Why are so many resilient to fact-based truth regarding black criminality?

Author: TWS1405

Posts

Total: 427
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Ehyeh
So true! Maybe genetics play a role
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
But you've previously said culture creates genetics, have you not?
 
Is this not circular reasoning? Culture makes genetics; genetics makes culture. You're clearly not making sense and are contradicting yourself through a chicken and egg belief. Where you constantly switch which one is which depending on the mood and direction of the conversation.

TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
I appreciate you taking the time & effort in engaging me in this discussion. 

One thing that stands out is that you repeatedly claim the data doesn't support my stated positions, and yet you provide absolutely NO citations to such data. 
You also repeated say there is no correlation yet provide no evidence to the contrary. Additionally, you assert that I am bias yet all I see is bias and pure subjective conjecture in both of your responses. Pure unsubstantiated opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less. 

Anyhow, I intend to give an appropriate response but am currently in the middle of a tech issue with an external HDD that I have to return to Best Buy. I will respond in kind, soon. 

Thanks
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Ehyeh
I didn't say culture. I said environment. Environment changes genetics. That is the crux of evolution. And we see it humans too. 
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Assuming what you say is correct, the environment changes genetics; genetics comes from the environment. Culture is part of one's environment. Although this isn't circular reasoning, how can you relate said cultures to being anything inflexible due to different genes (based on geography) when you've admitted peoples genes changes over their lifespan due to environment? Claiming a genetics argument before even knowing all the socio-economic distinctions is very assumptionary (based on what you've previously said). Any sincere researcher doesn't put an estimate on the likelihood of the IQ gap between black and white people being genetic or not, as putting an estimate simply isn't possible with the current data available. 

Even if we assume mental differences between average races exist, the mind is so vast and complex compared to every other study-able human organ; it is so willing to change (due to neuroplasticity). I'm unsure why you think you can deal with absolutes with it like you may be able to do with nose structure, bone density, or muscle composition between different races/ethnic groups. 

 
The Romans thought northern Europeans couldn't be civilised; they were proven wrong. Aristotle thought northern Europeans had lower natures than Greeks (politics). He was proven wrong. You too will be proven wrong, just like people with this philosophy always are. You'll be surprised.
 

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TWS1405
To date I have been permanently suspended from Instagram, Facebook and Twitter directly (and very specifically) due to posting fact-based truth backed by criminological (and other scientific) data that clearly demonstrates that black Americans, namely half of the roughly 6% of black male population in the US do in fact commit over 50% of the entire nation's murders and non-negligent manslaughters; and that they are also disproportionately represented among other violent crimes like robberies and rapes. And yet those on the left, brainwashed black Americans, white guilt liberals and democrats deny these truths. They twist and manipulate the news to fit their agenda in order to divide people by race, class and more poignantly by gender/sex.

Nearly every single day there is a video posted online across various social media platforms of some black person acting a fool, and intelligent blacks rip them apart for being just that, acting a fool. Former Officer Brandon Tatum is one of them. Larry Elder. You name it. In fact, I am impressed by the number of black American's who are posting their reactions on YouTube to what they see/hear from Thomas Sowell, one of the greatest scholars of this time, regarding black history across the world; but namely America since he too is an American and wanted to understand the plight of blacks on this side of the planet (North America, Central America, South America and the Caribbean).

Blacks, like Hispanics, are moving to the right and for good reason. Yet so many try to keep them under the Democratic bootheel. 

Thoughts for discussion?
Perhaps, "many," have gleaned from your attempt to qualify criminality by one's so-called "race" as a platitude, which attempts to ascribe a pathological property to the demographics who bear your concern.

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
1.The nubians came much after the original Egyptians, so they piggy-backed off of non-black innovation. They pulled a South Africa where blacks piggy-backed off of white innovation.

2.The Mali Empire was in direct contact with the outside world and so that is how they developed. Again sub-Saharan advanced societies never develop on their own, instead it took a massive volume of trade for the Mali Empire to grow. That and Ethiopia are the two only exceptions in ALL of sub-Saharan history.
Receipts?

3.That is preposterous. Your source is a literal "we wuz kangs" blog that tries to claim that minoan greece and ancient china was a black civilization. LMAO
Criticizing the source, but not the point.

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
have you considered running those same statistics specifically for "economic status" ?
How does economic status dictate moral content and responsibility?
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TWS1405
@Novice_II
factors or variables outside of racism
like what ?

"black culture" ?

why not just say "black culture" in the resolution ?

Yup. 

What is so-called "Black Culture"?

TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
My post is based on your words: “white guilt liberals and democrats deny these [crime stat] truths”. That’s the premise of the post title, and the central theme of the op. That is indeed your premise - both explicit and implicit, your reply here is underpinned by it, your original post stated it. And it’s inherently untrue as I outlined.

Wrong.

Title of the Forum Posting: Why are so many resilient to fact-based truth regarding black criminality?

“…due to posting fact-based truth backed by criminological (and other scientific) data that clearly demonstrates that black Americans, namely half of the roughly 6% of black male population in the US do in fact commit over 50% of the entire nation's murders and non-negligent manslaughters; and that they are also disproportionately represented among other violent crimes like robberies and rapes. And yet those on the left, brainwashed black Americans, white guilt liberals and democrats deny these truths. “
 
That is what I said, not what you asserted, that [they] “materially objected to murder and violent crime rate…”
 
[They] deny that those truths as being remotely attributable to black Americans, not that [they] are “materially objecting to the murder and violent crime rate” in and of itself. Big difference. So as I said, you began with a false premise on what you thought I said/meant and ended with a false conclusion. And if memory serves, I am not the only one who called you out for same.


 
Data doesn’t generally lie. Data is just data. Interpretation of the data, the choice of datasets you include, the conclusions and causal links inferred from them, and the value judgements you make, and the tone you use when conveying them - those lie. Those can lie an awful lot.


Here is your problem, I have not disclosed any dataset, source of data, etc. for you to evaluate to come to this patently fallacious assertion. Tone? Didn’t know you could “hear” words typed on a screen. Value judgments? Define. I do not lie. I never get involved let alone make any initial position that I cannot back up. I can back it up. I have all the criminological and scholarly resources at my fingertips. And no, I am not talking about the internet. I’ve kept every book used getting my criminology and criminal justice degree, and I have amassed a personal library of over 1200 books, much of which cover psychology, racial issues, sociology, juvenile delinquency, and black American history. I [know] what I am talking about; and I only divulge information that I deem necessary at the time. I am not going to show all my cards before not seeing any of yours.
 

And this is the issue, you seem to be unable to draw a distinction between the data you are using, and all the things you’re piling onto it. Your argument here appears to treat those both as the same thing - that if the data is accurate, then your speculative assertions about cause, the implicit value judgements you appear to be baking in with all the negative tone and language - are also accurate and valid. They are not.


Negative tone and language? Please. Grow up. You cannot “hear” tone, and my language is straight forward. Grow thicker skin.
 
When I look at raw data, I also juxtapose it to other factors. Other knowledge that I possess having researched, read, and kept myself informed about black American history and the criminality that affects them intraracially as well as how it affects others interracially. A “distinction” that you clearly are not comprehending. That there is more that has not been given and you’re just assuming I know nothing more than the little bit I give you.
 

Sure, the data is largely - but not entirely accurate - no one contests that a great deal. But what you’re concluding from it, the subtle negative blame laden language, and other subtleties - that’s all from you, not from the data.
 

No, it is from the data. If a black man commits a crime and both the forensics and the witness affirm that, then clearly, they did it. They are to blame. Period. And I do not care what language you or anyone else likes or doesn’t like in giving that fact-based reality of the data. I am not going to sugarcoat the reality of the data given for anyone. Facts don’t care about your feelings. Never have, never will.
 

Racism, broadly speaking, is the belief or opinion that one race is inferior to another in some respect.
 

I can accept that as the basic information of racism.
 

White supremacy, broadly speaking, is where racism is used in some fashion to justify specific racist policy and dominance of white people. That’s my own words, it doesn’t catch everything - but it’s what I mean when I am talking about racism and white supremacy in this context.
 

This definition I cannot accept how worded, though close, I want to clarify. According to Merriam-Webster, it is “the belief that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races;” and “the social, economic, and political systems that collectively enable white people to maintain power over people of other races.”
 

Now, your issue is the same as before - you keep conflating the validity of data with the validity of the opinions you inelegantly draw from it.
 

Again, I have not given you enough of my objective opinion to draw this conclusion. Moreover, again, I do not care how elegantly or inelegantly you perceive my choice of wording. I do not sugarcoat, I do not beat around the bush, and I certainly do not acquiesce to the demands of those who feel too much and think too little.
 
Also, it doesn’t matter how many times you claim I am conflating X Y and Z; it won’t make it any truer. Especially without any object fact based data substantiating that claim.


In this respect, you can indeed show the “truth” of some statistic or data point - and draw racist or white supremacist conclusions from it by injecting a bunch of value inferences that don’t appear in that data point.
 

No, you cannot draw racist or white supremacist conclusions from fact-based truths. Truth does NOT equal racism or white supremacy. It is common knowledge that fatherlessness is a root cause of criminality among young black men. Moreover, the FBI UCR, DOJ, BJS, and NCVS conclusively show that black males commit over 50% of the entire nation’s murders and non-negligent manslaughter cases. That’s just a fact, and it makes no difference how it is said and with what word choices, it doesn’t change the truth of that fact. And that fact is neither racist nor a matter of white supremacy.
 

TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
For example, when you suggest black people “don’t have pride any more”, that blacks no longer want to succeed; or implying that the current plight is down to their own choice - that’s not supported at all by the data. Again, that’s all you. That sort of negative tone, and language is drawing subtle broad inferences, and implying broad value or moral judgements
 

See, here is a perfect example where you claim my position is not supported by the data without giving me any data to the contrary. Well, as one academically trained in criminology, I assure you the data does support my position. Studies go back to the 80s on this matter, and many blacks as of late have been openly speaking about these truths.
 
 
I could go on and on, in addition to numerous books to suggest as well. Many of which I have in my personal library.
 

ME: And nowhere in any proposition or follow-up comment have I asserted there is some genetic factor involved making blacks lesser than whites, or any other race.
 
If you pay attention. I am laying out options; not specifically accusing you of holding one position or other. The choices really are an issue of believing that there is an innate cause or an external cause: and with the former, genetics is typically all there is, whether you like it or not.
 

I never disagreed with innate causes being genetic, as most behavior is external, to include intertwined innate and external behaviors. Like serving one’s id, a desire to gratify oneself, will result in them making a choice of how they achieve that gratification. But the direction they take in choosing that gratification is more external (environmental) than internal.
 
We all know murder is wrong and there are a lot of innate factors that keep most of us from committing it; but the external (environmental) factors can take over and override those innate inhibitions, which makes killing easier for criminals.
 

For example, given what we know of human genetics, there  is every reason to expect that white people were in the exact reversed positions; with whites having been enslaved, a black racist government that enacted racist laws, lynching of whites, segregation etc, all in identical conditions - we’d be talking about white violent crime in this thread.
 

No, we would not. You clearly do not know much about slavery, historically speaking that is.
 
 
There are no historical references to whites bitching and moaning about their enslavement by blacks as blacks in America to present day. In fact, blacks in the Caribbean and South America do not act/behave as black American’s do precisely because they do not have the level of freedoms and luxuries that blacks in America have. It is why blacks from Africa and other nations WANT to come to America. And those that do, succeed better than native born blacks.
 

That’s kind of the point I’m making; we all have  to take individual responsibility for our actions, we all have to be held properly accountable for our misdeeds; but it is an absolute and undeniable fact that our thinking, behaviour and our decision making are hugely influenced and shaped by external factors outside our control. When there are trends in external factors - there are associated trends in the population.
 

My framing of the potential causes is to highlight hie various positions end up falling down into types particular claims, that end up falling down onto personal prejudice. Many individuals attempt to hide this inherent prejudice through making higher level or indirect claims that obfuscate the inherent basis for the position: when politicians do it, for example, it’s called a dog whistle.
 

I have no prejudices. I love and appreciate all good law-abiding emotionally and intellectually intelligent people equally; and I hate and loath all unlawful and grossly ignorant people equally.
 

Pride, self respect, determination; are personal attributes associated with positive value. Self-respect, determination, pride - that doesn’t come from data - its not practically possible to measure the subjective nature of things like self-respect in broad population statistics.

Here is an example I alluded to towards the beginning of this response. When I engage in these discussions I juxtapose sociology, psychology, social-psychology, juvenile psychology, criminology, and raw data sources (e.g., FBI UCR, DOJ, BJS, NCVS, etc.).
 

No, this is you looking at the data and inferring - due to your own biases and prejudice - a negative value trait in a group of people. It involves asserting broad stereotypes about parents, and individuals, their motivations (or lack thereof) that are broadly negative and again, not supported by the data.
 

You do not know me, my education, my professional experiences, nada. You have absolutely zero frame of reference to come to this asinine absurd position on me, my person, and what you “think” my biases and prejudices are. On that note, I do not care what you think, feel, or believe. The only thing that matters is what you can prove. And so far, you haven’t proven a lick of anything. You just keep claiming the data doesn’t support my positions without citing any credible sources that prove me wrong, as you claim.
 

If people are painting you as racist for statements like this, that’s why - it’s not rejecting the data, it’s rejecting your implicit broad value statements.
 

No. It is just because they are ignorant and make asinine claims that I am wrong without substantiating that claim. Sort of like what you have been doing.


TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
Perhaps, "many," have gleaned from your attempt to qualify criminality by one's so-called "race" as a platitude, which attempts to ascribe a pathological property to the demographics who bear your concern.


I have not tried to qualify any criminality "by one's so-called 'race'". 

All I have plainly tried to do is dispel the fake narrative that whites and cops are the problem in society, not blacks (or other persons of color). 
The data across all interrelated relative areas, clearly demonstrate black males are far more of a problem for America than what the left claims.
And when I present the data that proves them wrong, they refuse to accept such data could be attributable to blacks in America, falsely claiming it whites and then calling me a racist for even putting for that fact-based truth. When conservative blacks bring forth the same positions I have, they get called names and accused of being in black face for white supremacy. It's a joke. 
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
What is so-called "Black Culture"?

Clearly you didn't click the link and educate yourself. *sigh*
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TWS1405
There’s two elements to my argument that the data doesn’t support your conclusions.

The first is that you’re drawing causal conclusions, and making a number of value statements that aren’t supported by the data you’re holding up; and your making broad value judgements that clearly aren’t part of the data sets you use. This is 95% of my argument above, and is pointing errors in your logical errors on your argument and reasoning.  As such, for these, data citations aren’t relevant.

I do cite specific statistics (but don’t link a source) that whites also have access to the same welfare, that mass incarceration began in the mid 1970s, crime rates have massive dropped since the 90s, that black out of wedlock births are at a peak of 72% today but wasn’t in 1975, and that white out of wedlock births are at about the same level today as blacks in the late 1960s. These should be relatively uncontroversial pieces of data, no? 

I figured that since you didn’t cite any specific data links yourself, that we would rely on self googling to confirm or reject any specific data we weren’t sure about.

By all means let me know which piece of data I mentioned which you believe is not true, or not accurate. I’m assuming that you must have specific concerns about a piece data I mentioned- because given the title of this thread it would be ironic if you were found to rejecting valid, factual data.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TWS1405
I have not tried to qualify any criminality "by one's so-called 'race'". 
This:

Why are so many resilient to fact-based truth regarding black criminality?
And this:

The data across all interrelated relative areas, clearly demonstrate black males are far more of a problem for America than what the left claims.
would suggest otherwise.

And when I present the data that proves them wrong, they refuse to accept such data could be attributable to blacks in America,
You're only reinforcing my previous point:

Perhaps, "many," have gleaned from your attempt to qualify criminality by one's so-called "race" as a platitude, which attempts to ascribe a pathological property to the demographics who bear your concern.

falsely claiming it whites and then calling me a racist for even putting for that fact-based truth.
Your being a racist or not is irrelevant. The conclusions you render from your interpretations of "the data" is relevant. That is the focus of my scrutiny.

When conservative blacks bring forth the same positions I have, they get called names and accused of being in black face for white supremacy. It's a joke. 
What does this have to do with anything?

Clearly you didn't click the link and educate yourself. *sigh*
Clearly, I did. I'm well aware of Thomas Sowell--having written several papers on his findings while I was at university--and I actually do own a copy of Black Rednecks and White Liberals. But I did not ask Thomas Sowell what "black culture" was. I asked you, since you're both the author of this thread and the instigator of the subject's discussion. In your words, what is "black culture"?



TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
There are broad correlations in unemployment, poverty, welfare, incarceration rates, and a few others, with rise of single family homes. That’s the data. Your reply is inferring causation from that correlation, and then completely speculating an underlying cause; it’s not even a particularly good inference; given man in the house rules (which forced unwed women to not have a man in the house) were state level, and ended in 68; and that the welfare rules otherwise didn’t promote fatherlessness as much as promoting not getting married (rules for married couples, and rules for unmarried or unrelated individuals were different), and would not necessarily have had little impact on people already unwed. So this assessment seems largely speculative, driven by correlation = causation.
 

The “inference” can be one, two, three or a variety of variables; it doesn’t need to be just one or all of them. It depends on the outcome that must be extrapolated in order to look backwards towards the root cause. And that root cause more often than not starts with the well documented 72% (plus) out of wedlock birth rates among black girls and women.
 
“Children who don’t live with their biological fathers are at higher risk for such social pathologies as out-of-wedlock pregnancies, school truancy and drop-outs, and criminality. The majority of juvenile delinquents and adult prisoners grew up in female-headed households. Fatherless children are much more likely to suffer physical abuse, including sexual, because of the men their mothers bring home.”
 
“One man even brings up the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s report (published in 1965) that warned of the female-headed household crisis among blacks. Unfortunately, an early form of what would become insidious political correctness shut him down for publishing inconvenient facts.”
 
- ’72 Percent’ Documentary on Fatherless Black Children – Black Community News
 

 
Ignoring all the huge variety of specific economic factors here; it doesn’t even make sense with respect to what you said mere sentences before:
 
You stated, that black people in the 1960s had strong families, had pride, wanted to be successful, and had determination - despite being victims of racism; but this assessment is very much at odds with the suggestion that these exact same people would happily give up, break up their families, and live on handouts when offered. So it seems your argument doesn’t fully believe in the positive attributes you assigned to blacks in the 1960s; given that your follow up implies they leapt at the opportunity for handouts, and instead serve only to imply negative attributes in blacks today.
 

Strawman fallacy. That is not what I said or implied. Never said the “same people,” but inferred subsequent generations. I mean really…
 
 

I can follow up, the same welfare was also available to whites up for arguably longer; who also had stable families structure - one set of stable families with pride and determination deteriorate into mass incarceration because of welfare but the others didn’t?
 


The difference is the culture. Any measure of success among those in the black community was frowned upon. Ever hear the phrase, “acting white”?
 
“Go into any inner-city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach kids to learn.They know that parents have to parent, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.”
—Barack Obama, Keynote Address, Democratic National Convention, 2004
 

 
These sort of statistical comparison shows that the data you’re using is incomplete given the conclusion - or your conclusion is inherently based on an inherent bias that somehow one is better at dealing with things than others.
 


What data, exactly, am I using. Since I flat out gave no direct cited source, what crystal ball are you using to determine what my data is without even citing that data, mine or yours to the contrary! Without either data source, you cannot claim I am being bias.
 


You’re right - crack is a drug, using drugs is a choice. However - social trends are clear, poverty and economic factors are indeed associated with high level of drug use, and substance abuse - so redlining, and racial inequality raised unemployment and increases poverty disproportionately in black communities; that alone puts those communities at higher risk for substance abuse.
 


So, if social trends make jumping off a cliff popular, is everyone going to choose to do it? I believe the Tide Pod challenge proves how stupid some people can be, but they are in the minority. Not everyone in poverty has such low standards that they would just jump at the chance to choose ingesting a highly addictive drug that will destroy their life. Redlining doesn’t equal holding a gun to someone’s head and forcing them to choose to ingest an illegal drug. Racial inequality doesn’t hold a gun to anyone’s head forcing them to choose to ingest an illegal drug. So on and so forth.
 
 

When a new, super cheap drug, comes out on the market, and is sold to them; it’s reasonable to expect areas with higher unemployment and economic hardship to be worst affected.
 


No, that is not a reasonable expectation. What is are the low standards some people have for themselves and others that makes the choice for them easier to consume illegal drugs.
 
 
 

Imagine, if instead of that; opioid abuse is viewed as a crime problem, painted as criminals that were damaging the country - laws were changed to make inordinately steep penalties for possession or supply of opioids were meted out, and three strikes policy means that you could go to prison for decades for it. In locales with high poverty and high drug use - this would destroy families, increase poverty more, increase police involvement, increase arrests, and lead to overwhelming mass incarceration - for a health problem.
 


The choice to get involved with opioids criminally, like any other illicit drug, is a personal choice regardless of the circumstances. Period. SES factors are no excuse for a personal decision.
 

 
 
ME: “Mass incarceration was a direct result of the 72% out of wedlock birth rates leading to the home to prison pipeline. The family structure was already collapsed prior to incarceration due to the lack of a nuclear family.
 
Mass incarceration began in the mid 1970s, this is when incarceration went from stable, and began increasing. The 72% out of wedlock number has only been hit in the last decade. Kids born out of wedlock did get a bit worse, but actually collapsed in the mid 1970s, coinciding with mass incarceration and obviously. The wedlock birthrates for all races today are at all time lows -
 


Wrong. The 72% began a lot further back than 2012. Out of wedlock birth rates rose the most between the 1970s and 1980s. They are NOT at their all-time lows either. You need to educate yourself more on this serious factor affecting black girls and women.
 
An analysis of out-of-wedlock births in the United States (brookings.edu)
 
 


This is what I mean by cherry picking - you’re only using the data that confirms the prejudicial conclusion you wish to make; when you look more broadly at wider data to support the correlation - the correlation falls apart.
 


AND you are still wrong. I do not cherry pick anything. I use multiple sources together to make an objectively fact based point. And you have yet to prove I am wrong with any cited data in rebuttal, just your subjective opinion.
 

 
Given that you’ve blamed the problem on “lbj”, black mothers wedding the government the collapse of the black nuclear family - despite no causal correlation - you’re now going for black culture. This doesn’t seem to be a coherent position, more than you’re flitting around a bunch of things that you haven’t really thought through.
 


 
Which black culture exactly - can you define and measure it? starting when and where? Can you correlate crime trends with the rise and prevalence of black culture - what statistics support this claim? Given that you’re claiming all this started happening before mass incarceration - before any of what is often pointed to as “black culture” was around, and that violent crime rates have halved despite there being some growth (especially in media and social media), of various black cultures that are widely criticized. This doesn’t really correlate, and is not something fact based.
 

ME - Also, there is no racial skew in crime statistics.
This is factually untrue - ironic given that this post is about rejection of facts.
 


And yet you failed to prove it untrue.
 

 
Of the top of my head…
 

 
Don’t care what’s off the top of your head, what you think, feel or believe. The only thing that matters is what you can prove. And thus far, you really haven’t proven a damn thing.
 
 

 
As shown, you’ve used sloppy logic, poor correlations, and partial cherry picked data sets to draw conclusion that you then used to make a huge number of broad value statements about a given race that is not - at any point - clearly supported by any data you presented.
 


Again, you have not shown/proven a damn thing. It’s all subjective conjecture on your part.
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
There’s two elements to my argument that the data doesn’t support your conclusions.

The first is that you’re drawing causal conclusions, and making a number of value statements that aren’t supported by the data you’re holding up; and your making broad value judgements that clearly aren’t part of the data sets you use. This is 95% of my argument above, and is pointing errors in your logical errors on your argument and reasoning.  As such, for these, data citations aren’t relevant.
You keep claiming that, still doesn't make it any truer. 
Again, I have given you NO DATA SETS! None!
I've made NO logical errors or faulty reasoning. 
Keep claiming it, until you prove it, still remains unproven. 


I do cite specific statistics (but don’t link a source) that whites also have access to the same welfare, that mass incarceration began in the mid 1970s, crime rates have massive dropped since the 90s, that black out of wedlock births are at a peak of 72% today but wasn’t in 1975, and that white out of wedlock births are at about the same level today as blacks in the late 1960s. These should be relatively uncontroversial pieces of data, no? 
Those are NOT "statistics," that is opinion based off something you read and try to recollect. 



TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
@TWS1405
I have not tried to qualify any criminality "by one's so-called 'race'". 
This:

Why are so many resilient to fact-based truth regarding black criminality?

Black is the adjective/descriptor for the noun, criminality. It identifies the nature of the topic I want to cover, but it in no way infers directly or indirectly that I am stating as any measure of fact-based evidence that blacks, as a race, in and of themselves, are racially prone to criminality. I am merely identifying what part of the population I want to address regarding criminality that America has to do deal with. I could have just as easily said white criminality, Asian criminality...makes no difference, as it merely addresses a specific part of the population (the adjective) that I want to discuss regarding a measure of criminality (the noun).


And this:

The data across all interrelated relative areas, clearly demonstrate black males are far more of a problem for America than what the left claims.
would suggest otherwise.

Still the same. Black males are not [the] black race. They are a demographic segment with a high level of violent criminality that surpasses other demographic segments. I cannot just say some males are more violent than other males. Makes no more sense than putting out an APB for a male in their mid-age at about 5-6' tall with a shaved head. Well, okay. What specific age. What clothing. But more importantly, what is the adjective describing their racial demographic.  


And when I present the data that proves them wrong, they refuse to accept such data could be attributable to blacks in America,
You're only reinforcing my previous point:

No, I am not. Since the very specific crimes I have/am addressing are specific to a subset of the population, that subset needs to be described just like a suspect in an APB needs to be described. The data is broken down by racial demographic descriptors in order to separate the criminological data into their respective subsets to show who is doing what and to whom. 


falsely claiming it whites and then calling me a racist for even putting for that fact-based truth.
Your being a racist or not is irrelevant. The conclusions you render from your interpretations of "the data" is relevant. That is the focus of my scrutiny.

Nothing I have said in regard to what the criminological data shows as to who is doing what and to whom in greater numbers than others is all factually accurate. No one has proven otherwise. 

When conservative blacks bring forth the same positions I have, they get called names and accused of being in black face for white supremacy. It's a joke. 
What does this have to do with anything?

It has a lot to do with everything whereas the point I am making is concerned. It matters not where the factual information comes from, white or black, the left simply refuses to accept the reality that the crime statistics provided are not attributable to black males in the population for which those numbers are clearly representative thereof. It's denialism. It's intellectual cowardice. 

Clearly you didn't click the link and educate yourself. *sigh*
Clearly, I did. I'm well aware of Thomas Sowell--having written several papers on his findings while I was at university--and I actually do own a copy of Black Rednecks and White Liberals. But I did not ask Thomas Sowell what "black culture" was. I asked you, since you're both the author of this thread and the instigator of the subject's discussion. In your words, what is "black culture"?

Well, if I am citing Sowell that means I agree with his definition and elaboration on that definition of black culture harming some within the black community. I do not see the need to mince words or paraphrase something he already said when you can hear it for yourself. And according to you, you are already well aware of his definition. So why do I need to repeat him or Ben Shapiro or John McWhorter or Larry Elder or numerous others who have clearly identified and described the black culture harming blacks in the past to present day. 


Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TWS1405
I have to post this one first, as it’s too funny not to:

“Well, as one academically trained in criminology”

“Other knowledge that I possess having researched, read, and kept myself informed about black American history “

“I have all the criminological and scholarly resources at my fingertips”

“I never get involved let alone make any initial position that I cannot back up. I can back it up. I have all the criminological and scholarly resources at my fingertips. And no, I am not talking about the internet. I’ve kept every book used getting my criminology and criminal justice degree, and I have amassed a personal library of over 1200 books, much of which cover psychology, racial issues, sociology, juvenile delinquency, and black American history. I [know] what I am talking about; and I only divulge information that I deem necessary at the time. I am not going to show all my cards before not seeing any of yours.”
And finally, the claim:
I assure you the data does support my position. Studies go back to the 80s on this matter, and many blacks as of late have been openly speaking about these truths.

Let’s look at your links, provided as data.

So let’s be clear - you said in the civil rights era, blacks people had determination and pride. Inferring that they did not now. So let’s review your links that you claim show your position. Do they show the values of pride in 1960, and compare them to now, or at compare times?

Self-Perceptions of Black Americans: Self-Esteem and Personal Efficacy on JSTOR

Self esteem high, and self efficacy lower - one data point in 1988 - does not support your argument. Contradicts pride (self Esteem), and doesn’t provide a comparator for determination. You probably didn’t read this one.

The Legacy of Self-hatred in the Black Community - The Black Detour

Blog post opinion piece that you didn’t read - no mention of pride or determination; not about “self hate” as in hating ones self - but “hating one’s own kind”. Doesn’t support your point; the opinion traces causes of black hatred of other blacks to white racism.

Restoring self esteem and black pride - Consciousness.co.za Magazine
Another magazine opinion piece - not data. Traces cause of lack of self esteem to generational racism. You clearly didn’t even read this: 

“I recently asked myself what steps we were taking as Africans to restore the self esteem of our people. These are people who’ve dealt with racism, western imperialism and marginalization; being told that they are less off and undeserving of proper human status.”


Why I hate being a black man | Orville Lloyd Douglas | The Guardian

Another opinion piece. Not data. Not about pride in the sense of pride in one self, but not liking how he is perceived. Traces hate about how they are viewed being black to perception of blackness of other people and continuing racism.

You clearly didn’t read this either:

“Who would want to have this dark skin, broad nose, large thick lips, and wake up in the morning being despised by the rest of the world?”


Charles Barkley and the Plague of 'Unintelligent' Blacks - The Atlantic

Opinion piece. Not data. Not about pride. Not really about pride. I don’t think you read it.

It also includes this hugely ironic gem:

“This version of history is a mistake. It allows the Charles Barkleys of the world and the racists who undoubtedly will approvingly quote him to pretend that they are exposing some heretofore arcane bit of knowledge

Black men, we need to acknowledge that we are the problem. Let's talk toxic masculinity. - The Black Youth Project

This is not about pride or determinism but toxic masculinity. It’s an opinion piece - not data. And you again, clearly did not read it:

“I understand what we are taught at such a young age because I was taught it as well. Black men are told that we are meant to be intelligent. We are told to defend ourselves at all costs. We are told to be strong in our rationale, that compromise is synonymous to surrendering, and empathy equates to being weak. This kind of toxic thinking has limited Black men to a level of closed-mindedness and insecurity”

These links were shared by you - to support your position on a claim you made about blacks in the 1960s.

You cite one actual study, which shows high self esteem (disproving your claim about pride), and giving no comparison to anything in the 60s.

You then cite 5 opinion pieces that are not data that have nothing to do what you’re trying to show none of which you can have read, as none of them really support the point on pride and determinism in black populations your trying to make, 4 of them offer absolutely brutal take downs on the impact on daily white racism on the overall psychii of black people and how they view their own blackness, and trace they’re issues they’re talking about to perception of blackness by others.

1 of which even calling out people enthusiastically citing Charles Barkley to support racial points they want to make - I can’t even make this up.


This sourcing, and these links are so objectively terrible in supporting your point and argument, that I call absolute bullshit on you being a trained anything, there is absolutely no way, that any professional with experience in dealing with citations and information sourcing to support an argument would or could ever do such comprehensively bad job in citing data. 

The idea that you know your stuff, a point you feel compelled to point out comically often - in lieu of actually showing the data you claim and continually tell me that you won’t provide all your source  because reasons? - is laughable.

No professional would claim they have data to support their position, then cite a single study from 88, that kinda half has one data point, then four opinion pieces that completely obliterate their own position; and then quote one source that explicitly calls our people quoting that one source.

This is objectively hilarious.

“I could go on and on, in addition to numerous books to suggest as well. Many of which I have in my personal library.”

You sound like Captain Raymond Holt talking about his wife. No one who has numerous books in their library and argues online talks about the books in their library, they cite them.

These claims of having data and sources, and being trained is clearly made up nonsense.
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
You know what's truly comical, you thinking you know what you are talking about. 
It is to you who is cherry-picking. Reading comprehension matters.

I mean really...
Quoting out of context. 
False comparisons. 
Strawman arguments. 
Numerous genetic fallacies. 
Argument from Repetition.
Bad reason fallacy. 
Shotgun Argumentation all abound. 

It's late. I will debunk your nonsense later.

PS. Again, not showing you all my cards up front. The books come later/next. 
And I do not care what you believe. Your belief about my degree and library is not a requisite here. All good things...come to those who wait. 
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TWS1405
Black is the adjective/descriptor for the noun, criminality. It identifies the nature of the topic I want to cover, but it in no way infers directly or indirectly that I am stating as any measure of fact-based evidence that blacks, as a race, in and of themselves, are racially prone to criminality. I am merely identifying what part of the population I want to address regarding criminality that America has to do deal with.
Why are you parsing criminality among demographics if the identifier you've chosen to create distinction, i.e. so-called "race," provides no particular qualification? Then what is your point?

I could have just as easily said white criminality, Asian criminality...makes no difference, as it merely addresses a specific part of the population (the adjective) that I want to discuss regarding a measure of criminality (the noun).
If you could've just as easily stated so-called "white" criminality, and so-called "Asian" criminality, then why does the subject of discussion create distinction if so-called "race" does not qualify your claims of fact?

Still the same. Black males are not [the] black race. They are a demographic segment with a high level of violent criminality that surpasses other demographic segments. I cannot just say some males are more violent than other males.
Actually you can. That would be a statement which does not seek to render conclusions that bear so-called "racial" qualifications--though not absent of sex-based qualifications. 

Makes no more sense than putting out an APB for a male in their mid-age at about 5-6' tall with a shaved head. Well, okay. What specific age. What clothing. But more importantly, what is the adjective describing their racial demographic.  
Not even remotely analogous. You've described physical aspects for a physical search.

No, I am not.
Yes, you are.

Since the very specific crimes I have/am addressing are specific to a subset of the population
Which you sought to qualify on the basis of so-called "racial" distinction.

that subset needs to be described just like a suspect in an APB needs to be described.
Again, not even remotely analogous.

The data is broken down by racial demographic descriptors in order to separate the criminological data into their respective subsets to show who is doing what and to whom. 
And how do distinctions in so-called "race" contextualize "who is doing what and to whom"?

If you affirm any response to this question then you are tacitly admitting that you are making qualifications (of criminality) based on race.
If you negate any contextualization race offers, then you are tacitly admitting to an irrelevant platitude.

Nothing I have said in regard to what the criminological data shows as to who is doing what and to whom in greater numbers than others is all factually accurate.
No, you "assume" it's factually accurate because you trust the source. But I'm not arguing against "incidence." My contention is with the interpretation you've gleaned from this "factually accurate" data in order to render your race-based qualifications of criminality.

It has a lot to do with everything whereas the point I am making is concerned. It matters not where the factual information comes from, white or black, the left simply refuses to accept the reality that the crime statistics provided are not attributable to black males in the population for which those numbers are clearly representative thereof.
Is it that the left denies  the statistics, or is it that they deny the conclusion you've drawn from them?

It's denialism. It's intellectual cowardice. 
Your stance isn't much better. It borders on ignorance of statistical logic, ignorance of logic in a general sense--i.e. your composition fallacies--and inconsistent extensions which lead to unsubstantiated conclusions.

Well, if I am citing Sowell that means I agree with his definition and elaboration on that definition of black culture harming some within the black community.
Maybe you do, but I'd like to read it in your own words if you'll oblige me. Because I'm not engaging Thomas Sowell, who cannot defend his description at the moment. I'm engaging you. And your description and your application of that description is far more valuable and relevant than anyone you can mention. Your argument functions on your understanding, not theirs. So once again, what is so-called, "black culture"?

I do not see the need to mince words or paraphrase something he already said when you can hear it for yourself. And according to you, you are already well aware of his definition. So why do I need to repeat him or Ben Shapiro or John McWhorter or Larry Elder or numerous others who have clearly identified and described the black culture harming blacks in the past to present day. 
Because, it's your argument; unless you're just parroting and regurgitating descriptions you don't completely understand. I'm well aware that sensationalists like Ben Shapiro, John McWhorter, and Larry Elder understand their own descriptions. But they're not DART members--at least to my knowledge.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
have you considered running those same statistics specifically for "economic status" ?
How does economic status dictate moral content and responsibility?
historically, the poor are more likely to both commit and be victims of "violent crime"
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Why are you parsing criminality among demographics if the identifier you've chosen to create distinction, i.e. so-called "race," provides no particular qualification? 

Then what is your point?
bingo
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
because given the title of this thread it would be ironic if you were found to rejecting valid, factual data.
exactly
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,980
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Sometime in 1619, a Portuguese slave ship, the São João Bautista, traveled across the Atlantic Ocean with a hull filled with human cargo: captive Africans from Angola, in southwestern Africa. The men, women and children, most likely from the kingdoms of Ndongo and Kongo, endured the horrific journey, bound for a life of enslavement in Mexico. Almost half the captives had died by the time the ship was seized by two English pirate ships; the remaining Africans were taken to Point Comfort, a port near Jamestown, the capital of the English colony of Virginia, which the Virginia Company of London had established 12 years earlier. The colonist John Rolfe wrote to Sir Edwin Sandys, of the Virginia Company, that in August 1619, a “Dutch man of war” arrived in the colony and “brought not anything but 20 and odd Negroes, which the governor and cape merchant bought for victuals.” The Africans were most likely put to work in the tobacco fields that had recently been established in the area.

Why are blacks more likely to both commit and be victims of "violent crime"?  It is probably what Whites taught them.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
victual archaic
ˈvɪt(ə)l

noun
food or provisions. 

"which the governor and cape merchant bought for victuals."

HE BOUGHT THEM FOR FOOD ?!
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TWS1405
I just had to post this nugget again before finalizing the remainder!

Me: Data does not lie, [but all the ways you can interpret the data can]

I have not disclosed any dataset, source of data, etc. for you to evaluate to come to this patently fallacious assertion. 

Again, I have given you NO DATA SETS! None!

I have not given you enough of my objective opinion to draw this conclusion

In your OP, and subsequent posts you have listed, in no particular order: a multiple series of crime stats, have talked about rape, murders, population percentages of blacks, vs the black proportion of murder rates. You talked about wedded birth rate stats. You quoted the FBI, posted a doj link about violent crime. You’ve mentioned crime stats on black athletes, you cited statistical links between juvenile violence and absentee fathers. You cited links blaming culture - not race; and dozens on dozens on dozens of links to a variety of opinion pieces in response to other peoples criticism. You’ve cited the police homicide database, police justified shooting information. You have spend dozens of posts outlining your opinion and justifications.

Despite you saying you have not provided any dataset, source of data, etc for me to evaluate - your responses here have shared, at length, both datasets and sources of data. Even after the original comment that data doesn’t lie - which my comment was in response to - you go onto cite what some of that data is.


You have absolutely given me more than enough links, argument, data and information throughout the entire course of this thread for me to accurately assess and critique your argument and justifications.


On what planet do you live on for you to state, with a straight face, that you haven’t provided any dataset or source of data in a thread where you’ve constantly talked about the data you use to draw your conclusions, and have posted more links to articles that you claim justify your position than any of us - including yourself it seems - can ever hope to read.

This is just insanity! If you genuinely believe that you haven’t provided any data set of source of data on this thread - where you have constantly provided datasets and sources of data - you are an absolute moron.


Even were you right - and you hadn’t provided any dataset of source of data - do you think it’s a valid argument and defence to say that my criticism of your position is invalid because you haven’t provided absolutely factual justification of any part of your position? Your basically trying to get out of criticism by saying  your argument here is completely unsupported by data. That’s worse: you get how that’s worse, right?


So which is it; that you have provided enough of a data set for me to critique your interpretation of it: or your argument here is completely unsupported by data.

You can’t act like it’s shreodingers data - that exists when you want to criticize my argument; but doesn’t exist when I criticize it. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
my objective opinion 
WTF
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@thett3
Thats a funny anecdote...I dont know how old you are but it surprised me to learn that majorities said they didnt approve of interracial marriage until the 90s. I'm sure some of the people who say yes in the polling are lying but no doubt there's been a huge cultural shift in a short period of time
The thing is even people who said they approved of interracial marriage in the 90s were NIMBY liberals. They're fine with it as long as it's not their daughter. That is very common for gays too. Many who are "totally okay" with it still reject or feel shame about their gay children. And people who are fully on board with gay marriage and adoption still use rhetoric that suggests being gay is less-than or negative. That's why I empathize with black mistrust of white liberals who are often times all-talk. 

The reason black people keep calling everyone racist (and I agree that is horrible messaging for some of their legitimate grievances)  is because even liberals who proclaim to be so open minded and inclusive harbor negative prejudice. We can sit here and say that it's rational and logical to defer to stereotypes and prejudice in some cases, but that doesn't change the fact that many are victims to unjust or racist actions even if we find them justifiable. For instance, we can point out the criminality rate of blacks vs. whites and justify prejudice or suspicion of black people, but wouldn't you be annoyed (and arguably oppressed) if a cab driver wouldn't stop for you just because you were black, or if the police targeted you for stop-and-frisk searches just because you were black, or if cops used excessive force in a legitimate arrest because they presumed things about you they wouldn't if you were white? At that point it's not just a social issue but a rights violation.


There's always going to be some friction in a multiracial society, I think to talk about "oppression" is something totally different. 
I agree. I think they are referring to rights violations (which before BLM were more rampant as there was no spotlight on it) and the more egregious things that can happen as a result of racism other than just having someone follow you around the store. Trayvon Martin is a perfect example. There's no way George Zimmerman calls the cops over suspicion of a white boy walking around in a hoodie because he "doesn't belong there" or whatever. And if George Zimmerman did call the cops and kill a white boy for no reason, the vast majority of the country would have been outraged vs. 50% defending his actions. That's the kinda stuff I think is legitimate. Philando Castile was shot 40 seconds into his traffic stop for broken tail lights. He told the cop he had a gun, and the cop shot him while he was sitting in the driver's seat not one, not two but seven times while Castile reached for his license that the officer asked him to produce. Now would the cop have reacted that way in a panic if Castile was white? I don't know though I suspect not given how many Americans are legal gun owners. But I do know the NRA would have been all over that in defense of his 2A rights. Instead they were silent and the officer was acquitted of all charges. 


A shop owner following around a black lawyer who never committed a crime in his life is obviously a humiliating and negative experience but I also don't know how you can possibly get rid of people holding stereotypes. It's pretty weaksauce compared to state oppression past or present. Some of the drug crime stuff might actually qualify, I haven't looked into it that much but I know the true purpose of the drug war was to create a justification for locking up potential criminals BEFORE they committed violent crimes so I can see how that would tangle up a lot of people who did nothing wrong in communities with lots of crime, which would disproportionately impact black people. I feel like the entire thing is a tangled web. Some people hold and act on stereotypes of black people being criminals... but they actually are significantly more likely to commit crimes. There's a way to take in that information that's a healthy middle ground between being racist and refusing to believe your own lying eyes. And the very best thing that could happen is if this violent crime stopped which I really don't think is too much to ask. 

I agree with all of this, but in response to the bolded part I think you are ignoring that black people who are not committing crimes are victims to a stereotype that there is nothing they can do about.  

Note that Pope Francis said 1 in 50 priests are pedophiles. If that's the number the Catholic church is giving to the public, then we know the real number is MUCH higher. Yet I'm sure you'd have a good argument as to why we shouldn't look at or treat clergy and the Church (which was totally complicit) with suspicion or disdain despite these numbers.

I very much see your point that it would be illogical to disregard observations just because they have a negative connotation for a particular group. But I know you can see that people are oftentimes treated unfairly because of those stereotypes. It shouldn't be that controversial or difficult to acknowledgethose stereotypes exist, so I honestly don't understand the pushback by white people who go ape shit if you suggest they're racist. I get that it's not awesome to be called a racist, but at the same time we all know that we're all racist! We're sitting here justifying prejudice by citing crime statistics, so we can't turn around in the next breath and gaslight black people by saying "we don't see color." 



That was some interesting information. To address your other question, I think affirmative action doesn't actually move the needle that much because it often ends up being counterproductive for the student because it puts them in classes with harsher competition that makes them more likely to drop out. But that's not the *intent*...it really would a hell of a benefit if used correctly.
100% agree. I remember sitting in a college class and my jaw dropping that some of the students could barely read. That's also a failing of the education system cuz they should not have graduated elementary school let alone be admitted into college but I digress. 



We know that high crime rates aren't unchangeable to this because the big changes to the social and economic environment in the 1960s resulted in enormous (like 4x) increases in violent crime that slowly declined throughout the 80s and 90s as policies changed and the economy got better.

That's really interesting and something I would like to know more about. Do you have a book recommendation  or other resource where I could learn more about this? 



A social environment that condemns crime unequivocally and doesn't attempt to excuse it would help a lot. 
Explain =/= Excuse. I could hear some of my liberal friends saying "not manufacturing guns would help a lot too." What about punishment though? When I went to Iceland I spent a good amount of time chatting up locals about their culture and the criminal justice system which is so ridiculously lenient (they're also a tiny, homogenous country with basically no crime at all).  We have evidence that being too tough on crime can have a negative impact as well. By "condemn" do you mean punish more harshly or what? 


It truly shocks me how much some white liberals will bend over backwards to dismiss, deny, and ultimately justify crime. 
But haven't you justified a lot of ridiculous behavior or positions taken up by trumpkins? Hillbilly Elegy and content like that are forays into the world of poor, rural whites that specifically try to explain or justify their diehard allegiance to a provocative, pathological liar. I get where you're coming from though. There are some things where I am just truly and genuinely dumbfounded by other people's perspectives and values and I could see how this would be one of them for you. The only thing I can say is that criminology is a whole (social) science that's worthy of digging into, especially when we have a massive prison population in this country with over 2.2 million people incarcerated. Canada is more culturally diverse than the US and has less crime plus one of the smallest prison populations in the world.   


When true believers get elected such as the District Attorneys of San Francisco and Los Angeles (who will likely be recalled soon, thank God) they simply don't prosecute a lot of violent crimes because of equity concerns. 
I haven't looked up the numbers today but iirc  the crime stats are pretty much the same under the new prosecutors as they have been in the past decade. The DAs seem to be prosecuting violent crime at the same rate as their predecessors but scaling back on the prosecution of misdemeanors and non violent crime.  I'm sure there is a political reason as well as personal values that make these guys a lot more lenient, but it's my understanding that a lot of low-level crimes aren't being prosecuted  (or criminals are being released from jail early) because they don't have the resources or capacity to deal with them all.