Facts about racism

Post Reply New Topic

You introduced the notion.

And you've somehow made the leap in logic that I believe alleged black criminality is genetic. So much for likening Aspies to Vulcans, because your logic is flawed.

It was you who made the leap in logic to suggest Holmes was saying black criminality might be genetic. By contrast, I took the single tiny step of assuming projection on your part.

This latest act of projection in your response to myself merely serves to reinforce my hypothesis.

I think anyone familiar with my posts - friend or foe - knows I'm hardly projecting racism. The fact that Holmes seems to think police overkill with blacks is justifiable begs for an explanation why blacks would be so "inclined" toward crime. Plenty on the right have stated that criminality with blacks is genetic.

I want to be clear to everyone: I don't come on here making these posts because I care about black people, nor am I trying to convince anyone of that fact. I'm simply pointing out what seems to me a very huge oversight of a group called Black Lives Matter.

We can proceed logically with the idea that black lives matter, and point out the most significant problems that are affecting them, which is what I'm doing.

Seeing how they are all so concerned with black lives, you'd think they would want to consider these things, but instead they call them "myths" and "diversion tactics". They aren't myths, but they are diversion tactics, the strategy being to divert humanity from stupidity.

So please consider the idea, at least for a second, that I may not actually be a racist. Maybe I'm pointing out a very problematic way of thinking about the world, one that leads to racism instead of preventing it.

I'm inclined to agree that that aggression(fighting) is linked to testosterone.

We neuter male dogs and male cows, and it works. They become more docile.

So, a testosterone-aggression-crime correlation makes sense to me.

Also, higher-T men having lower IQ makes sense to me too.

We see this portrayed in movies like, "Revenge of the Nerds" where the "jocks" are sports-orientated alpha-males who workout, and the "nerds" are beta-males that go to the library. I suspect the "jocks" have higher testosterone levels, while the "nerds" would score higher on an IQ test.

So, intutively, I'm inclined to agree.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 02 Oct 2016, 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Demonstrably false, as proven by my own consideration of your words. I don't care if you are a racist, but you clearly do.



The fact that Holmes (who is not alone in this) doesn't believe it's overkill in the first place seems to have been completely lost on you. If you read through this thread, you'll see plenty of discussion of the possible social factors which lead to higher than normal rates of crime in some black communities. Sadly, very few people seem interested in that particular discussion, let alone finding solutions.

Source?

... Author(s), Year, Journal and P-value, if you don't mind...

Dogs and bulls aren't capable of the degree of higher reasoning that humans are. They can't be taught social responsibility.

Whilst I agree that testosterone and aggression are related, I believe that high testosterone should be considered only as something which exacerbates rather than causes crime - except in extreme cases where abnormally high testosterone is virtually guaranteed to lead to violence.



I've seen contradicting data from research into IQ vs testosterone, so I don't know if it's a clear-cut correlation. You've given me something to look into when I have some spare time.

I seem to recall reading that black males actually had higher levels of estrogen but similar levels of testosterone on average when compared to white males.

Pretty much every black-crime news article in the comments section on yahoo.

Not trying to hurt feelings, or be racist, or sexist. I was just pointing out information I see repeated often.

Yes, I've seen discussion of social factors in this thread. But the inference seems still to be that cops are justified in viewing blacks as potential criminals in a way that doesn't apply to whites, among certain posters.

Revenge Of The Nerds was just a movie, and can hardly be used as a legitimate example.
And the fact remains, a great many black boys and men are not athletically inclined, nor are they all criminally inclined. Back in the 19th, and early half of the 20th centuries, the argument was that Italians, eastern European Jews, and Irish Catholics had lower IQ's, were violently inclined, and brought poverty with them to the inner cities where they once were shoehorned into. I doubt today that any thinking person would accuse them of that, and would have no problem as counting them as white as well.

You're trying to be PC, however, I'm confident that if we castrated all men, then violent crime statistics would plunge.

This is why we castrate male dogs and cows.

Violence seem strongly correlated to testosterone.

Thus, testosterone seems to be the culprit.

This is total rubbish. Don't repeat stuff you read in comment sections, check if it is true.

For starters, when other factors are controlled for there's no link between IQ and race. There's also no link between race and penis length. You're literally just repeating racist tropes.

It also doesn't explain the dominance of black women in the same set of sports.

Based on that, I find it hard to believe that a genetic factor would be causing "higher aggression and less control" in black people.


Given that all people die, over the next 80 years every African American person in the country will die. If the average African-American has a 0.0004% chance of being killed by the police, then 15,600 currently-living African-Americans will be killed by the police. Five 9/11s.

Of course, once you reach a certain age you're less likely to be shot, so it's more like "by the time a black baby born today dies, there will have been five 9/11s worth of black deaths at the hands of police officers" than the currently-living version above.

258 a year? Multiply that by a life expectancy and see what number you get to. That's not accounting for population growth, of course.

I deliberately didn't say "every year". It's more like every 15 years. But you haven't had an actual 9/11 for 15 years either.

You tried to change the definition of a word by insisting everyone accepted your definition. I said that wasn't how it worked. adifferentname said that you can't change the definition of a word by insisting everyone accepts your definition.


Ah, finally, something we can agree on...

You need to be clear about the definition you are using if there is the potential for confusion, but your definition is not necessarily less valid just because it is not the one in a book. There are no gatekeepers to language.

Again, this depends somewhat on context. If you are being misleading and deliberately attempting to defame me, then you can't justify it later by saying you didn't mean it that way.

If, however, you write a long article trying to reclaim the word "paedophile" and give it a better definition more in line with your understanding of Greek, and after carefully stating your definition you said "The_Walrus cares about children, therefore he is a paedophile", fine. You might not be communicating as effectively as you could be, and the same is true of people trying to deliberately change the common understanding of racism, but that wouldn't make your definition invalid.


Now that is racist, even using your own definition. You are assigning a negative characteristic to a whole race. Black people don't pose a danger; many cops in Chicago are black people, and most black Chicagoans pose no danger to anyone. It's criminals that pose the danger.


Sure, I know many people who get shot by the police are being shot to save lives.

Seems contradictory to say "police are in danger so never at fault, but civilians are never justified." Civilians are in much more danger from cops than they are to cops. By your logic, a black person who sees a police officer knows there's a good chance he'll be shot, and so is justified in shooting first.


Which came first in America - black people being mistreated by authority figures, or black people committing crimes?

Last edited by The_Walrus on 02 Oct 2016, 11:45 am, edited 1 time in total.: Fixed quoting

I know you know what you've got wrong here.

The only clue I'll give you is that this is Logical Fallacies 101, Lesson 1.