Race and Crime

In other words you cannot define "systemic racism." I can think of two definitions:

First, systemic racism is an alibi for black failure, when there is no evidence of racial discrimination.

Second, systemic racism is the hostility many whites feel toward blacks. This hostility has been suppressed during the last two generations, but it persists, because the reasons for hostility toward blacks persist. Indeed, black rates of crime and illegitimacy have increased since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, and the War on Poverty was declared the same year. Black academic performance has increased very little, despite Head Start and No Child Left Behind.

 

What happened @notme?

 

My opinion doesn't matter either, Chris. The scientists have spoken. And systemic racism is true.

 

You can't quote me on that.

I do not care what you think what a word means, when the definition can be looked up in a dictionary.

Bottom line is:
I have proved that systemic racism is true with 6 sources.
And it seems you can't stand it.

 

Your sources are ideological and without value.

 

The scientists have spoken, and yet you said that "MAYBE" I'm correct!

 

Which scientists are you talking about? Usually I think that the consensus of the experts is more likely to be correct than incorrect. Unfortunately on the subject of the relationship between genes, intelligence, crime, and race the discussion is coerced, so many scientists lie in public.

Professor J. Philippe Rushton probably became one of the most famous racial scientists during his life time. He was often attacked, but never refuted. These are excerpts from his well documented essay, "Race, Evolution, and Behavior:"

Modern science shows a three-way pattern of race differences in both physical traits and behavior. On average, Orientals are slower to mature, less fertile, less sexually active, less aggressive, and have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the other pole. Whites fall in the middle, but closer to Orientals than to Blacks...

Race differences start in the womb. Blacks are born earlier and grow quicker than Whites and Orientals. The three-way race pattern occurs in milestones such as sexual maturity, family stability, crime rates, and population growth...

Race differences exist in sexual behavior. The races differ in how often they like to have sexual intercourse. This affects rates of sexually transmitted diseases. On all the counts, Orientals are the least sexually active, Blacks the most, and Whites are in between...

IQ tests measure intelligence and predict real life success. The races differ in brain size and on IQ tests. On average Orientals have the largest brains and highest IQs. Blacks average the lowest, and Whites fall in between. The brain size differences explain the IQ differences both within groups and between groups...

Cross-race adoptions give some of the best proof that the genes cause race differences in IQ. Growing up in a middle-class White home does not lower the average IQ for Orientals nor raise it for Blacks...

[Professor Rushton may be exaggerating here. I have read that being raised by Oriental or white parents raises a black child's IQ slightly, but the improvement does not last to adulthood.]

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm

Professor Rushton's assertions are not counter intuitive. They are obvious to anyone who has had extensive experience with the three major races, especially public school teachers in multi racial schools.

 

Not to mention on the subject of basic biology - being able to say that men cannot become women!

 

That is according to you, and it's actually your opinion that is without value.
My sourced stand.

 

A couple things to entertain your racist views....
Once African Americans obtain middle class and above they are just as law abiding as their economic peers. Your surety of nature over nurture is being questioned.
Women have a 10% smaller brain. Are you saying they are less intelligent?

 

The scientists of my sources.

Pfff. He was the head of the Pioneer Fund, an organization that supports the nazi doctrine of the master race. As for never refuted. One person refuted it by saying all this:
Valencia identified the main areas of criticism as focusing on Rushton's use of "race" as a biological concept, a failure to appreciate the extent of variation within populations compared with that between populations, a false separation of genetics and environment, poor statistical methodology, a failure to consider alternative hypotheses, and the use of unreliable and inappropriate data to draw conclusions about the relationship between brain size and intelligence. According to Valencia, "experts in life history conclude that Rushton's (1995) work is pseudoscientific and racist."

I'm not interested in the racial pornography from some Canadian Nazi.

 

And they concluded: systemic racism happens all over.
And you've been contesting this in vain for months now.
If you got nothing else to add. Than this discussion is over.

You think I did that research and so my opinion matters? lol

 

Do you intend to post any evidence of this, or just more of the same?

 

Name calling is the lowest form of discourse.

 

First of all, you made up that he never was refuted. And the label fits. See that I care about his and your precious feelings.

My 6 sourced stand that systemic racism is true.

 

Blacks tend to perform less well on mental aptitude tests than whites.

http://www.blackexcel.org/06-sat-act-scores-by-race-ethnicity.htm



In the United States blacks have a murder rate that is nearly eight times the white rate,

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

and an illegitimacy rate that is over twice the white rate.

https://www.ceousa.org/2020/02/26/percentage-of-births-to-unmarried-women/

Professor Rushton makes assertions like these. They are not in serious dispute.

 

I read that little fact some time ago (like women having 10% smaller brains) somewhere. You don't have to believe it. It's okay, but its interesting you find it hard to believe, that a population that has no incentive to commit crime doesn't do it anymore than whites, although white males disproportionally commit the most white collar crimes, but I won't bring that up
Don't you question the 10% or is it not threatening the white male assumptions?

 

If your opinion doesn't matter, then why the hell did you post it?

 

They commit more crimes because there's a cultural problem that people are too soft to mention. So we're back to 13% of our population committing 81% of all violent crime. Maybe if white male assumptions/conversation frighten you, Africa is the place for you to be.

 

(per 2016 FBI crime statistics)

Whites commit 69% of the crimes and blacks 27%. They are 13% of the population and commit twice the crime by proportion. They also have twice the poverty rate. Do you think there might be a pattern there?
Of course African American have cultural problems. There is a gangster culture in the underclass. It means to get ahead by any means and building street cred. Where does that come from? Nature or nurture. I think over 150 years of segregation and repression might have something to do with it.
BTW whites commit 59% of the violent crime and blacks 37.5%.

 

Those who blame white racism for high black crime rates cannot explain why black crime rose after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed and the War on Poverty was declared.

 

Maybe it is more complicated than you are able to comprehend. Why did crime drop 74% between 1993 and 2019?

 

I’m not about to make apologies for the poor decisions those people make by pretending their distant past is the cause. Blacks account for 55.9% of all homicides. 81% of all violent crime.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-43

how about they get their s**** together and stop blaming everyone else?

 

I get it, you like to point out a problem in a group of people you dislike but are uninterested in the causes of the problem....that's deep. BTW where are you getting this 81% number? Is it something Trump tweeted?

 

In Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and New York Times journalist Stephen J. Dubner argue that the Roe vs Wade decision of 1973 is responsible for the decline in violent crime after 1992. They point out that the same kind of females most likely to have abortions are also most likely to give birth to boy babies who grow up to become violent street criminals. Those females are unmarried and they have low IQ's. The Roe vs Wade decision increased yearly numbers of abortions. A potential mugger who was aborted in 1974 would have been 18 in 1992.

An additional factor is that from 1993 to 2919 the prison population rose from 846,277 to 1,380,427.

https://www.sentencingproject.org/c...DIrqwrKYFHAITA4lo_8kpJjSuweaMhFwaAvvBEALw_wcB[/QUOTE]