|
On November 13 2012 19:33 Huyugu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 19:23 Dracid wrote:On November 13 2012 19:06 Huyugu wrote:On November 13 2012 19:05 plogamer wrote:On November 13 2012 19:02 Huyugu wrote:On November 13 2012 18:26 plogamer wrote:Stats relating to population almost always follow the Normal distribution in stats, for ex: body height - when genetic background are controlled for. There is no reason to accept that Blacks are more likely to commit crimes if they live in the same society as Whites. Unless you believe that Blacks are genetically predisposed to committing crime; of course you'd have to find that gene and win a Nobel Prize by curing the world of 'crime'. Slavery and then segregation have left huge scars that still plague the Black communities to this day. And that is my explanation for the higher crime rates. Segregation, though milder, still exists to this day. " About four out of five rural offenders are white, and about one offender in eight is black. Three percent are Native Americans and one percent are Asian. In contrast, arrests in the suburbs and cities show a lower rate of white arrests - 21 percent (suburbs) and 32 percent (city), than black arrests - 78 percent (suburbs) and 66 percent (city)." SourceNote how the urban ghetto (ie. modern-day segregation) can be linked very strongly to crime rate. Otherwise, rural offense rate would be similar to urban rates. Ironic that there are white people so scared, I mean concerned, about black crime rate, most victims of black violence are other blacks. Source ps. I am not entirely satisfied with my research. I want to find out percentages that controls out only for black, ie. crime rate in urban blacks versus rural blacks, rather than blanket population rate. If anyone can help in this thread, I would love to learn more; maybe change my notions as of now. I can see why you wouldn't be satisfied with your "research", what you have linked is completely meaningless! All it shows is the arrests reflect the makeup of the population. And in China most arrests would be Chinese. It is meaningless other than who lives in that area. "Many people believe that a bad social environment is a major contributor to crime. They believe that if people of all races had the same education, income, and social status, there would be no race differences in crime rates. Academic research, however, shows that these differences persist even after controlling for social variables.
"In fact, the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more than four times better than the next best measure: lack of education. Furthermore, even controlling for all three measures of social disadvantage hardly changes the correlation between racial mix and crime rates. The correlation between violent crime and the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they are not. In layman's terms, the statistical results suggest that even if whites were just as disadvantaged as blacks and Hispanics the association between race and violent crime would still be almost as great. It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single best indicator of an area's violent crime rate is its racial/ethnic mix."http://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.htmlTo dismiss black crimes against whites so readily is quite disgusting of you, and proves my point about how deeply rooted in society discrimination and racism against whites has become. If whites committed crimes anywhere near the rate or category as blacks against whites you would be having candle light vigils, protests, marches, etc. "... In fact, whereas blacks committed 10,000 gang-rapes against whites between 2001 and 2003, the NCVS samples did not pick up a single "white"-on-black gang rape. Overall, blacks committed an average of 251,000 multiple-offender violent crimes against whites per year between 2001 and 2003, and "whites" committed 32,000, which means blacks were the perpetrators 89 percent of the time.
"... [O]f all violent crimes committed by blacks, 45 percent were against whites, 43 percent against blacks, and ten percent against Hispanics. Blacks therefore commit slightly more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Unlike an analysis of interracial crime—in which increased segregation decreases opportunities for interracial crime for blacks and whites equally—the proportion of victims of black criminals who are white is very much influenced by segregation. Criminals tend to prey on people in their neighborhoods, and underclass blacks who commit violent crimes are likely to live in neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly black. Their friends and associates are likely to be black, and the people they meet in chance encounters are likely to be black. A large number of white victims suggests targeting of whites."http://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html Yeah, parroting one source, nice research yourself. I think I just happened upon a fanatic here. Nothing to see here I guess. But what, if anything, is incorrect about any of it? There's nothing wrong with the statistics, but the person doing the statistics is a known white supremacist meaning the conclusions drawn are biased. I haven't looked at any of your color of crime studies, because a quick glance at wikipedia reveals it all to be stormfront level white nationalist drivel. Wow, you haven't looked at them and you argue against them anyways! I shouldn't be surprised, apparently you didn't even read the study your article was citing either. If you had, you would have seen the article was lying about the contents. I suppose that is the difference between you and I. When I get linked contrary opinions (as you just linked me to) I read them fully. I even checked their sources and read them as well. Then I consider all available evidence when forming my views. You do so little reading you didn't even check what you were linking people to. You're just a blind zealot (sc related pun there to lighten the mood).
Did you really read the study?
We find evidence of significant inter-judge disparity in the racial gap in
incarceration rates, providing support for the model where at least some judges treat
defendants differently based on their race. The magnitude of this effect is substantial.
So where's your explanation for why that racial gap occurs? The study has no explanation. That's outside the scope of their research, hence why they acknowledge that as a limitation. Fact is a gap exists, and the obvious explanation would be inherent biases within the judges. The study does nothing to prove that, but in the absence of a better explanation that's the one I'd go with.
Anyhow, if you gave me a credible source I'd bother reading it. Color of Crime? The SPLC (an organization that is actually credible) says it's white supremacist bullshit, so why would I bother looking at it?
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2000/summer/coloring-crime
Taylor uses an incredibly simplistic analytical method that flatly ignores the fundamental conclusion of decades of serious criminology: Crime is intimately related to poverty. In fact, when multivariate statistical methods such as regression analysis are used, study after study has shown that race has little, if any, predictive power.
Taylor's decision to simply ignore these well-documented criminological findings is not his report's only flaw. Another major error — a cardinal sin in the science of statistics — is "selection bias." Although Taylor wants crime patterns to be explained by the mere presence of black people, only a contorted analysis based on a small subset of crime data is able to produce such "evidence."
He recently appeared at the National Press Club with three other "researchers" to hawk the idea that crime is highest among blacks worldwide, and that that is correlated to their allegedly smaller brains. (These ideas are roundly dismissed by mainstream researchers.)
Jared Taylor's a racist fucking whackjob. Citing him as a reliable source really shows your colors.
|
On November 13 2012 19:52 Dracid wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 13 2012 19:33 Huyugu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 19:23 Dracid wrote:On November 13 2012 19:06 Huyugu wrote:On November 13 2012 19:05 plogamer wrote:On November 13 2012 19:02 Huyugu wrote:On November 13 2012 18:26 plogamer wrote:Stats relating to population almost always follow the Normal distribution in stats, for ex: body height - when genetic background are controlled for. There is no reason to accept that Blacks are more likely to commit crimes if they live in the same society as Whites. Unless you believe that Blacks are genetically predisposed to committing crime; of course you'd have to find that gene and win a Nobel Prize by curing the world of 'crime'. Slavery and then segregation have left huge scars that still plague the Black communities to this day. And that is my explanation for the higher crime rates. Segregation, though milder, still exists to this day. " About four out of five rural offenders are white, and about one offender in eight is black. Three percent are Native Americans and one percent are Asian. In contrast, arrests in the suburbs and cities show a lower rate of white arrests - 21 percent (suburbs) and 32 percent (city), than black arrests - 78 percent (suburbs) and 66 percent (city)." SourceNote how the urban ghetto (ie. modern-day segregation) can be linked very strongly to crime rate. Otherwise, rural offense rate would be similar to urban rates. Ironic that there are white people so scared, I mean concerned, about black crime rate, most victims of black violence are other blacks. Source ps. I am not entirely satisfied with my research. I want to find out percentages that controls out only for black, ie. crime rate in urban blacks versus rural blacks, rather than blanket population rate. If anyone can help in this thread, I would love to learn more; maybe change my notions as of now. I can see why you wouldn't be satisfied with your "research", what you have linked is completely meaningless! All it shows is the arrests reflect the makeup of the population. And in China most arrests would be Chinese. It is meaningless other than who lives in that area. "Many people believe that a bad social environment is a major contributor to crime. They believe that if people of all races had the same education, income, and social status, there would be no race differences in crime rates. Academic research, however, shows that these differences persist even after controlling for social variables.
"In fact, the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more than four times better than the next best measure: lack of education. Furthermore, even controlling for all three measures of social disadvantage hardly changes the correlation between racial mix and crime rates. The correlation between violent crime and the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they are not. In layman's terms, the statistical results suggest that even if whites were just as disadvantaged as blacks and Hispanics the association between race and violent crime would still be almost as great. It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single best indicator of an area's violent crime rate is its racial/ethnic mix."http://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.htmlTo dismiss black crimes against whites so readily is quite disgusting of you, and proves my point about how deeply rooted in society discrimination and racism against whites has become. If whites committed crimes anywhere near the rate or category as blacks against whites you would be having candle light vigils, protests, marches, etc. "... In fact, whereas blacks committed 10,000 gang-rapes against whites between 2001 and 2003, the NCVS samples did not pick up a single "white"-on-black gang rape. Overall, blacks committed an average of 251,000 multiple-offender violent crimes against whites per year between 2001 and 2003, and "whites" committed 32,000, which means blacks were the perpetrators 89 percent of the time.
"... [O]f all violent crimes committed by blacks, 45 percent were against whites, 43 percent against blacks, and ten percent against Hispanics. Blacks therefore commit slightly more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Unlike an analysis of interracial crime—in which increased segregation decreases opportunities for interracial crime for blacks and whites equally—the proportion of victims of black criminals who are white is very much influenced by segregation. Criminals tend to prey on people in their neighborhoods, and underclass blacks who commit violent crimes are likely to live in neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly black. Their friends and associates are likely to be black, and the people they meet in chance encounters are likely to be black. A large number of white victims suggests targeting of whites."http://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html Yeah, parroting one source, nice research yourself. I think I just happened upon a fanatic here. Nothing to see here I guess. But what, if anything, is incorrect about any of it? There's nothing wrong with the statistics, but the person doing the statistics is a known white supremacist meaning the conclusions drawn are biased. I haven't looked at any of your color of crime studies, because a quick glance at wikipedia reveals it all to be stormfront level white nationalist drivel. Wow, you haven't looked at them and you argue against them anyways! I shouldn't be surprised, apparently you didn't even read the study your article was citing either. If you had, you would have seen the article was lying about the contents. I suppose that is the difference between you and I. When I get linked contrary opinions (as you just linked me to) I read them fully. I even checked their sources and read them as well. Then I consider all available evidence when forming my views. You do so little reading you didn't even check what you were linking people to. You're just a blind zealot (sc related pun there to lighten the mood). Did you really read the study? We find evidence of significant inter-judge disparity in the racial gap in
incarceration rates, providing support for the model where at least some judges treat
defendants differently based on their race. The magnitude of this effect is substantial. So where's your explanation for why that racial gap occurs? The study has no explanation. That's outside the scope of their research, hence why they acknowledge that as a limitation. Fact is a gap exists, and the obvious explanation would be inherent biases within the judges. The study does nothing to prove that, but in the absence of a better explanation that's the one I'd go with. Anyhow, if you gave me a credible source I'd bother reading it. Color of Crime? The SPLC (an organization that is actually credible) says it's white supremacist bullshit, so why would I bother looking at it? http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2000/summer/coloring-crimeTaylor uses an incredibly simplistic analytical method that flatly ignores the fundamental conclusion of decades of serious criminology: Crime is intimately related to poverty. In fact, when multivariate statistical methods such as regression analysis are used, study after study has shown that race has little, if any, predictive power. Taylor's decision to simply ignore these well-documented criminological findings is not his report's only flaw. Another major error — a cardinal sin in the science of statistics — is "selection bias." Although Taylor wants crime patterns to be explained by the mere presence of black people, only a contorted analysis based on a small subset of crime data is able to produce such "evidence." He recently appeared at the National Press Club with three other "researchers" to hawk the idea that crime is highest among blacks worldwide, and that that is correlated to their allegedly smaller brains. (These ideas are roundly dismissed by mainstream researchers.) Jared Taylor's a racist fucking whackjob. Citing him as a reliable source really shows your colors
The study says very, very, very clearly:
"[W]e can say that judges vary in their treatment of race, but not whether this is evidence of discrimination or reverse discrimination.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1800840
It found evidence of discrimination because there is discrimination against Whites in sentencing:
"When their circumstances are the same, black defendants are slightly less likely to be sentenced to prison than whites.
See image (or pdf): http://imgur.com/hyTw5
http://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html
As for an explanation for why this discrimination exists, I can only speculate it is because of people like you who advocate racial discrimination against White people to bring about the same outcomes among people with different abilities. Or perhaps judges are afraid of losing their jobs over false accusations of racism, so they are more lax on the specially privileged minority groups.
As for your continued ad hominem, you linked to a smear against Color of Crime 1999. I am referencing Color of Crime 2005. I read the outdated SPLC (credible? haha) article anyways because I have an open mind, and found it of very little substance. They admit Color of Crime's data is correct, and make a few minor quibbles which don't apply to the 2005 Color of Crime I have been referencing.
Furthermore nothing it it addresses the sentencing bias against whites, which you incorrectly claimed was against blacks. To reiterate: you are just using the ad hominem fallacy, not addressing the argument.
|
at the end of the day, this girl had to make a very small sacrifice that could have had a real positive impact on someone's life.
what seems to be lost in all of this is that life is very rarely a zero sum proposition and rather than prove that she had legitimately been harmed Fisher demonstrated only that these programs do not substantially harm privileged groups when a larger perspective is taken.
I shared my story in this thread already; I lived what she did and I don't hold any bitterness. Why so many people who aren't personally touched by this issue feel the need to step in and argue that I should have received further privilege is beyond my comprehension.
|
On November 13 2012 08:50 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 07:41 Huyugu wrote:Looks like racist discrimination against whites is going to be ramped up for Obama's second term. Obama To Unleash Racial-Preferences JuggernautPresident Obama intends to close "persistent gaps" between whites and minorities in everything from credit scores and homeownership to test scores and graduation rates.
His remedy — short of new affirmative-action legislation — is to sue financial companies, schools and employers based on "disparate impact" complaints — a stealthy way to achieve racial preferences, opposed 2 to 1 by Americans.
Under this broad interpretation of civil-rights law, virtually any organization can be held liable for race bias if it maintains a policy that negatively impacts one racial group more than another — even if it has no racist motive and applies the policy evenly across all groups.http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/110812-632759-obama-to-wield-bigger-disparate-impact-club.htm what? So what are credit card companies suppose to do, calculate black people's credit scores differently than white people's? This is ridiculous.
Yes, actually. My mother is a teacher in the gifted/talented program in a city in Alabama. The gifted program is targeted at the top 2% of children, so the way they tested children was to get a professional psychometrist to give them an IQ test, and those that scored above 130 (the 98th percentile) were put into the program.
Someone said that there were too few blacks, some lawyers got involved, and then for a while they just gave black children +15 points on the IQ test (so IQ 115 was the cutoff for blacks and 130 for whites).
Now they've abandoned using IQ as a sole measure of giftedness (which is probably a good idea), but race still gets you points in their decision rubric.
|
|
|
On November 13 2012 12:21 antelope591 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 11:58 Tewks44 wrote:On November 13 2012 11:47 antelope591 wrote:
I don't think AA is as bad as people make it out to be. Racism is obviously still around...you can easily see it every day on the internet where people's true feelings come out due to anonymity. Sometimes its not implemented in the best of ways but think on this....AA affects millions of people every year but all we hear about is random negative stories like this one where one person was negatively "affected" by AA but then in the end came out OK anyway. So has AA really affected your life in any negative life changing manner? I think not. What we don't see stories about is thousands of people who got a chance with AA they might not have otherwise gotten. Maybe they would have succeeded without AA but either way the program has not affected the vast majority of the population in any meaningful negative way so to get so worked up about it seems pretty silly to me. AA effects people every day. How are you suppose to know if you were effected by AA? Are you just going to call up every college that declined you and asked them if you would have been accepted if you were black? I know for a fact the University I'm attending would have given me a full ride if I was black, so in a sense AA is costing me thousands of dollars because of differences in how students are treated based purely on race. I can't stress enough, hundreds of thousands of people are effected by AA in some way. First off the if I was black life would be easier argument is stupid to use for a variety of reasons. Second hundreds of thousands is quite the number. There are probably not even hundreds of thousands of minority students across all of the colleges. So by pulling that gynormously huge number out of your ass am I to assume that you're saying every minority student is taking a spot away from a better qualified non-minority? Cause thats the only way it would make sense.
okay, so you're countering by saying "my argument is stupid" yet you haven't addressed one simple fact. If I was black I would get more preferential scholarship treatment and I wouldn't be paying as much to go to college. However, because I'm not black, I am not granted as generous of a scholarship. Also, if I were black I would have better job offers, and therefore better pay, but because I'm not black I don't get this preferential treatment. How can you rationalize that as being an acceptable practice?
Secondly, I was referring to the hundreds of thousands of white and Asian students who get denied from their top choice, get discriminatory scholarship treatment, and get denied from jobs simply because the organization is forced to accept less qualified black individuals in their place.
|
My prediction is that the court will reject the "critical mass" theory it previously endorsed. I think they will not ban affirmative action outright but severely curtail its operation... I don't see them going on business as usual.
|
Can we say AA is just another example of collectivized nonsense without being racists yet? Or is it still too soon. . .that is to say the notion of AA is racist itself, and therefore morally dogshit.
|
This case just got sent back from the Supreme Court to a federal appeals court, link
By a 7-1 vote on Monday, the Supreme Court told an appeals court that it misinterpreted the justices' precedent when reviewing the University of Texas at Austin's affirmative action policy.
The decision is a provisional victory for Abigail Fisher, a white woman who claimed that UT-Austin unconstitutionally discriminated against her after the state's flagship university rejected her application in 2008 under its race-conscious admissions program. UT-Austin will now have a much more difficult job of proving its program constitutional under the standard the Supreme Court clarified on Monday.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, endorsed the Supreme Court's prior decisions establishing affirmative action as constitutional to further states' compelling interest in fostering a diverse student body. But the majority maintained that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit did not give a hard enough look at UT-Austin's race-conscious admissions program.
"The University must prove that the means chosen by the University to attain diversity are narrowly tailored to that goal. On this point, the University receives no deference," Kennedy wrote. "Strict scrutiny must not be strict in theory but feeble in fact."
Thought this was relevant enough for a bump
|
The decision is basically a non-decision. The Court said that the lower courts failed to properly apply a strict scrutiny analysis and remanded the case to be reconsidered. This case will be back up to the Supreme Court in a few years. That said, the University is going to have a harder time justifying its policies now.
|
Meh, not what I had hoped for 
|
On June 25 2013 00:22 Ghostcom wrote:Meh, not what I had hoped for
What were you hoping for?
|
On June 25 2013 00:33 xDaunt wrote:What were you hoping for?
Personally I'd've wanted the court to rule in favor of Fisher, but either decision is more favorable compared to the Supreme Court sending the decision back so they can diddle themselves some more. It's like Congress except you can't even vote these guys out of office.
|
On June 25 2013 00:33 xDaunt wrote:What were you hoping for?
An actual decision, and hopefully one that would have lead to abandoning of AA.
EDIT: Sentinel nailed it.
|
On June 25 2013 00:37 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 00:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 25 2013 00:22 Ghostcom wrote:Meh, not what I had hoped for What were you hoping for? Personally I'd've wanted the court to rule in favor of Fisher, but either decision is more favorable compared to the Supreme Court sending the decision back so they can diddle themselves some more. It's like Congress except you can't even vote these guys out of office.
Well, I understand why the Court sent it back. Making a decision based upon an incomplete or inadequate record is always a bad idea. It's an invitation to make bad law. On a more practical note, I promise you that there was some wheeling and dealing done in a back room to create this majority and this result.
|
On June 25 2013 00:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 00:37 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On June 25 2013 00:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 25 2013 00:22 Ghostcom wrote:Meh, not what I had hoped for What were you hoping for? Personally I'd've wanted the court to rule in favor of Fisher, but either decision is more favorable compared to the Supreme Court sending the decision back so they can diddle themselves some more. It's like Congress except you can't even vote these guys out of office. Well, I understand why the Court sent it back. Making a decision based upon an incomplete or inadequate record is always a bad idea. It's an invitation to make bad law. On a more practical note, I promise you that there was some wheeling and dealing done in a back room to create this majority and this result.
I mean I'm ok with the decision that they sent it back per se, I just don't like that the process of getting it back for the Supreme Court's final decision on the matter is going to take at least a few years. A few months or even a year I could understand because of the necessity of making sure the second time through the precedent is 100% solid and everything is considered, but there's still a lot of under-the-table, as you say, wheeling and dealing, to slow down (and maybe if one side is very unsatisfied, obstruct as much as they can) the passage of the decision.
|
On June 25 2013 00:37 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 00:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 25 2013 00:22 Ghostcom wrote:Meh, not what I had hoped for What were you hoping for? Personally I'd've wanted the court to rule in favor of Fisher, but either decision is more favorable compared to the Supreme Court sending the decision back so they can diddle themselves some more. It's like Congress except you can't even vote these guys out of office.
This. Our government is a culture of lazy fucks who will do nothing.
Hell, even if it is right for justices to do this based on the spirit of what it is to be the SCOTUS (only apply your power when absolutely needed), it's frustrating to live in a country where your only hope for seeing the government actually getting shit done is SCOTUS, and then they don't rule on things.
|
No one in the government has any balls to do anything unless someone is getting a suit of armor made of money from corporations or security of other elected officers. No one stands for what they believe is right anymore. Sellouts.
|
On June 25 2013 03:27 Vestige wrote:
No one in the government has any balls to do anything unless someone is getting a suit of armor made of money from corporations or security of other elected officers. No one stands for what they believe is right anymore. Sellouts.
Generalities. Love 'em.
|
On November 02 2012 07:04 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 06:57 sevencck wrote:On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote:
As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference. Why? It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color? Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
This is the primary issue with AA. It tries to treat a symptom without addressing the real problem. The real issue is that schools are grossly disproportionate in level of funding due to the primary source of funding coming from the local level. Low income neighborhoods have low income schools, which have underfunded education programs. The education system is "going to hell in a hand basket" in the US. And it will continue to get worse until we change how public schools are funded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
