factors that relate to crime but not the color of skin.

According to the FBI, crime is related to:

  • Population density and degree of urbanization.
  • Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
  • Stability of the population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
  • Modes of transportation and highway system.
  • Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
  • Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
  • Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
  • Climate.
  • Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
  • Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
  • Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
  • Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
  • Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2012/resources/variables-affecting-crime

You might consider that as of 1910, 90% of Blacks in the US lived in the South. After that time, a huge migration occurred driven by racism in the south and available jobs in the North. By 1970, about 50% of blacks in the US remained in the South. In the 60's and 70's drugs entered the scene creating an epidemic of drug usage in poor urban areas. In the 80's, we started the War on Drugs which lead to huge increases in the prison population of urban blacks. We doubled down in the 90's with Biden's terrible mandatory sentencing laws hitting black families the hardest. Now, urban black males were going to jail for low-level crimes. Yes, the did crime and deserve punishment. But, Biden didn't just punish black males, he punished black moms and black kids even more.

At the same time, consider that wealth, which does correlate strongly to positive educational outcomes, access to networks, and access to capital is generational. My grandfather (I'm white) had access to capital, commercial warehousing, and a network that his black peers did not. My grandfather started an HVAC company in Amarillo and was able to build a small amount of wealth which enabled my father to go to college. My father was able to get a good job and work his way into a CFO role which enabled me to go to Baylor. I was able to build more wealth because of my job and business ventures.

The black community in the 70's and even into the 80's did not have access to capital and housing like my grandfather had because of racism. No doubt, there are instances of black families that have access to generational wealth, but generally that is not the case across the community.

My answer is that - yes - crime does occur in black communities at a disproportionate rate. However, there is ALOT going on that has nothing to do with the color of skin.

To say that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime and leave it with no other explanation is plain uneducated racism.









Pretty much tracking with most of your post until the end. Data is just data. Obviously, correlation is not causation, but correlation is correlation. Nothing inherently racist in presenting data. You are part of the problem.


Thank you for making my point.

There is a problem in presenting data when you don't explain it or understand it.

For example, saying correlation is correlation is a lack of understanding of how data works. Did you know that ice cream sales and homicides in New York correlate very closely? But, you wouldn't say that eating more ice cream causes murder. There are other factors at play that explain the data.

I'm happy to stand by my stance that presenting a set of data as if it explains another set of data when it doesn't is uneducated. When it's done maliciously (which happens all of the time by activists and the media), it's a lie.

By the way, I have very nerdily used my QBA major from Baylor throughout my career and advise big companies about causal data in forecasting.




Your assertion that there is a lack of understanding is simply false and/or willfully arrogant. I'm confident that data is just data awaiting analysis and is not inherently racist or possessing any intrinsic negative value in and of itself. It's just a starting point. With a QBA, would have thought you'd grasp that correlation may imply causality, but that's the point of further research isn't it? FWIW, I had an undergrad concentration in Economics and was briefly (thankfully) a grad assistant to Ray Perryman en route to an MBA, not that it matters particularly.


You are not reading my response correctly. I am saying presenting data with no explanation is the problem. It leaves an impression that correlation is causation.

You are right that data requires further research. However, it was presented without comment leaving a potentially false impression. Doing it intentionally to leave a false impression is clearly racist or uneducated. Based on your statements, I'm sure you would agree that is a problem.

HashTag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Edmond Bear said:

curtpenn said:

Edmond Bear said:

curtpenn said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Honestly Seattle is one of the cities that might be able to get away with limited police (for a while anyway)

The demographic breakdown of the city is:
White: 69.5%
Asian: 13.8%
.



I have to be reading this wrong because it sounds like you are trying to say that there aren't as many black people in Seattle so they do not need as many police.

That cannot be right. Help me out here.




I think you are reading it right. When blacks commit a much higher percentage of crime, despite being a much lower percentage of the overall population, it makes perfect sense.


Are you suggesting that the color of skin is relevant to likelihood to commit a crime? And, there is not something else that may be driving higher crime rates?

I'm asking because on it's face, your assertion is shockingly racist. We're not talking microaggression or cultural humility racist. We're talking white hood, Robert Byrd racist.

So, help me understand what you mean by this so other people don't get the wrong impression of what Redbrick or you are suggesting.




The color of someone's skin does not make them commit a crime.

Are you suggesting blacks do not commit a disproportionately high percentage of crime, in relation to the overall population? The statistics show that they clearly do. The fact that you appear to be denying that suggests that you are more interested in reassigning blame than anything else.

I live in a predominantly black community that has almost no crime. It is exurban, on the edge of a metro, and not urban.

I'm saying there are a variety of factors that relate to crime but not the color of skin.

According to the FBI, crime is related to:

  • Population density and degree of urbanization.
  • Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
  • Stability of the population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
  • Modes of transportation and highway system.
  • Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
  • Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
  • Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
  • Climate.
  • Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
  • Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
  • Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
  • Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
  • Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2012/resources/variables-affecting-crime

You might consider that as of 1910, 90% of Blacks in the US lived in the South. After that time, a huge migration occurred driven by racism in the south and available jobs in the North. By 1970, about 50% of blacks in the US remained in the South. In the 60's and 70's drugs entered the scene creating an epidemic of drug usage in poor urban areas. In the 80's, we started the War on Drugs which lead to huge increases in the prison population of urban blacks. We doubled down in the 90's with Biden's terrible mandatory sentencing laws hitting black families the hardest. Now, urban black males were going to jail for low-level crimes. Yes, the did crime and deserve punishment. But, Biden didn't just punish black males, he punished black moms and black kids even more.

At the same time, consider that wealth, which does correlate strongly to positive educational outcomes, access to networks, and access to capital is generational. My grandfather (I'm white) had access to capital, commercial warehousing, and a network that his black peers did not. My grandfather started an HVAC company in Amarillo and was able to build a small amount of wealth which enabled my father to go to college. My father was able to get a good job and work his way into a CFO role which enabled me to go to Baylor. I was able to build more wealth because of my job and business ventures.

The black community in the 70's and even into the 80's did not have access to capital and housing like my grandfather had because of racism. No doubt, there are instances of black families that have access to generational wealth, but generally that is not the case across the community.

My answer is that - yes - crime does occur in black communities at a disproportionate rate. However, there is ALOT going on that has nothing to do with the color of skin.

To say that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime and leave it with no other explanation is plain uneducated racism.









Pretty much tracking with most of your post until the end. Data is just data. Obviously, correlation is not causation, but correlation is correlation. Nothing inherently racist in presenting data. You are part of the problem.


Thank you for making my point.

There is a problem in presenting data when you don't explain it or understand it.

For example, saying correlation is correlation is a lack of understanding of how data works. Did you know that ice cream sales and homicides in New York correlate very closely? But, you wouldn't say that eating more ice cream causes murder. There are other factors at play that explain the data.

I'm happy to stand by my stance that presenting a set of data as if it explains another set of data when it doesn't is uneducated. When it's done maliciously (which happens all of the time by activists and the media), it's a lie.

By the way, I have very nerdily used my QBA major from Baylor throughout my career and advise big companies about causal data in forecasting.




Your assertion that there is a lack of understanding is simply false and/or willfully arrogant. I'm confident that data is just data awaiting analysis and is not inherently racist or possessing any intrinsic negative value in and of itself. It's just a starting point. With a QBA, would have thought you'd grasp that correlation may imply causality, but that's the point of further research isn't it? FWIW, I had an undergrad concentration in Economics and was briefly (thankfully) a grad assistant to Ray Perryman en route to an MBA, not that it matters particularly.


However, it was presented without comment leaving a potentially false impression. Doing it intentionally to leave a false impression is clearly racist or uneducated.

Don't you mean... "presenting data and then leaving it open for someone to arrive at their own conclusion, rather than the conclusion that I want them to have."
witchmo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Turn Seattle (and Portland, for that matter) over to the anarchists and let it go. They'll come around as "true believers" in the reason for having and enforcing law in any nation. Sometmes the really hard lessons are the ones we learn the best.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
witchmo said:

Turn Seattle (and Portland, for that matter) over to the anarchists and let it go. They'll come around as "true believers" in the reason for having and enforcing law in any nation. Sometmes the really hard lessons are the ones we learn the best.
Logical.

On the other hand, it's also pretty clear these groups are on a modified version of Maoism Stage 2. Maoism stage 2 is where the vanguard starts to attack outposts and isolated government officials, for the purpose of instilling fear AND showing the impotence of government, causing the public confidence in government to dwindle.

The twist that BLM and Antifa are doing is to use elaborately developed less-than-lethal tactics to inflict harm on law enforcement, hopefully to incite an over-reaction. If that doesn't happen, they still win because law enforcement has to stand and take the beatings, conditioning them (at best) to the defensive or (at worst) to simply withdraw and force political leadership to appease. We've seen local leadership (Democrat mayors/governors) actually default to the withdrawal and appeasement posture.

The great irony here is that those local leaders agree with the insurgent aims and are responding with appeasement in order to fuel chaos to make the federal government appear responsible for the unrest. Again.....Democrat militias burning their own constituencies with the acquiesence of local government in order to undermine legitimacy of the federal government. Seems clear Dems thought Trump (who they see as a slobbering neo-Nazi) would impulsively over-react and then fully own the unrest. That hasn't happened, and now we have food deserts in inner cities and Trump is the only public official trying to help. (He's out-playing them, for now.)

Antifa/BLM are clearly beyond Stage 1 (organizational mode). BLM has raised enormous amounts of money and has clearly infiltrated the entirety of opinion forming elites and receive virtually unanimous media and corporate support. And Antifa is delivering pallets of bricks and van-loads of out of state muscle to major metro areas all over the country, so they've clearly got their infrastructure built.

This will not go away after Nov 3rd. If Trump wins, they will escalate the offensive we see now. If Biden wins, then they will bring cancel culture to the suburbs. Hold on tight, fellas....Antifa and BLM are no longer dependent on Democrat donor networks. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

witchmo said:

Turn Seattle (and Portland, for that matter) over to the anarchists and let it go. They'll come around as "true believers" in the reason for having and enforcing law in any nation. Sometmes the really hard lessons are the ones we learn the best.
Logical.

On the other hand, it's also pretty clear these groups are on a modified version of Maoism Stage 2. Maoism stage 2 is where the vanguard starts to attack outposts and isolated government officials, for the purpose of instilling fear AND showing the impotence of government, causing the public confidence in government to dwindle.

The twist that BLM and Antifa are doing is to use elaborately developed less-than-lethal tactics to inflict harm on law enforcement, hopefully to incite an over-reaction. If that doesn't happen, they still win because law enforcement has to stand and take the beatings, conditioning them (at best) to the defensive or (at worst) to simply withdraw and force political leadership to appease. We've seen local leadership (Democrat mayors/governors) actually default to the withdrawal and appeasement posture.

The great irony here is that those local leaders agree with the insurgent aims and are responding with appeasement in order to fuel chaos to make the federal government appear responsible for the unrest. Again.....Democrat militias burning their own constituencies with the acquiesence of local government in order to undermine legitimacy of the federal government. Seems clear Dems thought Trump (who they see as a slobbering neo-Nazi) would impulsively over-react and then fully own the unrest. That hasn't happened, and now we have food deserts in inner cities and Trump is the only public official trying to help. (He's out-playing them, for now.)

Antifa/BLM are clearly beyond Stage 1 (organizational mode). BLM has raised enormous amounts of money and has clearly infiltrated the entirety of opinion forming elites and receive virtually unanimous media and corporate support. And Antifa is delivering pallets of bricks and van-loads of out of state muscle to major metro areas all over the country, so they've clearly got their infrastructure built.

This will not go away after Nov 3rd. If Trump wins, they will escalate the offensive we see now. If Biden wins, then they will bring cancel culture to the suburbs. Hold on tight, fellas....Antifa and BLM are no longer dependent on Democrat donor networks. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
Great overall post, whiterock. I do respectfully disagree with your last paragraph. If these terrorists groups continue the violence after November 3rd, they will be crushed like cockroaches. And it will happen quickly. Trump will no longer have to ride the political fence. He will kick ass and take names and turn some of the terrorists into martyrs. And most of America will cheer if and when it happens. I will be one of them.
MANSA - "Make America Not Scared Again!"
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Edmond Bear said:

curtpenn said:

Edmond Bear said:

curtpenn said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Honestly Seattle is one of the cities that might be able to get away with limited police (for a while anyway)

The demographic breakdown of the city is:
White: 69.5%
Asian: 13.8%
.



I have to be reading this wrong because it sounds like you are trying to say that there aren't as many black people in Seattle so they do not need as many police.

That cannot be right. Help me out here.




I think you are reading it right. When blacks commit a much higher percentage of crime, despite being a much lower percentage of the overall population, it makes perfect sense.


Are you suggesting that the color of skin is relevant to likelihood to commit a crime? And, there is not something else that may be driving higher crime rates?

I'm asking because on it's face, your assertion is shockingly racist. We're not talking microaggression or cultural humility racist. We're talking white hood, Robert Byrd racist.

So, help me understand what you mean by this so other people don't get the wrong impression of what Redbrick or you are suggesting.




The color of someone's skin does not make them commit a crime.

Are you suggesting blacks do not commit a disproportionately high percentage of crime, in relation to the overall population? The statistics show that they clearly do. The fact that you appear to be denying that suggests that you are more interested in reassigning blame than anything else.

I live in a predominantly black community that has almost no crime. It is exurban, on the edge of a metro, and not urban.

I'm saying there are a variety of factors that relate to crime but not the color of skin.

According to the FBI, crime is related to:

  • Population density and degree of urbanization.
  • Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
  • Stability of the population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
  • Modes of transportation and highway system.
  • Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
  • Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
  • Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
  • Climate.
  • Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
  • Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
  • Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
  • Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
  • Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2012/resources/variables-affecting-crime

You might consider that as of 1910, 90% of Blacks in the US lived in the South. After that time, a huge migration occurred driven by racism in the south and available jobs in the North. By 1970, about 50% of blacks in the US remained in the South. In the 60's and 70's drugs entered the scene creating an epidemic of drug usage in poor urban areas. In the 80's, we started the War on Drugs which lead to huge increases in the prison population of urban blacks. We doubled down in the 90's with Biden's terrible mandatory sentencing laws hitting black families the hardest. Now, urban black males were going to jail for low-level crimes. Yes, the did crime and deserve punishment. But, Biden didn't just punish black males, he punished black moms and black kids even more.

At the same time, consider that wealth, which does correlate strongly to positive educational outcomes, access to networks, and access to capital is generational. My grandfather (I'm white) had access to capital, commercial warehousing, and a network that his black peers did not. My grandfather started an HVAC company in Amarillo and was able to build a small amount of wealth which enabled my father to go to college. My father was able to get a good job and work his way into a CFO role which enabled me to go to Baylor. I was able to build more wealth because of my job and business ventures.

The black community in the 70's and even into the 80's did not have access to capital and housing like my grandfather had because of racism. No doubt, there are instances of black families that have access to generational wealth, but generally that is not the case across the community.

My answer is that - yes - crime does occur in black communities at a disproportionate rate. However, there is ALOT going on that has nothing to do with the color of skin.

To say that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime and leave it with no other explanation is plain uneducated racism.









Pretty much tracking with most of your post until the end. Data is just data. Obviously, correlation is not causation, but correlation is correlation. Nothing inherently racist in presenting data. You are part of the problem.


Thank you for making my point.

There is a problem in presenting data when you don't explain it or understand it.

For example, saying correlation is correlation is a lack of understanding of how data works. Did you know that ice cream sales and homicides in New York correlate very closely? But, you wouldn't say that eating more ice cream causes murder. There are other factors at play that explain the data.

I'm happy to stand by my stance that presenting a set of data as if it explains another set of data when it doesn't is uneducated. When it's done maliciously (which happens all of the time by activists and the media), it's a lie.

By the way, I have very nerdily used my QBA major from Baylor throughout my career and advise big companies about causal data in forecasting.




Your assertion that there is a lack of understanding is simply false and/or willfully arrogant. I'm confident that data is just data awaiting analysis and is not inherently racist or possessing any intrinsic negative value in and of itself. It's just a starting point. With a QBA, would have thought you'd grasp that correlation may imply causality, but that's the point of further research isn't it? FWIW, I had an undergrad concentration in Economics and was briefly (thankfully) a grad assistant to Ray Perryman en route to an MBA, not that it matters particularly.


You are not reading my response correctly. I am saying presenting data with no explanation is the problem. It leaves an impression that correlation is causation.

You are right that data requires further research. However, it was presented without comment leaving a potentially false impression. Doing it intentionally to leave a false impression is clearly racist or uneducated. Based on your statements, I'm sure you would agree that is a problem.




How does one know the motivation and why should that matter? You assume motivation matters. I don't particularly care. Further, I deny that it is inherently racist. It is either true, false, or yet to be determined.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Honestly Seattle is one of the cities that might be able to get away with limited police (for a while anyway)

The demographic breakdown of the city is:
White: 69.5%
Asian: 13.8%
.



I have to be reading this wrong because it sounds like you are trying to say that there aren't as many black people in Seattle so they do not need as many police.

That cannot be right. Help me out here.




I think you are reading it right. When blacks commit a much higher percentage of crime, despite being a much lower percentage of the overall population, it makes perfect sense.


Are you suggesting that the color of skin is relevant to likelihood to commit a crime? And, there is not something else that may be driving higher crime rates?

I'm asking because on it's face, your assertion is shockingly racist. We're not talking microaggression or cultural humility racist. We're talking white hood, Robert Byrd racist.

So, help me understand what you mean by this so other people don't get the wrong impression of what Redbrick or you are suggesting.


Yes, undoubtedly, statistics show the color of one's skin does indeed make one more likely to commit a crime. Statistics don't lie, and there is nothing inherently racist about them.

Now, the question then becomes, what are the factors that contribute to the statistics. And if the poster in question were arguing that being black makes you inherently more predisposed to committing crime, I would agree with you - that is indeed racist. I am not sure that is what he is saying, however. You pointed to a list of factors that I agree with which make crime more likely in the African American community - poverty being chief among them. But one thing you failed to identify is cultural factors.

So, the question then becomes: are there cultural factors that contribute to the disproportionate amount of crime in our black communities? We can't pin it all on poverty, as other impoverished racial groups don't have the high levels of crime that the African American community has. So, there may be other cultural factors as play, like the number of out of wedlock births in the African American community. Could those be due in part to a hip hop and rap culture that glorifies promiscuity (and violence)? Undoubtedly, the lack of two parent households has contributed to poverty - statistics show that. Could there also be things taught (or not taught) in these single parent households that contribute to a disproportionate amount of violence? Certainly.

I know it's a dog whistle anytime someone suggests cultural issues may contribute to the poverty and violence we see in the black community. But it shouldn't be. Statistics show that first generation Indian and Asian American communities do far better than Anglos in math and science, despite many of them being at or near the poverty demarcation. Is that because they are inherently predisposed by virtue of their skin color to do better on those subjects? Of course not, and suggesting as such would be racist. But it is undeniable that both of those cultures place much more of an emphasis on academic achievement in those areas than their Anglo American counterparts. Hell, second generation children of black immigrants have a higher median income than Anglo Americans, which would suggest it has nothing to do with the color of their skin, but much to do with culture, and particularly how the next generation is being raised. Pointing out these facts does not make one racist.
Robert Wilson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

witchmo said:

Turn Seattle (and Portland, for that matter) over to the anarchists and let it go. They'll come around as "true believers" in the reason for having and enforcing law in any nation. Sometmes the really hard lessons are the ones we learn the best.
Logical.

On the other hand, it's also pretty clear these groups are on a modified version of Maoism Stage 2. Maoism stage 2 is where the vanguard starts to attack outposts and isolated government officials, for the purpose of instilling fear AND showing the impotence of government, causing the public confidence in government to dwindle.

The twist that BLM and Antifa are doing is to use elaborately developed less-than-lethal tactics to inflict harm on law enforcement, hopefully to incite an over-reaction. If that doesn't happen, they still win because law enforcement has to stand and take the beatings, conditioning them (at best) to the defensive or (at worst) to simply withdraw and force political leadership to appease. We've seen local leadership (Democrat mayors/governors) actually default to the withdrawal and appeasement posture.

The great irony here is that those local leaders agree with the insurgent aims and are responding with appeasement in order to fuel chaos to make the federal government appear responsible for the unrest. Again.....Democrat militias burning their own constituencies with the acquiesence of local government in order to undermine legitimacy of the federal government. Seems clear Dems thought Trump (who they see as a slobbering neo-Nazi) would impulsively over-react and then fully own the unrest. That hasn't happened, and now we have food deserts in inner cities and Trump is the only public official trying to help. (He's out-playing them, for now.)

Antifa/BLM are clearly beyond Stage 1 (organizational mode). BLM has raised enormous amounts of money and has clearly infiltrated the entirety of opinion forming elites and receive virtually unanimous media and corporate support. And Antifa is delivering pallets of bricks and van-loads of out of state muscle to major metro areas all over the country, so they've clearly got their infrastructure built.

This will not go away after Nov 3rd. If Trump wins, they will escalate the offensive we see now. If Biden wins, then they will bring cancel culture to the suburbs. Hold on tight, fellas....Antifa and BLM are no longer dependent on Democrat donor networks. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
Without necessarily adopting everything you're saying there (and I'm not sure I understand it), I will say this. The actual rioters don't bother me so much. They could be shut down. And I come into contact with a very broad array of young people on a regular basis - both diverse in race and socioeconomics. I do not see them supporting this stuff, though they are very sympathetic to anything they see as racial injustice. In general, the attitudes I see in most high school and college aged kids I come into contact with makes me more hopeful.

What concerns me is the broad support that the more extremist movements appear to have among upper middle class middle-aged America (think soccer moms, gender notwithstanding) and corporate America. They aren't getting the cultural pushback that they should get.
Edmond Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Edmond Bear said:

SIC EM 94 said:

Edmond Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

Honestly Seattle is one of the cities that might be able to get away with limited police (for a while anyway)

The demographic breakdown of the city is:
White: 69.5%
Asian: 13.8%
.



I have to be reading this wrong because it sounds like you are trying to say that there aren't as many black people in Seattle so they do not need as many police.

That cannot be right. Help me out here.




I think you are reading it right. When blacks commit a much higher percentage of crime, despite being a much lower percentage of the overall population, it makes perfect sense.


Are you suggesting that the color of skin is relevant to likelihood to commit a crime? And, there is not something else that may be driving higher crime rates?

I'm asking because on it's face, your assertion is shockingly racist. We're not talking microaggression or cultural humility racist. We're talking white hood, Robert Byrd racist.

So, help me understand what you mean by this so other people don't get the wrong impression of what Redbrick or you are suggesting.


Yes, undoubtedly, statistics show the color of one's skin does indeed make one more likely to commit a crime. Statistics don't lie, and there is nothing inherently racist about them.

Now, the question then becomes, what are the factors that contribute to the statistics. And if the poster in question were arguing that being black makes you inherently more predisposed to committing crime, I would agree with you - that is indeed racist. I am not sure that is what he is saying, however. You pointed to a list of factors that I agree with which make crime more likely in the African American community - poverty being chief among them. But one thing you failed to identify is cultural factors.

So, the question then becomes: are there cultural factors that contribute to the disproportionate amount of crime in our black communities? We can't pin it all on poverty, as other impoverished racial groups don't have the high levels of crime that the African American community has. So, there may be other cultural factors as play, like the number of out of wedlock births in the African American community. Could those be due in part to a hip hop and rap culture that glorifies promiscuity (and violence)? Undoubtedly, the lack of two parent households has contributed to poverty - statistics show that. Could there also be things taught (or not taught) in these single parent households that contribute to a disproportionate amount of violence? Certainly.

I know it's a dog whistle anytime someone suggests cultural issues may contribute to the poverty and violence we see in the black community. But it shouldn't be. Statistics show that first generation Indian and Asian American communities do far better than Anglos in math and science, despite many of them being at or near the poverty demarcation. Is that because they are inherently predisposed by virtue of their skin color to do better on those subjects? Of course not, and suggesting as such would be racist. But it is undeniable that both of those cultures place much more of an emphasis on academic achievement in those areas than their Anglo American counterparts. Hell, second generation children of black immigrants have a higher median income than Anglo Americans, which would suggest it has nothing to do with the color of their skin, but much to do with culture, and particularly how the next generation is being raised. Pointing out these facts does not make one racist.


I don't disagree with any of this. My point is that there are other factors that influence the culture; hopelessness caused by environment, 1/3 of black males spending time in jail in part driven by Biden's law disproportionally impacting that community - contributing to absentee fathers; a certain abortion forward organization masquerading as a health clinic intentionally locating in urban black communities, ease of drug availability and usage...

People are definitely responsible for their own decisions but they are also influenced by a lot of challenging factors that a lot of people don't have to deal with.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

whiterock said:

witchmo said:

Turn Seattle (and Portland, for that matter) over to the anarchists and let it go. They'll come around as "true believers" in the reason for having and enforcing law in any nation. Sometmes the really hard lessons are the ones we learn the best.
Logical.

On the other hand, it's also pretty clear these groups are on a modified version of Maoism Stage 2. Maoism stage 2 is where the vanguard starts to attack outposts and isolated government officials, for the purpose of instilling fear AND showing the impotence of government, causing the public confidence in government to dwindle.

The twist that BLM and Antifa are doing is to use elaborately developed less-than-lethal tactics to inflict harm on law enforcement, hopefully to incite an over-reaction. If that doesn't happen, they still win because law enforcement has to stand and take the beatings, conditioning them (at best) to the defensive or (at worst) to simply withdraw and force political leadership to appease. We've seen local leadership (Democrat mayors/governors) actually default to the withdrawal and appeasement posture.

The great irony here is that those local leaders agree with the insurgent aims and are responding with appeasement in order to fuel chaos to make the federal government appear responsible for the unrest. Again.....Democrat militias burning their own constituencies with the acquiesence of local government in order to undermine legitimacy of the federal government. Seems clear Dems thought Trump (who they see as a slobbering neo-Nazi) would impulsively over-react and then fully own the unrest. That hasn't happened, and now we have food deserts in inner cities and Trump is the only public official trying to help. (He's out-playing them, for now.)

Antifa/BLM are clearly beyond Stage 1 (organizational mode). BLM has raised enormous amounts of money and has clearly infiltrated the entirety of opinion forming elites and receive virtually unanimous media and corporate support. And Antifa is delivering pallets of bricks and van-loads of out of state muscle to major metro areas all over the country, so they've clearly got their infrastructure built.

This will not go away after Nov 3rd. If Trump wins, they will escalate the offensive we see now. If Biden wins, then they will bring cancel culture to the suburbs. Hold on tight, fellas....Antifa and BLM are no longer dependent on Democrat donor networks. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
Great overall post, whiterock. I do respectfully disagree with your last paragraph. If these terrorists groups continue the violence after November 3rd, they will be crushed like cockroaches. And it will happen quickly. Trump will no longer have to ride the political fence. He will kick ass and take names and turn some of the terrorists into martyrs. And most of America will cheer if and when it happens. I will be one of them.
Hope you're right. But that assumes regular order....broad acceptance of his win. I could make a case it such would happen, and a case that such would not. More importantly, even if we do have regular order, he would have to execute on an extraordinary challenge, and any misstep or overreaction (or anything portray-able as such) would ignite his opponents and put us right back in the pressure cooker & loose forces seeking to prevent his inauguration. How exactly do we inaugurate a POTUS with BLM and Antifa trying to storm the proceedings?

In other words, if I was his advisor, I'd suggest he wait until after the inauguration to start crushing things. These Democrats have their chestnuts in a vise - they've gotten caught red-handed in the Russia Hoax, and their coalition is losing cohesion, so they're launching their militias to fire up millennials and minorities, but those militias (BLM/Antifa) are forces they only barely control. This situation is existential for them - they are frantic. So will they really give up if they lose on the 3rd? I fear they will double down, charge voter fraud everywhere....litigate everything. Mail-in vote will create much sympathy for them in the courts, and they do know how to manufacture votes after election day. Such a scenario would make Bush/Gore look tame.

We are not in regular order now. Dems do not trust regular order. That is the crux of the problem.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Robert Wilson said:

whiterock said:

witchmo said:

Turn Seattle (and Portland, for that matter) over to the anarchists and let it go. They'll come around as "true believers" in the reason for having and enforcing law in any nation. Sometmes the really hard lessons are the ones we learn the best.
Logical.

On the other hand, it's also pretty clear these groups are on a modified version of Maoism Stage 2. Maoism stage 2 is where the vanguard starts to attack outposts and isolated government officials, for the purpose of instilling fear AND showing the impotence of government, causing the public confidence in government to dwindle.

The twist that BLM and Antifa are doing is to use elaborately developed less-than-lethal tactics to inflict harm on law enforcement, hopefully to incite an over-reaction. If that doesn't happen, they still win because law enforcement has to stand and take the beatings, conditioning them (at best) to the defensive or (at worst) to simply withdraw and force political leadership to appease. We've seen local leadership (Democrat mayors/governors) actually default to the withdrawal and appeasement posture.

The great irony here is that those local leaders agree with the insurgent aims and are responding with appeasement in order to fuel chaos to make the federal government appear responsible for the unrest. Again.....Democrat militias burning their own constituencies with the acquiesence of local government in order to undermine legitimacy of the federal government. Seems clear Dems thought Trump (who they see as a slobbering neo-Nazi) would impulsively over-react and then fully own the unrest. That hasn't happened, and now we have food deserts in inner cities and Trump is the only public official trying to help. (He's out-playing them, for now.)

Antifa/BLM are clearly beyond Stage 1 (organizational mode). BLM has raised enormous amounts of money and has clearly infiltrated the entirety of opinion forming elites and receive virtually unanimous media and corporate support. And Antifa is delivering pallets of bricks and van-loads of out of state muscle to major metro areas all over the country, so they've clearly got their infrastructure built.

This will not go away after Nov 3rd. If Trump wins, they will escalate the offensive we see now. If Biden wins, then they will bring cancel culture to the suburbs. Hold on tight, fellas....Antifa and BLM are no longer dependent on Democrat donor networks. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
Without necessarily adopting everything you're saying there (and I'm not sure I understand it), I will say this. The actual rioters don't bother me so much. They could be shut down. And I come into contact with a very broad array of young people on a regular basis - both diverse in race and socioeconomics. I do not see them supporting this stuff, though they are very sympathetic to anything they see as racial injustice. In general, the attitudes I see in most high school and college aged kids I come into contact with makes me more hopeful.

What concerns me is the broad support that the more extremist movements appear to have among upper middle class middle-aged America (think soccer moms, gender notwithstanding) and corporate America. They aren't getting the cultural pushback that they should get.
that last paragraph is key.

Progressives own opinion forming elites - print media, news media, social media, search engines, intelligensia, the clerisy, etc.....and therefore they dominate the direction and parameters of acceptable debate. Corporate interests will reflexively appease the narrative. That leaves the critical mass of the country, which does not believe the narrative, with little to push back with. That's why Trump got hired.

To the extent The foregoing is correct, we can expect to see a red wave this fall. That is quite far from the narrative, but is America really going to reward Democrats for burning their own constituencies, to expiate Trump by bringing in an explicitly socialist agenda? Doesn't make sense to me. Demos have abandoned the middle and are hoping that progressive energy will carry them thru, but there aren't enough progressives to win a national election. But they get unending confirmation bias from the fact that they own all the media organs....they talk to one another all day long an cancel out the voices they don't like. So their shock, should they lose, will make 2016 look like a Chuck e CHeese party.
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.