Tainari88 wrote: It is all bullshit. Crime is not about some nationality. It is about other issues. And it applies to White Americans, Black Americans, Asian Americans and many many others. They make it about Mexicans and Central Americans because they need to disrespect someone whom they think is çhanging the demographics, the culture and so on of the nation they want to have remain in a certain cultural mode.
It is the case that they presuppose some essential connection between the two because of the appearance but if they were pressed to explain the nature of crime, then they would either have to explain their conception of nationality as relevant and have their conception their challenged or show that the nature of crime isn't explained by these feature and that they are yet to dig beyond the mere appearance/phenomenon into the essence of the issue.http://inthesetimes.com/article/2361/the_subject_supposed_to_loot_and_rape
And exactly the same goes for the looting in New Orleans: Even if all the reports on violence and rapes had proven to be factually true, the stories circulating about them would still be “pathological” and racist, since what motivated these stories were not facts, but racist prejudices, the satisfaction felt by those who would be able to say: “You see, Blacks really are like that, violent barbarians under the thin layer of civilization!” In other words, we would be dealing with what could be called lying in the guise of truth: Even if what I am saying is factually true, the motives that make me say it are false.
The poverty of their thinking is in fact their reliance on the empirical, which is where one can point to how one can twist all sorts of facts into various interpretations where its not the facts that need to be questioned by their interpretation which they often leave implicit in the framing of the issue.
So it is quite clear that the issue of crime is just a vehicle of legitimizing their actual motive about illegal immigration which isn't considered in it's own right but indirectly.
Their fixation on such a demographic is what needs to be explained and the most general idea is that it is explained by other conditions which agitate their fears and thus become projected onto what is in fact an abstract category as they conflate their abstraction with reality as they don't think that accurately.
It is characteristic of the naive that they generalize very isolated facts into larger truths than they are.https://ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/concepts-genesis.htm
What makes Quality, Quantity and Measure stages of Being is that they remain forms of concept which are not self-conscious, that is, they are completely objective, describing the object in observer terms, and terms which lack a concept of the phenomenon as such. This is the standpoint of natural science, mathematics and contemporary, positivist social science. In contemporary mainstream social science, one doesn’t have, for example, political movements or even political opinions. You just have so many votes for such and such a party, so many days of lost production due to industrial action, so many positive and negative responses on a survey form and so forth, and any amount of statistics and correlations.
Advocates of this kind of science insist on the necessity of basing science in observation, measurement and, in short, facts not opinions. And so long as we don’t elevate this principle to an absolute, it can’t be denied that it is a necessary, even unavoidable stage in the development of a science. Before you can determine whether hygiene is a cause of susceptibility to allergies, you have to gather a lot of data, and hypotheses about the causes don’t count for much in such a complex problem until you have a great deal of well-organised data on which to base any idea.
But of course it's not just a telling of facts and this is where some fall into error in that they simply agree with the stated facts, because they do reflect something true or they try to contest what is a fact when the issue is that they do not confine themselves to facts but use them as a means to imply a certain viewpoint.
The viewpoint is what must be contested, as no fact stands in isolation but what constitutes a fact always implies a certain viewpoint despite the tendency in the west for sloppy thinking and an over reliance on empiricism. Many facts are true but they are banal truths that detract from identifying the essential features of a thing and so many emphasize the contingent and arbitrary because they make no distinction between kinds of truths nor the limits for which any particular thing is true or not.
There is also many features in regards to having one identify one grouping in it's assumed difference to another that implies the inherently civility of the home nation against the 'uncultured' other. Such that one essentializes the worst examples to a whole people, and thus pressumes the crime is essential to that people's culture and way of life and thus defines every crime by one's own demographic as an exception to the rule of their civility. The crimes of those of their similiar grouping do not disprove the rule whilst the crimes of the 'other' essentially defines them.