Young black people are nine times more likely to be locked up in England and Wales than young white people, according to Ministry of Justice analysis.
The official exploratory study also shows that young black people are more likely to be identified with “gang concerns” and be considered a risk to others when being sentenced than any other ethnic group.
Is it because young black people are more likely to be in gangs or is it institutional wacism?
Is that more likely to be locked up for similar offences? Is a young black offender more likely to be carrying a knife when detained, thereby attracting a prison sentence? “Nine times more likely”, is good clickbait if you are the sort of person who reads that sort of newspaper but what is the context?
It doesn’t matter. Even you you prove beyond doubt and get them to admit that black people are more likely to commit crimes in the first place the SJW will just say that itself is because of wacism. You can’t win.
There’s a home office study that shows that the difference in imprisonment is a _lot_ smaller than that (maybe 40% higher) when a few of the important factors are taken into account- criminal history, the general ‘category’ of the offence, and the nationality of the criminal.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/479874/analysis-of-ethnicity-and-custodial-sentences.pdf
It doesn’t take gang associations into account, so as you say that probably explains some of it.
Another very important factor that is hard to measure is the difference in the actual severity of offences- the criminal offence categories are pretty broad. Things that blacks and Pakistanis do more often- acid attacks, forcible rape, etc, are treated the same for the purposes of the analysis as a mutual combat outside a pub*.
You also have to figure that attitude towards the cops pays a part. In my only serious interaction with the police, I dealt with a middle aged, British-native, British police officer of the sex that police officers are supposed to be. I suspect that things might have gone worse with him if I had not been apologetic and polite, and had instead suggested that it was my race that caused him to be persecuting me. Whether behaving like a civilized human being would have got me any credit with a foreigner, or a woman, is another question, but fortunately that wasn’t the case.
* Not that I’m endorsing those.
A public information video aimed at the demographic in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8
Young black people are nine times more likely to be locked up in England and Wales than young white people, according to Ministry of Justice analysis.
It’s because they are villains. …
When I was at Oxford in the early 70s, the wall of the castle (then a jail, now a trendy hotel) had a large graffito:
Why are 90% of prisoners working class?
Underneath, someone had written in equally large letters:
Because 90% of working class are criminals
Mutatis mutandis …
Constable Savage,
In possession of thick lips and curly hair?
I find it hard to believe there are sufficient white comparators, whose criminality is identical in terms of type and quantity, to allow for any meaningful comparison. Not even if you include pikeys.
Plus, as mentioned above, it’s easy to compare custody rates by offence name, but very, very hard work (I.e I don’t believe it happens) to compare with reference to the specific aggravating and mitigating features arising in each case.
Wearing a loud shirt during the hours of darkness?
Everyone knows white public school educated boys are just as likely to join street gangs as black boys, but no-one has the guts to admit it in public.
Why, only the other day I passed a public school where I clearly saw two gangs of fifteen white lads engaging in violence while their parents and teachers looked on approvingly.
Now answer this: why is this any different from Da Lolz stabbing their rivals to death in Croydon?
@Rob: God knows the bugmen and the catladies would love to stamp out the organized male mob camaraderie and physical courage of a good game of Rugby union (or league, or aussie rules).
The gall of these people is unbelievable. The same people who complain about an excess of blacks being locked up advocate the promotion of the most vile ‘cultural’ garbage that promotes the sort of cowardly gang violence that blacks are often either locked up for committing, or locked up for carrying individual weapons as force multipliers to defend against the scum.
These people have no problem with the promotion of rap and other degenerate art, but they hate the military and boxing gyms and good black music like T.O.K that promotes healthy family values and masculinity.
this is the article…. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/01/young-black-people-jailed-moj-report-david-lammy
The dysfunctional afro ‘family’ structure leads to young blacks seeking the support of gang membership. Gene-based factors – low IQ and a predisposition to violence – are amplified by their dysfunctional parenting and their gang membership. So afro males rapidly sink to the bottom of any society, often finding life as a violent predator is the easy option. No amount of public expenditure is going to change that.
They live in high crime areas – why they are high crime, who can say – and that’s where the cops are. Stab someone in my village and the cops are thirty minutes away*, so you’re twenty-nine minutes away when they arrive. Stab someone in Dalston and they’re in the next street. Plus, being thick, you haven’t done a runner but are posing for social media pictures with the knife and possibly the body of the victim.
*Incidentally, this is why 2/3 of the blokes here have at least one shotgun.
A ratio of 9:1 is more than just significant, but i is typical that the Grain and pro ably the underlying report make no attempt to explain the difference and imply that it is due to systemic racism. The comparison is between all blacks and all whites, not allowing for the greater relative proportion of whites in the leafy suburbs.
Is it coz they’z black?
Why look for reasons when it is all inevitable. See Detroit, Chicago etc.
Multiculturism, hate laws, political police, BLM,
Surprise, surprise.
I look forward to their explanation of gang membership being the result of racism.
A big clue to the magnitude of the BS factor here is the presence of the name David Lammy.
Locking them up is obviously an insufficient deterrent. Bring back the birch!
Colonel Mustard (retd)
Mr Womby,
Another nail in the coffin of the Conservative Party there.
UK prison population in 2016…
Male = 80988
Female = 3869
95.44% of criminals are male. Systematic sexism?!?
In 2015 only 16% of arrests were of women. Only 27% of prosecutions and convictions were of women. Only 9% of those sent to prison are women – the smaller prison population is because women get shorter sentences on average.
Interestingly, 38% of arrests of women are for violence against the person, with only 34% of the men arrested being for this offence category. Women were proportionately more likely than men to be arrested for violence and theft, and less likely in every other category, although only in the sexual offences category was the ratio very large (5% men and 1% women). Similarly, the most common offence among the actual prisoners was also violence against the person and theft, with a higher proportion of women for both. About 26% of women prisoners, and 25% of men are in for violence. about 22% of women and 15% of men are in for theft.
See here for lots more fuel for discussion…
If they didn’t break the law and end up in court and get convicted, in probably the fairest judicial system on Earth, then they wouldn’t end up in jug would they? No sympathy for idiots and criminals and especially idiot criminals.
Comparative advantage has a role to play here. In a mono-ethnic society, the bottom 5% of young men might turn to crime. But in a multi-ethnic society, that bottom 5% is largely non-white. Young white would-be criminals see the best opportunities being taken over by young black men; this then skews the ratios further, leading to that 9:1 we see.
Sure are a lot of racist Nazi morons about today.
The Ministry of Justice doesn’t consider whites and blacks to be the same. Why else would they keep race data? There is no other reason to note it.
The Ministry of Justice analysis is racist. The Ministry is racist.
Terry – fuck off?
Terry,
Accusing people of being Nazis is so last year.
It’s been overused so much that people have stopped listening to the morons using it as a stick to beat others with.
I like coming here to listen to the free ranging discussions unencumbered by delicate snowflakes who may be “triggered” by un-pc thoughts.
As Interested might have said, if you can’t contribute anything worthwhile, then fuck off – you’re not welcome here.
“Sure are a lot of racist Nazi morons about today.”
Ad hominem fallacy. Got any real arguments?
They never seem to bother doing international comparisons in these analyses.
You’d find that black guys are disproportionately likely to end up in jail in the US, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, and even cuck capital of the world, Sweden.
Obviously this is because of an international racist conspiracy to keep the black man down. Probably involving the reanimated cyborg Enoch Powell gloating over an atlas while listening to Al Jolson songs.
Andrew M
Doesn’t that imply importing young black men deters young white men from crime? Coming over here and taking our bank jobs, so to speak.
Terry: Thanks. I don’t identify with national socialism as such myself, but your level of engagement with the facts helps decent people like myself move the conversation in the right direction.
It takes a serious crime to be locked up for a first offence. But some people (sink estate, sink school) are too thick to realise they are on the cops’ radar.
A generation ago there were hardly any muslims in jail. Now we need an imam for every one. This is a bigger change I think.
It’s easy to solve any real or pseudo problem of young black males committing violent crimes.
Let’s just find a place, a jurisdiction, somewhere in the world where young black males do not commit disproportionate numbers of violent crimes and copy their systems.
Ha, ha, ha, the thought of Guardianistas in particular and lefties in general looking for that non-existent shangri-la amuses me intensely.
Not unrelated:
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/paying-the-price-for-breakdown-of-the-countrys-bourgeois-culture-20170809.html?mobi=true
‘You’d find that black guys are disproportionately likely to end up in jail in the US, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, and even cuck capital of the world, Sweden.’
Racist to notice that. Unfortunately it’s only by noticing it that anything can be done about it (if anything can be done about it), but your actual racists like Terry prefer to keep the black folk down. It’s the effect of every social policy the left has ever introduced in at least two continents.
Tom Sowell – a hero round these parts – is interesting on this, and, having grown up poor in mid 20th C Harlem, he actually has a Scooby, too. Fancy!
your two questions are not mutually exclusive. indeed they may constitute a feedback loop.
In the US in 2005 blacks were 3.3 times more likely than whites to commit single-offender crimes of violence and 8.0 times more likely to commit multiple-offender crimes of violence.
source: U.S. Department of Justice, 2006. Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005 Statistical Tables.
“I like coming here to listen to the free ranging discussions unencumbered by delicate snowflakes who may be “triggered” by un-pc thoughts.
As Interested might have said, if you can’t contribute anything worthwhile, then fuck off – you’re not welcome here.”
Triggered, much?
Free speech implies allowing anti-racist speech alongside racist, and not moaning like a snowflake about the fact some people are allowed to disagree with you in your hearing.
It supports my contention that authoritarians on every side are all the same. They always want to shut down and shut out all opposition, but don’t want to be shut out themselves.
“You’d find that black guys are disproportionately likely to end up in jail in the US, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, and even cuck capital of the world, Sweden.”
Take out the word ‘black’ and that’s still true.
95% of the people in jail are men. Is that sexism, or what?
“Doesn’t that imply importing young black men deters young white men from crime? Coming over here and taking our bank jobs, so to speak.”
🙂 Funny!
“Let’s just find a place, a jurisdiction, somewhere in the world where young black males do not commit disproportionate numbers of violent crimes and copy their systems.”
Again, just delete the word ‘black’. Same thing applies.
95% of the prison population are male, but only about 25% are black. So for crime reduction purposes, fixing the problem of male crime would be three times more effective than fixing the problem of black crime.
–
In any case, the answer to your question is to go to an African country where most of the population are black, so it’s not possible for black crime to be so disproportionately high. Somalia, say. Funny joke, yes? 🙂
Roué le Jour,
> Doesn’t that imply importing young black men deters young white men from crime?
Yes, precisely that. Similarly, the presence of a sizeable gypsy minority in some Eastern European countries means the (non-gypsy) natives are better-behaved. The effects aren’t spread evenly across the country though, just as minorities aren’t spread evenly across the country.
@NiV – speaking purely for myself, I suggested that he fuck off because he made a boring statement intended purely to annoy and wasn’t interested in debate (or he would have made some constructive point). I have the right to suggest that he does that in exactly the same way as he has the right to say what he said, and the alleged racists have the right to say what they said. So I’m not really getting your point, unless it is that no one can ever tell anyone else to fuck off, but must always listen to them. That seems rather authoritarian to me.
Nice to see L’Oréal acting appropriately and firing the transgender model for claiming all white people are racists
Also fun to see people rushing to her defence and trying to twist the logic around, cognitive dissonance at its finest
@NiV ‘95% of the prison population are male, but only about 25% are black. So for crime reduction purposes, fixing the problem of male crime would be three times more effective than fixing the problem of black crime.’
Again, I’m not sure I see your point? The problem *is* being fixed – by incarceration (which is the only certain method of preventing criminals from predating upon their fellow man). Or, at least, this is true for those of us who believe that problem is the crime, not the fact that criminals are incarcerated; the whole point of the responses to the original article (I think) is that that writer sees incarceration of criminals itself as the problem.
@NiV:
Apples and oranges, male and female. We’re comparing black to non-black male crime rates because female crime is so much smaller.
As for being racist, of course I am, so are all of you, but too frightened to admit it. We are genetically programmed:”I, against my brothers. I and my brothers against my cousins. I and my brothers and my cousins against the world.”
My racism does not consist of hating or denigrating other races, but rather in trying to understand their strengths and weaknesses. We will never help Blacks to deal with an obvious tendency to violent crime until we understand them. We will never do that when we claim, like idiots, that they are just like English villagers, or in my case small town western Canadian whites.
I am not even prepared to say their tendency to violent crime is a bad thing, especially when I look at the weak, whiny, spineless millennials, hipsters and other snivelers who claim to be triggered by a word or a statue. Maybe we whites have lost our ability to fight and need an influx of new blood.
Blacks commit more crime. That’s why they end up in Jail.
Quite simple really.
@NiV,
The 95% male prison population is eloquently explained by JuiiaM:
#pussypass
Furthermore, the justice system seem to believe this nursery rhyme is true:
More Gov’t Green Lunacy
Over 1,000 new jobs are to be created under a £1 billion programme to install solar panels on social housing across England and Wales.
£1 Million tax-payer money for each job created.
Plus more consumer subsidies for the FIT.
Based on my life experiences, there is no way to answer the question. All I can say is that institutional racism is real and causes at least part of the increase. I don’t think there is even a way to determine the answer, as long as we’re using something as highly visible as melanin content to set up the basic categories.
It occurred to me that it might be useful to look at crime trends for Irish Americans. 150 years ago Irish American crime rates were described in a manner very similar to current black crime rates. Today Irish are mostly integrated. We should be able to get an idea of the effects of systemic racism by looking at Irish American crime rates over the last century and a half. Unfortunately it does not appear that anyone has bothered collecting the data. I don’t know enough about the history of Ireland and Irish people in the UK to be able to draw any conclusions from data from your side of the pond.
“@NiV – speaking purely for myself, I suggested that he fuck off because he made a boring statement intended purely to annoy and wasn’t interested in debate (or he would have made some constructive point).”
There are a lot of boring, unconstructive, and offensive points being put on here. It doesn’t seem to bother anyone.
“I have the right to suggest that he does that in exactly the same way as he has the right to say what he said, and the alleged racists have the right to say what they said.”
Well, so long as you didn’t expect him to pay any attention to your invitation, that’s OK.
“So I’m not really getting your point, unless it is that no one can ever tell anyone else to fuck off, but must always listen to them.”
Of course you can tell them to fuck off. It just makes you look like a snowflake authoritarian dick who can’t take criticism, which is not exactly constructive for your cause. That’s all I’m saying.
“Nice to see L’Oréal acting appropriately and firing the transgender model for claiming all white people are racists”
Hmm. Fired for saying the wrong thing. Rather like that Google fella?
That’s their right, of course. But I’m wondering what this implies for free speech.
“Again, I’m not sure I see your point? The problem *is* being fixed – by incarceration”
The point, fairly obviously, is that the difference in incarceration rates by sex is even more stark than that by race, so all the comments above being applied to blacks are also applicable – times three – to men. Conversely, any excuses offered in defence of men are applicable to blacks.
For example:
—–
“Young men are twenty times more likely to be locked up in England and Wales than young women, according to Ministry of Justice analysis.”
“It’s because they are villains. …”
—-
That’s true enough, right? I’m sure the feminists would agree…
” (which is the only certain method of preventing criminals from predating upon their fellow man)”
I think that’s a statement that could be argued with. It’s like the drugs war – I think pretty much every study of incarceration concludes that it doesn’t work. Locking criminals up does nothing to reform them – it locks them in to the criminal culture and throws away the key.
People turn to crime for fundamentally economic reasons. When you’ve got nothing to lose, the penalties are not as significant. It’s seen as a source of easy (if risky) money for people with no other options. And gangs tend to be self-propagating – people join them for mutual self-defence from the other gangs – and thereby get dragged into the culture.
The only certain method of preventing criminals preying on their fellow man is prosperity. If you’ve got a good job and a future you’re not going to risk it by breaking the law, and you don’t have the need. The lowest crime areas are the richest.
“Apples and oranges, male and female. We’re comparing black to non-black male crime rates because female crime is so much smaller.”
What? That makes no sense! The male/female ratio is even bigger than the black/white ration! You ought to be ignoring race in favour of sex. That is, if it’s actually the crime you care about.
“As for being racist, of course I am, so are all of you, but too frightened to admit it.”
Nope. Skin colour is just a handful of genes with no relation to anything else, like eye colour or blood group. You think I’m suspicious of people with a different blood group to me?
No, my biases are all to do with the authoritarian/libertarian divide. Authoritarians are the ones I consider ‘not of my tribe’.
The logic of the genetic programming of xenophobia is over-rated. Familial altruism genes only select for altruism towards people with the same altruism gene. They’re not interested in unrelated characteristics, like hair colour or eye colour or skin colour. They’re only interested in whether the other person has the same altruism gene, which given the degree of interbreeding between humans is virtually certain now.
” We will never help Blacks to deal with an obvious tendency to violent crime until we understand them. We will never do that when we claim, like idiots, that they are just like English villagers, or in my case small town western Canadian whites.”
Agreed. But I’d argue the problem is culture, not race. Culture is also inherited from one’s parents, and has a direct effect on one’s life prospects.
Black kids who were adopted and brought up by white families have exactly the same performance at school as white kids. It’s only when they get to teenage and get involved with their racial peer group that they go off the rails.
White people off the council estates with poor parents have exactly the same problem – and are criminal in much greater numbers as a result in just the same way. Law-abiding prosperity is the result of a particular culture – one we learn from our parents and peers.
Black people are just as capable of learning that culture as white people. But they don’t, because “black culture” is “celebrated”, and preserved like in a museum, when the doctrine of multiculturalism replaced integration with cultural separation and stasis.
Black culture? – yes, I’m against that.But blacks? No, not in the slightest. No more than ginger people.
“The 95% male prison population is eloquently explained by JuiiaM: #pussypass”
Ah! So you’re saying it *is* institutional sexism! Heh!
@NiV – how the fuck can anyone other than Tim be authoritarian on here?
But I don’t see anyone objecting to the observation that men (on average) are more violent than women, or (again, on average) more prone to crime. Those that are making the comparison are making it as a reductio ad absurdum argument that if you interpret any differnece in arrest or incarceration rates as evidence of racism, then you havae to accept that same argument as being evidence of sexism.
Since we accept that men and women have different inate levels of criminality, and that arrest and incarceration rates are not prima facie evidence of differing treatment, then we have to question the automatic assumption of racism when we see even smaller differences in outcomes between whites and blacks.
Liberal Yank: If institutional racism was an issue, there would be differences between in the race of those arrested/charged, and reported race of perps from crime victimization stats.
There are- blacks are arrested less than they offend.
Some institutional racism.
The thing is, blacks commit a lot of crime everywhere they live in significant numbers. Even (especially?) in places where blacks run the joint. Draw your own conclusions from there.
“@NiV – how the fuck can anyone other than Tim be authoritarian on here?”
How can some Guardian journalist publishing an article on the internet be authoritarian? Same way.
“But I don’t see anyone objecting to the observation that men (on average) are more violent than women, or (again, on average) more prone to crime.”
Except when some radical feminist says it…
“Since we accept that men and women have different inate levels of criminality, and that arrest and incarceration rates are not prima facie evidence of differing treatment, then we have to question the automatic assumption of racism when we see even smaller differences in outcomes between whites and blacks.”
Agreed. (There are separate reasons for thinking the differences between men and women are far more significant than those between blacks and whites, but for the sake of argument…)
But then my point is that the commentary here is not nearly as anti-male as it is anti-black, and for consistency it ought to be more so. I’m sure there’s a reason for that…
“The thing is, blacks commit a lot of crime everywhere they live in significant numbers. Even (especially?) in places where blacks run the joint. Draw your own conclusions from there.”
Same goes for men.
“All I can say is that institutional racism is real and causes at least part of the increase.”
In your dreams.
“Today Irish are mostly integrated.”
Ipso facto, blacks have been dis-integrated. With full encouragement from Dems and the press. Blood on your hands, LY.
But then my point is that the commentary here is not nearly as anti-male as it is anti-black, and for consistency it ought to be more so. I’m sure there’s a reason for that…
The reason is that no one is blaming the male propensity for criminal activity on “institutional sexism” or The Woman keeping men down. No one really doubts that biological differences are driving the different rates of male and female criminality. Whereas with the black situation, no one wants to think that biological differences between the races are the primary factor driving the different levels of criminality. So they attribute it to institutional racism or implicit bias or whatever. Or if you’re a libertarian, you talk about legal weed and hope the other person gets bored and walks away.
The lower IQ of blacks probably explains it.
“Stab someone in Dalston and they’re in the next street. ”
Sorry, Interested, but this just isn’t true. I spent a dozen years in one of the highest crime areas in London. Next door boro to Dalston. 93 recorded crimes in our short street in a month. The policing was undiscernable. Rang Tottenham nick, one night, to report a robbery in progress. Told there was one car available in an area from the Archway Road to Lea Valley. Response time was 3 hours. Why d’y think I live here now?
I suspect there are some obvious (non race) genetic factors at work here. The culture of baby mothers and absent fathers means that a single male will have multiple children while others have none. In picking said male, do we think the baby mother goes for the quiet, sensitive guardian reading intellectual or the loud, muscular petty criminal thug? So it’s not just that boys with absent fathers are attracted to gang culture it’s that they are genetically suited to it. If by chance a softer intellectual type is conceived, the chances of them reproducing are much lower in said culture so that they are ‘bred out’. Arguably this is what keeps the collective IQ of large parts of Africa lower than in the developed world. Being smarter does not help you survive.
By contrast of course the weedy white middle class culture that values the skills of a lawyer or a banker much higher as a prospective father is leading to a nerd culture.
@NiV
““@NiV – how the fuck can anyone other than Tim be authoritarian on here?”
How can some Guardian journalist publishing an article on the internet be authoritarian? Same way.”
What?? No one is saying the Guardian journalist is authoritarian, they’re questioning his implication that it’s all/in large part down to racism (on the part of police and judges), when some of it might be but a lot of it certainly isn’t.
As far as I can tell from a quick skim, *you* introduced the concept of authoritarianism. All I did was suggest Terry fucked off – I have no authority to make him do so.
Your stuff about men is a smokescreen and an off topic diversion. We all know that men are more criminal – it’s not even controversial. Indeed, the Guardian regularly carries articles demanding even fewer women are jailed, for less time.
It also seems clear that black (to use the Guardian’s own term) people (ditto) are more criminal as a subset of people – ‘why’ is the interesting question, not ‘why aren’t you worried about male criminality?’
There is a lot of thought-provoking commentary above, and Terry could have added to it (and attempted properly to rebut those parts with which he disagreed), but he preferred to say we’re all nazi morons. To which: fuck off?
Your replies are more nuanced, but they amount to the same thing, being oblique statements of the irrelevant obvious that seek to ignore or obscure the main point.
@NiV: ‘If you’ve got a good job and a future you’re not going to risk it by breaking the law…’
Except that rich people do that all the time.
Black people have no choice but to form gangs in order to protect themselves from all the white supremacist lynch mobs roaming UK cities. They are the victims, not those they mug, shoot and stab.
‘About nine in every 10,000 young black people in the general population were locked up in young offender institutions, secure training centres or secure children’s homes in England and Wales in 2015-16.’
Wait . . . 9 in 10,000? 0.09%? What a niggardly statistic. Hardly worth worrying about.
Besides, won’t the 9,991 others be glad the government is keeping the criminals away from them? Do blacks not like having criminals removed from their midst?
Government attention to race is destructive.
“The reason is that no one is blaming the male propensity for criminal activity on “institutional sexism” or The Woman keeping men down.”
One hypothesis is that it’s because of differing male and female economic roles. Males have the responsibility to provide and protect, women are provided for and protected. Women are allowed to seek help when in trouble. Men are expected to sort it out themselves. So when there’s no money and the kids are hungry, it’s the man who goes out burgling houses, not the woman. When there’s a dispute in the street, women can back down and are generally expected to, but men have to defend their status and their territory.
Those differences are partially biological, but not entirely, as we know from the more prosperous parts of society where men don’t do that.
“No one really doubts that biological differences are driving the different rates of male and female criminality.”
They ought to.
“As far as I can tell from a quick skim, *you* introduced the concept of authoritarianism. All I did was suggest Terry fucked off – I have no authority to make him do so.”
What you said was “I like coming here to listen to the free ranging discussions unencumbered by delicate snowflakes who may be “triggered” by un-pc thoughts.
As Interested might have said, if you can’t contribute anything worthwhile, then fuck off – you’re not welcome here.” I was commenting on the inconsistency between wanting free ranging discussions where people could say whatever they want to without having to worry about other people not liking it, and telling somebody to “fuck off” out of your ‘safe space’ for saying what they wanted to in a way you didn’t like.
People telling other people what they’re allowed to say in your hearing is what I meant by “authoritarian”. Advocating authoritarian restrictions, even if you don’t have the power to enforce them, is still authoritarian.
“There is a lot of thought-provoking commentary above, and Terry could have added to it (and attempted properly to rebut those parts with which he disagreed), but he preferred to say we’re all nazi morons.”
The possibility that you might be nazi morons *is* thought-provoking commentary. (The nazis pointed to all the same social differences between the races when they first created/justified their ‘master race’ ideology. Society has subsequently decided they were morons for doing so. Why? And how do you rebut society’s arguments? It’s a pretty obvious point.) You could have attempted to rebut it if you disagreed. But you preferred to say “Fuck off”.
“Except that rich people do that all the time.”
Evidence?
“Black people have no choice but to form gangs in order to protect themselves from all the white supremacist lynch mobs roaming UK cities.”
No. Kids join gangs to defend themselves against *all* the gangs. If you’re not in a gang, you’re anybody’s victim. If you’re in a gang, the other gang-members will protect you from everyone else. But in return, you have to join in protecting the gang’s turf and cooperating in their business ventures.
It’s kind of a cheap, do-it-yourself nation state/army/police force, for when the official state isn’t doing its job. They’re a consequence of poverty – it’s simply that blacks are more likely to be poor. And other people are less likely to care.
@NiV
“What you said was “I like coming here to listen to the free ranging discussions unencumbered by delicate snowflakes who may be “triggered” by un-pc thoughts.”
I didn’t say any of that.
“Kids join gangs to defend themselves against *all* the gangs. ”
So why are my kids not in a gang?
“So why are my kids not in a gang?”
Do you live in a poor district?
“I didn’t say any of that.”
Fair point – I missed that there were two of you saying it. But that was what I was responding to.
Gamecock,
You’ve made it clear that you don’t want to consider that black people actually do get treated differently.
Paul Rain,
Well that happens when being black is considered a crime. What we want to know is what would happen to black crime rates, over the course of multiple generations, if they aren’t treated differently?
“You’ve made it clear that you don’t want to consider that black people actually do get treated differently.”
I live in South Carolina. I am surrounded by black people. Most are just people. Your assertion that they are treated differently is destructive; it feeds the personality disorder psychosis pushed by the Left on to susceptible blacks.
@NiV
““So why are my kids not in a gang?”
Do you live in a poor district?”
Are all kids in poor districts in gangs?
Gamecock,
How many black friends do you have that you can discuss this issue with?
In countries where whites are in a minority are they disproportionately represented in prisons? Just curious.
Also. “Black”. Quite a wide spectrum of backgrounds I guess. Is there a breakdown available? Ghanaian? Nigerian?
In North Korea, probably yes!
One hypothesis is that it’s because of differing male and female economic roles. Males have the responsibility to provide and protect, women are provided for and protected. Women are allowed to seek help when in trouble. Men are expected to sort it out themselves. So when there’s no money and the kids are hungry, it’s the man who goes out burgling houses, not the woman. When there’s a dispute in the street, women can back down and are generally expected to, but men have to defend their status and their territory.
Oh right. Maybe if we dress eveyone in identical gray Mao suits and give them matching bowl haircuts, sex differences will disappear and we’ll have a criminal justice utopia where 50% of the murderers and rapists are female. Who knows, it could work this time!
@NiV, September 2, 2017 at 10:33 pm
Yes, institutional sexism against males – misandry
Liberal Yank:
>Well that happens when being black is considered a crime. What we want to know is what would happen to black crime rates, over the course of multiple generations, if they aren’t treated differently?
Lol. Is that why blacks can’t into civiiisation in Haiti too? Some 200 year old laws MAKING BEING BLACK A CRIME that they haven’t repealed yet, somehow?
Paul,
You seem to be ignorant of Haitian history. The US administered Haiti from 1915-1934 and, once the dust settled from our departure, the nation was governed by our Cold War dictator-pawns until 1986. We aren’t dealing with 200 year old laws in Haiti. Yes, our occupation included reintroducing segregation.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/haiti
I’ve dealt with scores of burglars. Don’t recall ever dealing with one who burgled in order to feed his kids. 99.9 per cent of them are drug and/or alcohol addicts who burgle to feed their own addictions.
… and 99.9 per cent of them don’t live with their numerous children. Quite aside from anything else, for them to do so would require the impossibility of occupying more than one home simultaneously.
Nobody would burgle to feed their kids. If you absolutely could not get food you would pinch the food, not pinch an xBox, sell the xBox and use the proceeds to buy food.
Interested,
I have to wonder if that is actually true? Size is important when considering what to steal. If one is trying to feed kids, it would be rather difficult to hide that bulk of food, compared to the far smaller xBox.
Ofc, someone that is forced to resort to stealing food most likely isn’t the brightest bulb in the bunch. There is a good chance volume wouldn’t be a consideration.
“How many black friends do you have that you can discuss this issue with?”
WHAT ISSUE? YOU ARE TRYING TO CREATE ONE WHERE NONE EXISTS, AND IT DESTROYS PEOPLE’S LIVES.
LOL
Shout away Gamecock, I know you have no basis for your claims because I have seen, been harmed, and benefited from systemic racism. Get out of your bubble. We have problems to solve.
“How many black friends do you have that you can discuss this issue with?”
This shows what an idiot you are. I talk more with white people; I know their views on race. They thoroughly disprove your belief in their racism. Talking with blacks would tell me what about alleged white racism ??? Hearsay is NOT evidence.
I can’t make you open your eyes. All I can do is hope that you don’t pass on your ignorance.
What kind of numpty would go through the hassle of nicking an X-Box, find some way to fence it and then go food shopping with their ill-gotten gains in a land of wall-to-wall food banks?
Alternatively, from an economic perspective, should the prevalence of food banks be discernible from the burglary rates? If, as I suspect, there is no noticeable change, can we assume these burglaries fall into the ‘wants’ category rather than the ‘needs’ – in that case cut straight to the chase with an Ecksie/hemp rope solution.
“I can’t make you open your eyes. All I can do is hope that you don’t pass on your ignorance.”
Nor I you. You are a chump, sucked in by the whining of the personality disordered. Accommodating the psychotic does them no favors.
I think we have come to the point where we agree to disagree.
Can we at least agree to both wanting a future where we never have this conversation again?
“Can we at least agree to both wanting a future where we never have this conversation again?”
I am the third of four boys. I spent the first 18 years of my life in confrontation. Confrontation doesn’t bother me; I rather enjoy it. It’s my natural state.
Black Lives Matter is a mental condition. Supporting them, instead of telling them to get over it, is the correct response.
“Hands up, don’t shoot,” is a mental condition, independent from the well documented reality. The correct response to the Ferguson rioters: “You people are idiots.”
But the Dems can’t get votes with those responses, and the legacy press can’t sell that story, so they stir up stupid sh++.
As long as you support idiocy, Mr Yank, I’ll be calling you on it. And “All I can say is that institutional racism is real and causes at least part of the increase” is idiocy.