Guns, Guns Guns

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

Annachie wrote:Rural murders are, in general, much simpler to solve.

Really?

Why?

Your effort to answer these questions might be educational.

Rural murders, by definition, take place in relatively sparsely populated areas. There are few suspects to pick from, and everybody usually knows whodunit before the cops even start asking questions.

In contrast, most of those unsolved murders take place in densely packed minority neighborhoods where the residents have been taught to distrust, fear and hate the police. Most of them are gang punks killing other gang punks over drugs, so the police are less than completely motivated to solve them in the first place. Everybody is hostile to them, and the gangs have them intimidated, so even the ones who don’t hate the police won’t talk.

Those are some of the dysfunctional attitudes and behaviors that have turned other countries into shitholes, and created similar shitholes right here in the US. Disregard for the law, and law enforcement. Gangs running the neighborhoods. Drugs more important than jobs. Schools are worthless; the few who try to learn are bullied and tormented. “Us’ versus “Them” where “Them” is everybody outside their little shithole ‘hood’.

And they just don’t get it. They blame their problems on the honkeys, the gringos, racism, discrimination, The Man, everybody and everything EXCEPT the actual cause: their own dysfunctional behavior.
———————————
There are a lot of idiots in the world that believe applying a politically correct label to a thing will make it what they wish it to be, instead of what it is. They are full of shit.

Systemic racism "not a problem", according to area white man

The E wrote:Systemic racism "not a problem", according to area white man

I think E is trying to say that Racism is the problem, but Racism is a two-way highway which is most certainly not limited to the majority.
Racism is often enhanced by cultural incompatibilities and lack of communication. Note that many ethnic minorities are not in the geographical areas that their cultures arose from, so many of the traditions that kept their ancestors alive in that particular region can easily prove to be a cause of friction when pursued in their new neighborhoods, especially when said traditions clash with the traditions of the local majority, at which point there are only two real options. They can either adapt their own culture to fit in better, or reinforce their culture by trying to fend off the surrounding culture, thus leading to the creation of enclaves and hostility to anyone who is not them.
Sadly, too many groups choose the second option, even though it is far more self-destructive in the long run.

Michael Everett wrote:

The E wrote:Systemic racism "not a problem", according to area white man

I think E is trying to say that Racism is the problem, but Racism is a two-way highway which is most certainly not limited to the majority.

Kinda?

My main point here is that Imaginos, as a white man, lives in a world in which racism is not a problem. He doesn't see it, doesn't experience it; For him (and people like smr and TFLY), "racist" is something evil lefty people like me call people like him because we "don't have anything else to say". Sure, there are some racists out there, but those are easy to see and censure, right? They aren't whatever passes for normal; they're distinctly abnormal and thus easy to dismiss.

But that's not the whole story. Yes, there's very little outright racism out there these days (although, looking at the sort of people Trump dragged out of the shadows, I wouldn't be so sure about that), but that doesn't mean that racism as a whole is a solved problem. For Imaginos, people living in poverty do so because they're somehow defective, because they made wrong decisions or live in a culture that, to him, is dysfunctional. That, to him, is enough: No further inquiry is necessary. It's their fault, and only their fault, since (as he himself can attest to), you can easily make it in America if you put in the work.

What we're dealing with a lot these days (and what Imaginos et al are refusing to see because acknowledging it would require them to question the lies they built their world view around) is institutional racism and its effects. Racism operates on many levels, some more subtle than others. You see a moron in the streets ranting about how all the brown people are subhuman and should be killed, or how the Jews control everything and need to be extinguished, you know what that dude's about. You can dismiss him, he's not representative of you or the community you live in (one hopes, anyway).
But that's the easy part. The next part, the internalized racism that we all carry around within us, is harder to deal with; We all get slightly more wary when we're in a neighbourhood where there are lots of foreign accents, where things don't smell right and people don't look like us. To call that racism, one would feel, would overstate matters, surely, if the crime rate in this neighbourhood is high, being a bit on guard is good, yes? Nothing to do with any one person you come across there, just good practice.
But those prejudices, which you may not even be aware of and which, if they are pointed out to you, you'll definitely not see as racism, translate into unfair treatments in everyday situations. People living in the wrong 'hoods have a harder time getting loans; People with the wrong name have a harder time passing HR preselection for job candidates, the old effect of members of a minority having to do work above and beyond what a representative of the majority has to do to be accepted as equal.
And then there's institutional effects: The wiki page linked to above describes institutional racism as

"The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."

That's the things that lead to minority neighbourhoods getting low priority for infrastructure projects. It's the thing where police forces train their officers to be just that little bit more strict when in a minority neighbourhood or when dealing with members of a minority.
Policy decisions like those are rarely made by one individual. There's not a single person or committee in charge you can point to and say "that person was racist!", there's usually a bunch of statistics and very thorough reasoning behind these things that are carefully scrubbed of anything that smells of racial biases, but the end result is a country that espouses egalitarianism but is in actuality strongly stratified and where the circumstances of your birth dictate a lot about how difficult your later life will be.

The E wrote:



Kinda?

My main point here is that Imaginos, as a white man, lives in a world in which racism is not a problem. He doesn't see it, doesn't experience it; For him (and people like smr and TFLY), "racist" is something evil lefty people like me call people like him because we "don't have anything else to say". Sure, there are some racists out there, but those are easy to see and censure, right? They aren't whatever passes for normal; they're distinctly abnormal and thus easy to dismiss.

But that's not the whole story. Yes, there's very little outright racism out there these days (although, looking at the sort of people Trump dragged out of the shadows, I wouldn't be so sure about that), but that doesn't mean that racism as a whole is a solved problem. For Imaginos, people living in poverty do so because they're somehow defective, because they made wrong decisions or live in a culture that, to him, is dysfunctional. That, to him, is enough: No further inquiry is necessary. It's their fault, and only their fault, since (as he himself can attest to), you can easily make it in America if you put in the work.

What we're dealing with a lot these days (and what Imaginos et al are refusing to see because acknowledging it would require them to question the lies they built their world view around) is institutional racism and its effects. Racism operates on many levels, some more subtle than others. You see a moron in the streets ranting about how all the brown people are subhuman and should be killed, or how the Jews control everything and need to be extinguished, you know what that dude's about. You can dismiss him, he's not representative of you or the community you live in (one hopes, anyway).
But that's the easy part. The next part, the internalized racism that we all carry around within us, is harder to deal with; We all get slightly more wary when we're in a neighbourhood where there are lots of foreign accents, where things don't smell right and people don't look like us. To call that racism, one would feel, would overstate matters, surely, if the crime rate in this neighbourhood is high, being a bit on guard is good, yes? Nothing to do with any one person you come across there, just good practice.
But those prejudices, which you may not even be aware of and which, if they are pointed out to you, you'll definitely not see as racism, translate into unfair treatments in everyday situations. People living in the wrong 'hoods have a harder time getting loans; People with the wrong name have a harder time passing HR preselection for job candidates, the old effect of members of a minority having to do work above and beyond what a representative of the majority has to do to be accepted as equal.
And then there's institutional effects: The wiki page linked to above describes institutional racism as

"The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."

That's the things that lead to minority neighbourhoods getting low priority for infrastructure projects. It's the thing where police forces train their officers to be just that little bit more strict when in a minority neighbourhood or when dealing with members of a minority.
Policy decisions like those are rarely made by one individual. There's not a single person or committee in charge you can point to and say "that person was racist!", there's usually a bunch of statistics and very thorough reasoning behind these things that are carefully scrubbed of anything that smells of racial biases, but the end result is a country that espouses egalitarianism but is in actuality strongly stratified and where the circumstances of your birth dictate a lot about how difficult your later life will be.

I am going to astonish everyone by expressing some agreement with you, but with caveats.

Racism in the US was far more pervasive and very overt prior to the 1960s, but homicide clearance rates were better than 90%. Police were able to solve murders because the majority of the African American community would cooperate. The civil rights movement inspired some black seperatism which discouraged cooperation with investigations. The "War on Drugs" diverted police resources from violent crime to narcotics investigations.

The online tool available to access the FBI Supplementary Homicide Reports suggests that there is no difference in clearance rates for homicides when the victim is Black vs White. However; the easily accessed datadoes not differentiate between White vs White Hispanic. To do that you need to access the raw data either as computer file or raw computer files. Few do. It turns out that homicides of White Hispanics are far less likely to be solved than homicides of White Non-Hispanic.

Doesn't suprise me Fly.

Though in the '60's the clearance rates would have been affected by the masty habit to pin murders on convienent people and not the actual murderer.

Their behavior has to change first. Nothing can be done for them until they join the rest of society, and obey the same laws the rest of us have to. Until they start going to school and at least be qualified to get a job.

Homework may not be as fun and glamorous as rioting, but it is far more productive.

The E wrote:That's the things that lead to minority neighbourhoods getting low priority for infrastructure projects.

Right. Build a park. A gang takes it over and nobody else dares set foot in it. Another gang wants it, and there’s a huge shootout. Within a couple of months the place is trashed. Great return on that investment.

The E wrote:People living in the wrong 'hoods have a harder time getting loans

The government ‘helped’ the poor minorities get loans 20 years ago. They defaulted, en masse. There was a reason the banks didn’t want to loan them that money.

Banks don’t make any profit by not loaning money. If no bank will loan money to somebody, it's because they have good reason to expect them not to pay it back.
———————————
"E must be a king!"
"Ow d'yer know that?"
"E 'asn't got shit all over 'im!"

Imaginos1892 wrote:Their behavior has to change first. Nothing can be done for them until they join the rest of society, and obey the same laws the rest of us have to. Until they start going to school and at least be qualified to get a job.

Homework may not be as fun and glamorous as rioting, but it is far more productive.

And you still don't get it.

It's good to know that you have simple solutions for complex problems...

Your post does indicate some racism, by lumping all of an ethnic group under they. Are there many exceptions? Or were the Obamas and such aberrations?

Their behavior has to change first. Nothing can be done for them until they join the rest of society, and obey the same laws the rest of us have to. Until they start going to school and at least be qualified to get a job.

Imaginos1892 wrote:

The E wrote:People living in the wrong 'hoods have a harder time getting loans

The government ‘helped’ the poor minorities get loans 20 years ago. They defaulted, en masse. There was a reason the banks didn’t want to loan them that money.

Banks don’t make any profit by not loaning money. If no bank will loan money to somebody, it's because they have good reason to expect them not to pay it back.

And what are those reasons? Why is someone with the wrong address less creditworthy (all things being equal) than someone with a "good" address? Why do members of a minority have to provide more securities than white people do?

Why are black men punished for behaviours that middle-aged white women can indulge in freely?

You are now invited to explain why people with african-american sounding names have a harder time getting job interviews than people with traditionally "anglo" names, seeing as how you ignored that example completely.

"E must be a king!"
"Ow d'yer know that?"
"E 'asn't got shit all over 'im!"

It's good that you can recognize your betters