[grassroots1]

I agree with you, the data doesn't say "Blacks are more likely to rape because they are Black". It does say that "Blacks are more likely to rape", no denying this

It does not say that. All it says is that blacks are more likely to be convicted of rape than whites.

[Nets]

Fair point. Do you believe the justice system is so stacked against blacks so as to tip the statistics so grossly in that direction, though?

[grassroots1]

I don't know. Even if the answer was yes, I wouldn't be sure what conclusions to draw or what action to take as a result coming to that conclusion. I think it's possible though that the system is THAT stacked, and there may be other factors involved as well that I would consider before trying to conclude that it is evidence of some natural difference. I think that conclusion in particular is bullshit.

[Goldberk]

I will add that in London in the 1970s, Blacks comprised 4.3% of the population yet were represented as 12% of all arrests and 35% of all arrests for robbery and violent theft.

By 1990, 60% of the reported street crimes referred to a Black assailant.

The causality will take some work to figure out, but numbers are numbers, and cannot be 'politically incorrect'.

On this specific issue it's not as clear cut as you claim, firstly policing policy greatly influences crime statistics, where they patrol, who they stop and who they take in and prosecute. The institutionalised racism of the police and more broadly the British state distorts the figures. Secondly, not many rational people would claim, that in Western states there is not a disproportionate number of offenders who are Black, the problem is then claiming that race is a cause for higher crime. Mostly because racial groups as we commonly express them do not actually exist as cultural or biological groupings i.e. there is greater variation within said groupings (Black, White, asian etc) than between when measured using factor analysis.

Does the higher likelihood disappear when you condition on income or sneaker brand or whatever? As I said before I don't know. Why do you think the omitted variable bias is so strong here?

The problem is as you say, we don't fully understand the effects of each factor and the interrelation between them. to answer your second point, as I say above I don't believe "black" represents a consistent or significant variable.

[Dave]

Why do people still routinely refer to the Lewontin Fallacy in their posts?

[Daktoria]

Why do people still routinely refer to the Lewontin Fallacy in their posts? :?:

...the same reason people ignore the Leontief paradox (when it comes to trade balances).

In any case, Goldberk's even admitted to embracing cultural imperialism before. I wouldn't take anything she says pertaining to empirical data at face value.

[Takkon]

"Because they are black" could mean because blacks are more predisposed to crime or blacks are prosecuted more or blacks are more likely to commit crime because of other causes (being poor, less access to education, etc). There is nothing about that statement that proves anything for anyone, the only thing that statement does is what the language used makes it do.

I think where Dave, Rei, etc capitalize on that statement is that most liberals (and leftists) would never be caught dead admitting the validity of even that because most prominent black politicians and political activists don't want to admit to that either (even if the same still applies, that is it doesn't really say much about the inherent character of blacks). The way I see it though, both sides are committing an error, it's just that I doubt the motivation of one side much more than the motivation of blacks, liberals, and leftists. Mostly because that group isn't trying to exploit a misunderstanding, they simply don't understand or refuse to understand. An ostrich sticking its head in the sand is much less offensive then the predator that caused it to do so.

[Daktoria]

The way I see it though, both sides are committing an error, it's just that I doubt the motivation of one side much more than the motivation of blacks, liberals, and leftists. Mostly because that group isn't trying to exploit a misunderstanding, they simply don't understand or refuse to understand. An ostrich sticking its head in the sand is much less offensive then the predator that caused it to do so.

What are you trying to say here - that fascists don't give capitalism enough credit for subduing the working class in an illusion of folk community and pop culture?

[Cut.]

[SF edit: From now on Daktoria you should let Rei speak for herself rather than telling the forum what you think she thinks, does or is. Your trolling has taken threads off-topic enough times by repeating this over and over.]

[Siberian Fox]

Moderation note: Please resume this topic in a strictly on-topic manner or not at all. If you see someone attempting to troll other users to take this thread off-topic again please report the post and do not respond at all to the member trolling. Responding to trolling attracts further trolling and anyone doing so will be considered equal party to any further thread derailment.

[Takkon]

I read Dak's reply before it was deleted, I don't remember what it was, can you relay your reply in a way that does not break the forum rules? What exactly is your point, independent of whatever you think Rei thinks (which I remember seemed a little bit off to me anyway).

[Daktoria]

I think it's covered in what's left.

Basically, I was asking what you think that "misunderstanding" is. It seems that you believe fascists don't give progressives enough credit for brainwashing people into social hierarchy.

[Takkon]

My point is not about fascists though. My point is about how liberals and leftists- anti-racists if you will- want to make it offense simply to say that blacks are more likely to commit many crimes, which is a descriptive statement and not a pejorative one. It is true whether or not that difference is due to racism or racial hygiene or poverty. Thus they have to ignore the fact that they are at once attempting to propose policies which they claim would assuage this difference and claim that it does not exist. On the other hand, I think many so-called scientific racists or just generally xenophobic people will use that statistic in order to drum up a fear which inevitably leads back to their own camp of thought. In fact it would not even matter if blacks were "racially inferior" (accepting the assumptions there is 'race' and it's a causative factor in that statistic), because it would still not be enough to justify their ideology. So it is and only can be a tactic. That's why two far right wingers, one more traditionally conservative/reactionary, one more of a revolutionary fascist or 3rd positionist, who would not really agree on much, can use the same basic tactic of quoting fear-inducing statistics in order to justify an in-group mentality.

Now what really gets me is that they'll call you anti-science or anti-fact all the same, whether you acknowledge bad statistics in certain groups or not, simply if you don't buy into their subjective interpretation of reality. Which is pretty much the exact same thing that they accuse liberals of, but for some reason when you base your ideology around being as much of a shark as possible- might makes right (I know this is not a substantive criticism, it's simply an observation of the general tone of the ideology)-, I have trouble believing that you don't understand that you are committing the same sort of fallacious act with slightly more rationalization.

[Daktoria]

If that's the case, I'm not sure if you grasp what "justification" means to them then.

The fascist position is an appeal to pragmatism ultimately. It's about the realization that emotions define culture because emotional actors are the strongest defectors in the prisoner dilemmas we live in within our daily lives. In turn, emotions are defined by our genetics, so the notion of living practically while tolerating arbitrary diversity is a huge contradiction.

This is why progressives get called fascists by libertarians and conservatives, btw. Progressives operate under the same sort of pragmatism, but they don't operate according to racial pragmatism. They operate according to a psychological pragmatism where charismatic ambitious personalities come first. In a multicultural society, what this means is you end up with cultural arbitrage opportunities. Personalities which aren't advantageous within their own cultures are advantageous in other cultures. In turn, taxes, subsidies, and social programs are designed to let these charismatic ambitious personalities become the center of society via bureaucratic professionalism.

To be clear, I agree that racial IQ studies or whathaveyou aren't justification enough to treat people like shit because people don't choose their genes (and birth environment), but progressive pragmatism makes it self-destructive to sympathize with your position.

[Takkon]

I have to say, I don't follow your position. I tend to subscribe to the idea that the left-right spectrum is a more accurate representation of political views than qualitative pop-psychology. I am a centrist, so as my core ideology I will always identify with pragmatism- which to me is just another way of saying "what I think would work for these reasons that can be verified and discussed". As apposed to unpragmatic ideologies which would identify with the moral underpinnings of the ideology. In that sense I find that liberals, libertarians, and leftists are all united, in that they tend to put their irrational (read: moral) reasons for supporting an ideology first. Now don't get me wrong, there is the anti-liberal branch of those ideologies which support them for either materialist, empirical, or logical reasons, but if you were to take the average person from these groups they are more likely to identify a moral axiom as their reason for taking on a position than any kind of practical analysis for why they should believe that.

Hell you pretty much paint the same picture yourself, that post I basically read as a treatise against pragmatism.

Fascists I find peculiar because they identify with certain moral truths, but don't use them as the basis of propaganda, instead choosing to use the most appealing rationalization for supporting their ideology instead. For national fascists it's the idea that the identity needs to be protected and cultivated for the benefit of the people living in the state. For Euro/Anglophiles it's the same sort of thing with a focus on protection against the other and a restoration of the values that used to keep "us" on top. So in that sense it's a different sort of anti-liberalism, one that I find insidious in its nature.

[Daktoria]

Takkon, I don't know what to say now.

On one hand, you call fascists out for referring to bad statistics despite the fact that the studies being referred to are methodically rigorous.

On the other hand, you call libertarians out for being "irrational" moralists.

Still, you oppose psychology despite engaging in classic projective identification in saying, "what I think would work for these reasons that can be verified and discussed" as if society should be compelled to comply with what you think would work.

Of course, you could make an appeal to popularity, but that's just might makes right anyway, so still, you haven't distinguished yourself from fascists either.

As for proper fascists being morally grounded, the only way that can be understood is if you're talking about moral relativism/nihilism. Might makes right doesn't need morality to exist. Still, yes, fascists will use morality as propaganda a la national mythology in identifying people with the land. The State is merely an organization mechanism used to enforce the bond between people and nature rather than allowing people to get distracted by grandiose idealism.

What exactly are you trying to argue?