What are good arguments against race correlating with crime?

Race is a social construct.

If that's the case then I can claim that there is no difference between human beings and rocks.

Let me clarify.

19th century conceptions of race that the alt-right uses are a social construct. Scientific racism is discredited.

The various madagascar people are also a mix between asian and african, they could point to that to support a genetic theory.

You are also pointing to two outliers to make your case, while there are several studies showing genes that cause anti-social personality disorder vary across race.

That doesn't mean the claims are false. Scandinavians are a social construct, despite this they have the highest frequency of genes for lactose toleranse. Do you see how this works?

No, there is a rise in the use of race in science. It has allways been there, and it used most frequently by the harder of the sciences related to biology. The opinions of geneticists matter more than those of sociologists on this matter, as sociology is more a political tool than even an academic field.

There's a magical word to learn that can be used to ward off silly arguments about race "as a whole"

autonomy

If that doesn't work consider

Lacan

remote island
former failed soviet state

totally comparable in crime statistics

the amount of cognitive dissonance among you is laughable

Why would you need arguments against truth? Are you a SJW?

Guess what, different genes make you predisposed for certain behaviour. Likewise different races tend to do certain kinds of crimes more likely than other. Even without much different socio economic backgrounds.

Things we wont say about race that are true
youtube.com/watch?v=Tb2iFikOwYU

In the US, the crime rate is actually inversely proportional to racial demographics. If we're substantially less white than we were in 1980, Holla Forums logic would mean that the crime rate should be higher. It isn't.

New York City, despite the gentrification meme, is blacker than it has ever been. Yet crime is at an all-time low.

Cities in which crime rate is rising all have something in common. Unemployment.

Businesses left inner cities because mostly these three factors:
Regulations
High tax increase after increase
NAFTA
not a trump supporter but if you can produce in SE Asia for $2 an hour then sell it to America why wouldn't you

Whats your point? That liberal attempts to keep the population satisfied with capitalism has completely failed?

Who cares about Holla Forums logic? However race and certain crimes do correlate, as do socio economic backgrounds, but it's not like some races are inherently better than other.

Criminal psychopath WASP's and jews tend to be over represented as capitalists at banks and companies, while blacks are more likely to physically assault someone for example.

Chinese for example tend to cheat more than other etc.
youtube.com/watch?v=zrv78nG9R04
present at positions

youtube.com/watch?v=0QbjELF-8kY

That is just the truth. Not a question of generally "better" or "worse" races.

Crime, or at least incarceration rates, corresponds with poverty way the hell better than it does with race.

Great, thank you for providing absolutely no counter argument at all whatsoever. Well done.

I'm not saying low IQ is something racial that causes crime though. I'm saying its the result of nourishment and education, which it is.

Also, although you consider the crimes of porky crimes and so do I, we actually live in a system which legitimises them and for the most part they aren't actually 'criminal' in the legal sense, although they are scum.

No, you're being obtuse.

The way we view race today was constructed by us.

Black people for example, never used to be considered a lower race, until western economies relied on slavery and Christianity said all people were born equal.

Obviously they couldn't tell people these two contradictory things, so to get over it they said black people weren't people and then set out to prove it with a bunch of pseudo science.

This is how you end up with the 3/5ths compromise, you start claiming black people aren't people, then you don't have to treat them like people, but you can also still claim to love everyone and not be sinners and slavers and so fourth.

Genes really are the most decisive factor for these things. I have never once met dumb parents who had high IQ's.

oh wow I've never heard someone say this before, you have totally red pilled me now I know.

So you're saying you take two kids, one has 'good genes' one has 'bad genes'

you take the kid with bad genes, feed it three meals and day and make sure it goes to school and loves its homework,

then you take the good genes kid, beat him, give him to a pair of junkies and feed him one cold can of spaghetti hoops per day to eat, do not make sure he goes to school

you're saying the second kid does better on tests….

Eat a dick you are a fucking retard

iqtestexperts.com/iq-education.php

foodnavigator.com/Science/Poor-childhood-diet-linked-to-low-IQ-suggests-study

There are almost infinite variations of these two studies, these things are EXTREMELY well known among the education and health communities.

Ever looked into ancient arab texts?

Europe didn't. Arabs and blacks had some really big slaver tradition from the 7th century until it was mostly ended by european colonists like the germans for example. They even crushed an arab slaver revolt after they outlawed it.

Sounds about right, but to be fair something like this was already established in religious scriptures like the talmud, where non-jews aren't even considered to be part of humanity.

It's both, retards. Genes limit the potential of people. Upringing, nutrition etc. obviously plays a huge role as well and decides how of the potential will be reached.

You will essentially have a retard or dumb person, who will never amount to more than a low skilled profession.

If you damage his brain with drugs or something else his genes will obviously be flushed down the toilet.
If it wasn't too extreme he would have nine times out of ten have a higher IQ, yes.

fixed

Race doesn't exist. But neither does society.

Laos has a homicide rate twice as high than Liberia

Can't say I have much nope. I'll believe they considered blacks a lower race though. Like you say however, Arabs also big slavers, so same deal. The Koran says essentially all the same things as the bible, just with slightly different practice.

The point is, they didn't enslave them because they were black, they enslaved them because it was profitable, they then tacked on the lower race stuff to make it look less barbaric, just like their Judeo-Christian Brethren in the North/West.

I'm not talking about the morality of slavery. I'm just talking about it as a material function. The fact that arabs and blacks enslaved each other is not in dispute. Neither is the fact that the abolition of slavery was eventually ratified by white people after the enslaved of various colours pushed back against their masters.

America certainly relied on slavery and was at this time among the greatest economies of the west. Although Europe did not rely entirely on slavery it still benefited vastly from the global condition of slavery. The abolition of slavery can be looked at as the precursor too or first milestone on the long path to decolonisation. Direct slavery being but one facet of the colonial behemoth from which Europe reaped the rewards.

Precisely.

Its both, but genes are negligible in the grand scheme of things. Sure, some super combination of genes makes for a genius, provided they are correctly cared for, but that will almost never happen if you take those genius genes and do not properly nourish and exercise them.

In the reverse, there are countless examples of 'bad genes' being overcome through hard work. Even Hitler believed in 'honorary Aryans'.

Why do poor white kids do worse in school than rich white kids?

Born athlete? No, athletes train every single day.

>You will essentially have a retard or dumb person, who will never amount to more than a low skilled profession.

citation needed

According to what?

Stirner disagrees with you

Gender also correlates with crime.
Holla Forums tend to get upset when people suggest collectively punishing men for the crimes of their gender.

As a bonus, the argument can be flipped around when feminists support anti-male discrimination but get outraged by anti-black discrimination.

The fundamental argument against all discrimination is that you must treat people as individuals. Aggregate statistics are not sufficient justification for punishing people without evidence. Collective punishment is generally seen as a severe human rights violation, except when America does it.

Races correlating with crime is facts.

Correlation aint causation though, but simply correlation is not racist or false, its just statistics.

Cap these, for this is the truth

Poverty correlates with crime, not 'race'. If one 'race' commits more crimes than another in a country such as the united states, its because that 'race' has a higher poverty rate than another 'race'.

Why do people typically commit crimes? What actually defines a crime? Who is more likely to get caught for something?

...

Lead poisoning

>"See? Violent crime has actually been falling since the 80s! RACISTS BTFO! Oh, by the way we really need to do something about all these blacks and hispanics in prison, kthnxbai"

Actually if you control for poverty whites are still less likely to commit violent crimes than blacks.

Wrong graph, link was to

Though it really is amazing the kind of logical contortions shitlibs will do to snark about how the lower crime rate as "diversity" increases proves that race has nothing to do with crime, but all those minorities in prisons are just there because cops are racist, yo

Also, for added fun
>Murder rates would be up to five times higher than they are but for medical developments over the past 40 years.

>“Without this technology, we estimate there would be no less than 50 000 and as many as 115000 homicides annually instead of an actual 15 000 to 20000,” they say in a report of the study in the journal Homicide Studies (2002;6:128-66).

>They found that while the murder rate had changed little from a 1931 baseline figure, assaults had increased. The aggravated assault rate was, by 1997, almost 750% higher than the baseline figure.

So huzzah, thanks to all those poor bastards sent to die in "the 'nam" DeQuandro doesn't become a murder statistic when he inevitably gets shot as part of some beef over stupid shit with Trayquan

Well this can be due to a load of different factors, not "they are genetically more prone to violence" that polocks love to spurt out.

You got a link to the study or just more graphs that don't correlate with what you are talking about?

...

Just a quick google search here.
I'll just quickly comment on this.
Berber were conquered by arabs and muslim imperialism fyi.

The quotes speak for themselves.
archive.is/wZ9aZ

They also enslaved a shitton of blacks. They had to cross the desert by foot, which most didn't surive. The males were turned into eunuchs, which again most didn't surive and women used as concubines. Apparently they had a thing for mulatto women, which they bred with their european slaves.
There is a book in arab where it is desribed to how essentially "prepare" a black boy into a human fleshlight eunuch.

The thing is: All across the americas there are descendants of the atlantic slave trades, who often have it better than their african counter parts and number vastly more than the original arrivers.
There are about zero non-rapemixed descendants of the black and european slaves of the arabs, while the numbers of the original enslaved people were around the same.

The Koran has a dedicated word for non-moslims like the torah has for non jews.
It's "Kafir", which literally translates as infidel.
You see, "muslim" literally means "believer". So every "non-muslim" is literally a godless person for moslems, who can be raped and generally treated like a dog according to the scripture.
Christianity seems to be the most liberal of jewish sects, although there was some rivalism with judaism, which was entirely religious, however.

Pretty much, yeah, or rather both.
Races doesn't even have to be that different for pathetic god complexes like this. Back then the english thought of the irish as subhumans when they subdued them. They essentially enslaved the entire island, because most irish farmers weren't allowed to own their own land and had to give most of it away to porkies in england. The great potato famine was actually deliberately man made and about five million irish died due to food being shipped to England.

As you probably know they were also used as slaves in the colonies, where they often were "worth less" than their african counter parts.

Blacks enslaved themselves and they are still doing it in africa. Blacks barely enslaved any arabs if at all.

[citation needed]
There was no global market like it is today.

Just no. What you are thinking of are rich merchants and colonialists in the new world.
Europe put more into africa than they got back for example.

Nope. Two ugly and dumb parents won't have a Chad for their son.

Geniuses find their way and exercise themselves as long as they aren't busy all the time to keep themselves alive.

I'd argue that it was the good genes who enabled said person to be able to overcome harsh circumstances in the first place.
Someone like Hugh Herr undoubtedly has got to have incredible genes. Not to understand like rednecks, la raza, BLM etc. with their "hurr we are the master race" rhetorics while doing absolutely nothing to improve themselves.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Herr

Excerpt from the Political Testament of Adolf Hitler, Note #5, (February - April 1945):
"Pride in one's own race – and that does not imply contempt for other races – is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them."

It's not too bad here in europe, but I guess it's indeed a problem in the US. I agreed that socio econimcs is a factor, probably right after genetics. In the end school grades don't really say too much about a persons intelligence. Schools are primarily to prepare the next generation of wageslaves for their jobs.

Someone like Usain Bolt is clearly predisposed to become a great sprinter, but good genes, luckadmittedly also a big factor in this world and jamaican culture also enabled him to proceed this sport, yes.
I doubt you will find a white, asian or indian sprinter as fast as him anytime soon, however. They are all black, just as most strongman champions are white, or table tennis champions are asian.

If you have bad genes you are lucky to achieve this much. It's not derogatory. I applaud everyone to achieve as much of his very own potential through hard work.

Also more fun facts:
>A new study released reveals that Latinos are less likely to report crimes to the police because they are afraid of being asked of their immigration status.

thinkprogress.org/study-fearing-deportation-latinos-dont-report-crimes-cf4a350196de#.xu2mktrvo

>They reveal that precinct bosses threaten street cops if they don't make their quotas of arrests and stop-and-frisks, but also tell them not to take certain robbery reports in order to manipulate crime statistics. The tapes also refer to command officers calling crime victims directly to intimidate them about their complaints.

villagevoice.com/news/the-nypd-tapes-inside-bed-stuys-81st-precinct-6429434

So a considerable segment of the population may not even bother reporting crimes, while those in charge may in fact be juking the stats (hey, if we can't solve it, why even bother recoridng it?) ?

Uh oh, doesn't sound like the "better angels of our nature" are winning the good fight guys

So, why don't poor whites and other races commit more crime? The poorest parts of the United States are white and have some of the lowest crime rates.

I don't believe poverty turns people into violent career criminals.

youtube.com/watch?v=hVBDXSWOJSM

To all the Holla Forumsyps in this thread, I'm white but I break numerous laws on a daily basis. Should I spread my white, criminal genes, or should I encourage my wife to sleep with a law-abiding black doctor instead?

I know you all love cuck porn, so you should enjoy answering this question.

Can't comment on intelligence but for attractiveness, the right combination of genes will produce a desirable result, 2 ugly parents indeed could have a handsome/beautiful child just like 2 good looking persons could have an ugly child.

...

Totally nothing to do with steroids and protein rich foods being more affordable to Westerners producing a larger pool of talent.

Just like every vellodrome champion happens to be white too.

Yes, this is true. Why is this the case? Well because of the war on drugs which had its intended effect, discriminate against the poor and minority group drug users vs rich ones, give them heavy sentences for non-violent crimes.

You posted nothing about declining crime rates in the Us, just a graph of incarceration rates and then you claim that this particular correlation, of which you haven't provided andthing other than the words "declining crime rates" has the same causation.

You make no effort to think of any possibilities as to why this must be the case, you assert one thing, that this is due purely to race and thus blacks must be genetically prone to commit crimes. Your just using what particular statistics favor your own view then proceed to say that x correlates with y their for all niggers are evil.

Not really, society already has lots of institution that collectively tax and police men because they're move violent. Really depends how you define punishment, probably got sick of you for being obtuse.

Regression towards the means, you'll be fine, Eugenics isn't just a rightwing thing either, newfag.

Are you actually trying to claim there are no violent white criminals?

It sounds like you're pretty BTFO if that's the only argument you can fall back on.

AKA: I've never studied genetics.

...

We've gotten beyond the point of argument when you have to somehow prove that black people aren't orcs.

…or the "War on Drugs" results in the imprisonment of crime-prone minorities during their most crime-prone years (18-40).

AGAIN:

Young liberals were born into a world where all of these enormously violent preconditions for peaceful co-existence had already been established and can now delude themselves into thinking that their superior humanitarian lawgic is what caused the world to become tolerable. Just look at how the above-mentioned mass incarceration of black men has become a social justice cause du jour, as if the 70s had never happened and this was just some odd remnant of prejudiced policing nobody except for some sheltered academics had ever noticed.

But that is not the case for some Usain Bolt, no less any afro-american sprinter? Give me a break.

What about the koreans and japanese? Can't they afford it, too?

I just assume you're a disingenuous shitlib that thinks stealing pens at the office and running red lights makes you "as much of a criminal" as some dead-eyed black that just shot a cowering convenience store owner

Whatever you want to believe man, your allowed to be wrong.

are these places by any chance rural communities with an incredibly low population density?

...

God dammit Holla Forums, this shit is so cringe. Uncle is gonna screencap this garbage.

...

No, if only they had been educated and not grown up in an environment where violence and drug use and sale was the norm. Then maybe/probably their futures would have shined.

They don't care for power-lifting but they're overrepresented at Olympic lifting.

I am becoming closer to a racist everyday. These responses are terrible and emotional based. Guess I'll have to become a nazbol

That's not what he said at all. Stop roleplaying as Bill Maher, you're not smug or witty enough to pull it off.

Yeah and I don't care about sprinting, else I would totes wreck Bolt's record.

And what might incline people towards displaying impulsive behaviour and favouring short-term gratification?

Capitalism.

Poverty.

Living paycheck to paycheck and being forced to only gratify short term needs, being unable to save for the long term or even for a rainy day.

So if they win the lotto they'll become disciplined and long-term goal focused? Did not know that.

Lithuania and Ukraine are famous for their riches.

Further, not having the comfort to be able to be moral. Actually being in situations where you have more to gain from crime than you have to lose.

Lack of education
Consumerism
Shit industrial food
Ideology

And are known to be "westerners".

I wouldn't want to be smug and I'm not trying to be witty. Obviously I was exaggerating but he just paints this very emotive picture instead of pointing to reason or evidence.

winning the lottery is not winning ownership of the means of production

What is the difference between Asserite Nazi and natbol? Is there one?

I know nothing about nazbol or asserite nazis. I just known that blacks cause a lot of trouble and have low iqs.

Slavs are western now?

See

How often do people win the lottery enough to be a relevant factor in anyway?

I see it, dont see how its relevant.

this alone disproves you

im Irish :^)

Blacks live in areas with much higher population density, which is correlated with higher crime.

Why can't they move to areas with less population density?

moving is expensive

What is expensive about it, if you are fucking poor?

Theirs your answer.

There aren't any, because race is the best predictor of crime rate, it's a better predictor than divorce rate, poverty, or any proxy for socioeconomic status. Rape isn't a crime that you commit because you're in poverty, it's a crime you commit because you're a piece of shit with poor impulse control and a high-time preference, rape rates are vastly higher among black populations compared to even Hispanics and especially when compared to whites an Asians (specifically East Asians being the racial group with the the highest IQ, largest brain size, most cortical neurons, lowest testosterone, lowest crime rates.)

Human races exist
therightstuff.biz/2015/09/30/human-races-exist-refuting-eleven-common-arguments-against-the-existence-of-race/

The fact that crime is not defined in a perfectly objective way with no subjectivity whatsoever does not mean that races are all equally criminogenic. Hence, the claim of social construction in no way disproves that the populations we call races differ in average intelligence, nor that the average difference is heritable, nor that lower-IQ populations are more criminogenic

Black crime is underreported, shot spotters in majority black communities will report dozens of fired weapons and the vast majority of those are not called in by people in the community.

>MUH POVERTY
"Kposowa, Breault, and Harrison 1995 analyzed crime variation across 2,078 U.S counties. As can be seen below (standardized beta coefficients are under the “beta” column), the percent of the population that is black was a stronger explanatory variable than poverty, income inequality (gini), and unemployment, for explaining variation in both property and violent crime."
First pic related.
"If poverty really was the root cause of racial crime disparities, then we would expect White populations with incomes lesser than or similar to African Americans to have higher or similar crime rates to African Americans. On a global scale, this comparison is easy to make. According to the Census, the average African American makes 20,458$ a year. According to the International Monetary Fund, the average income of a European is 25,434$. Thus, Europeans are just slightly richer than African Americans. Given this, if poverty is the main cause of racial crime disparities we should expect Europe to have similar crime rates to African Americans.

This does not pan out. The Black homicide rate in America is 34.4 per 100,000 (Cooper and Smith 2011). The homicide rate for White Americans is 4.5 per 100,000. And, according to the United Nation’s Global Study on Homicide 2013, the homicide rate for Europe is a mere 3 per 100,000. Thus, Europeans not only have lower murder rates than African Americans but also have slightly lower murder rates than White Americans. These results are hard to square with the view that Blacks have higher crime rates than Whites just because they are poor."
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-poverty-and-crime/

"One paper, published in the journal social pathology, looked at 45 different studies that assessed whether or not there was a correlation between income inequality, absolute poverty, and violent crime at state, metropolitan area, country, city, and neighborhood levels. Across these 45 studies 68 total correlations were found between absolute poverty and various violent crimes (rape, robbery, murder, ect). Of these 68 only 25, or 37%, statistically significant and positive. Across these studies there were 59 correlations found between income inequality and violent crime. Of these, 27, or 46%, were statically significant and positive. This means that the majority of these studies failed to find a statically significant positive correlation between income inequality and crime as well as absolute poverty and crime. Moreover, there was a great deal of variation in the results of these studies. This is partly explained by the fact that there is no wide agreement between researchers on what level of aggregation to look at when measuring these variables. Some researchers, for instance, looked at states while others looked at counties. Still, this wide variation in results suggests that when a strong positive relationship is present it is likely explained by some other confounding factor. After all, if poverty or income inequality really caused crime we would expect a large majority of cross sectional studies to find that areas with high levels of income inequality and poverty have high levels of crime. On the other hand, if there was some other variable which caused both poverty and crime then we would expect to only find such a correlation when that third variable was present. This could explain the variability in results."
therightstuff.biz/2013/11/25/on-poverty-and-crime/

Before someone says
Look at the national crime victimization survey, blacks are reported for violent crimes by victims at the rate they are arrested for violent crimes.
amren.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2005-Color-of-Crime-Report.pdf
All the "proof" for blacks doing drugs as often or less often than whites is based on surveys, which blacks lie about:
"A 2005 study in the Journal of Urban Health, for example, found that blacks were ten times more likely than whites to lie about cocaine. Hispanics were five times more likely. When it came to marijuana, not one of the 109 whites in the sample lied, but one in eight of the 191 blacks lied."
amren.com/archives/videos/race-and-drug-arrests-another-big-lie/
link.springer.com/article/10.1093/jurban/jti065

Let's compare an extremely poor white community to one of the wealthiest black communities in America
Friendly, Maryland (black, wealthy) vs. Berlin, New Hampshire (one of America's poorest communities)
Result?
Berlin is below the national average for crime, Friendly is above the national average for violent crime.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly,_Maryland
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin,_New_Hampshire
msn.com/en-us/money/generalmoney/americas-poorest-towns-state-by-state/ar-BBkW5UI#image=BBkTdDO|21
city-data.com/crime/crime-Berlin-New-Hampshire.html
cityrating.com/crime-statistics/new-hampshire/berlin.html
bestplaces.net/crime/city/new_hampshire/berlin
areavibes.com/friendly-md/crime/

I'm poor as well and currently planning to move away from the city. I just pack my coffers and move. What is the problem?

You have enough money to pack up and move to a new place, the vast majority of people don't.

Whut. I barely have any shit. What does a train ticket cost for you? 5 grands?

This is objectively wrong.

"In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker."
heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

The average "poor" person owns a car and a variety of amenities. If they sold their TV, I'm sure they could afford enough gas to take their car and move to a rural area. But they don't.

Where do you find shelter once you move out?

Housing is actually cheaper in rural areas, is basic reasoning this difficult for you?

I'll probably rent a small place. Just as I do now.

This means jack shit when you have very little/don't have any income. Plus, living in the more expensive city makes it a lot harder to save up for a deposit on a place to live.

Why not just accept reality and find a solution from that point? Seriously, if you need mental gymnastics to lie in defense of something it's not worth defending in the first place. Minorities are most likely to be criminals, thats fact. So instead of masquerading the problem, why not develop a socio-educational method to teach them since younger ages that being a criminal is wrong and will have consequences? No instead you just teach minorities to do dumb shit and call anyone who points out the stupidity a racist or bigot.

I usually just come here once a day to laugh at you morons, but some of you are legitimately very very ignorant of the world and reality.

Sincirely Yours, Holla Forums.

The Brookings Institute is a left-leaning institution (at least for America), they put together some advice for "poor teens", follow these three rules:
"…at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.
Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year)."
So, they put that research forward just to help people, but you know what they inadvertently proved?
If you're in poverty, it's almost guaranteed that you're a fucking retard who makes bad decisions like getting your 15 year-old girlfriend pregnant.
So, boohoo if you don't have an income. It's probably because you're a fucking idiot, excepting a proportionally few lazy/"broken" intelligent people.

train tickets can cost a few hundred dollars. Last time i checked, after i bought my medication and food for the month i have 15 dollars left in my bank account. I used my saving to also pay for medication, which i now have $50 from what was about $450. IF you move not only do do you have to find housing, pay for rent, you ll probably need a new job or 2 depending on whats available, if anything is actually available.

I actually live in the middle of the woods in bullbmlefucknowhere, rent out here, cheapest ive seen is 350 a month. Not to mention theirs no work for miles, no buses, nothing. I need a car to get anywhere, they arrest you if you walk on the highway.

Well, regardless if someone is an idiot or made bad decisions, that still makes it harder to save up and move out, fuckin idiot.

...

Somewhat related because >muh IQ bell curve, but I remember in the TRS Xerox thing they said that IQ is actually a very reliable measure of certain important types intelligence. Is this the case? Is there any literature on the significance/origin/reliability of IQ tests that any of y'all have read?

they don't really. They use it as an argument in their favor. Pic related. It's the same as when they use IQ stats to justify hating blacks even though jews and asians are smarter than they are according to IQ stats.

They don't care really. They don't necessarily view their race, gender, demographic situation as somehow better nor do they really care how fair their beliefs are. They are fighting for the rights of their demographic groups just cuz essentially and they believe all other races/sexes etc are doing the same (especially da Joos).

The smarter ones recognize that they're basically "ebil white supremacists" they just don't care.

Yes, the reason white people aren't as shitty and stupid as blacks right now is because for 40,000 years the most stupid white people starved to death because you need impulse control and a low-time preference to store your seed crop and keep your cattle alive for milk as opposed to slaughtering it and gratifying yourself immediately, and you need more intelligence to cope with an environment that not only have significant variability but variability that is predictable and intelligence can actually help you cope with, when whites developed agriculture (which they had at least 8,000 more years to adapt to than blacks), people prone to interpersonal violence were more likely to be arrested or killed by whatever local authority, shitting all over violent and stupid people is what made white people and white societies better than Sub-Saharan dindus. Right now we've got a dysgenic system where people who make shitty decisions (low-IQ single-mothers) are subsidized, creating an incentive for the lead productive and least intelligent members of society to reproduce, nice job, liberals. Contraceptives are also dysgenic, but that's another story.

Woe to the witless.

shit cant find the pic. It was some dumb countersignal meme from fascbook.

Population density:
…

If I used an example of an extremely rural black community you'd complain it's too poor. Pick your poison, faggot. Do you want me to find a rural black community with a high crime rate? If I can find a single example of one, I'm sure it will have a relatively high crime rate.

so you just like to cherry pick statistics that fit your ideological narrative? im truly shocked.

Can you find me an example of a wealthy rural black community? If so, I'd be happy to compare it to a white rural community that was more dense and less wealthy.

Don't have to. Crime is the result of a conjunction of factors. Income play a role, so do population density, education, pollution, food, life habits, family situation…
And the more of these factors are accumulated, the more crime you'll get.

Sure, but compare, let's say, the appalachians to a region like detroit.

Both have drug problems, but the violent crime is much MUCH, MUUUCH lower in the white ghetto.

Pembroke, Illinois:"population of about two thousand, Pembroke Township, one of the largest rural, black communities north of the Mason-Dixon Line, sits in an isolated corner of Kankakee County, Illinois," (it's rural and black)
citylitbooks.com/event/book-release-dave-baron-author-pembroke-rural-black-community-illinois-dunes
• Density 40.8/sq mi (15.8/km2) (Significantly less dense than Berlin, NH)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pembroke_Township,_Kankakee_County,_Illinois

Pics related, Berlin is more dense and has a lower property crime rate (again, I specifically looked for Berlin as one of the poorest but still whtie communities in the U.S.)
neighborhoodscout.com/fl/pembroke-pines/crime/
neighborhoodscout.com/nh/berlin/crime/

Pembroke, despite being extremely rural, has a higher theft rate than the U.S.
Looks like the dindus gonna dindu, urban or rural, rich or poor.

ever heard the term "correlation is not causation"

Because if i can find a few examples where white urban communities have i higher crime rate than black ones your whole reasoning falls apart. You wanna know what their all gonna have in common though? poverty. That's gonna be the universal factor in this.

No, you fucking stupid fuck, >>1003031
Berlin, New Hampshire is extremely poor and extremely white.
And it has a crime rate significantly below the U.S. average.

Again, race is a better predictor of crime rates than economic status

maybe, like, class analysis?
At least pretend to be a socialist.

but once again the problem is that you found a poor white place with a low population density and a rich black place with a high population density.

class-analyze your way out of race being an issue then. go on don't be shy.

Income is only one factor. It's as much as a shortcut as muh genetics are.

Was for

Extremely poor whites in NH at a density of 62/km2 had a lower crime rate than extremely poor blacks at a density of 15.8/km2.

But you're still going to deny the obvious, enjoy your cognitive dissonance, you idiot.

Crime is crime, Berlin has 3 crimes per square mile, Pembroke Pines has 23.29, its crime index is 28 (100 is safest), Berlin's is 46.

But the whole point of this thread is that race is better at predicting crime than class. A prole white is much less likely to commit crime than a prole black. Even in similar material conditions.

Its not. It doesn't matter how many times you say it.

Lets compare a mostly white country like Russia and an African country like, lets say Mali or Ghana.

And no one factor is better at predicting crime rates than race. I don't pretend that race is literally the only factor, I am acknowledging that the data has proven it is the most important factor. I challenge you to find me the black community with the best possible material conditions for low-crime (in-tact families, high-income, rural), when you present me this example I will look for a white community with slightly worse if not significantly worse material conditions, I guarantee you the white community will have a lower crime rate, care to take up the challenge or are you going to continue to wallow in cognitive dissonance?

Also fuck off falseflag socdem

there is more genetic diversity within members of a "racial" population than there is between them, ie, "race" contributes only a tiny fraction of all of the genetic differences between humans.

This has been thoroughly debunked:
nytimes.com/2005/03/14/opinion/a-family-tree-in-every-gene.html
therightstuff.biz/2015/09/30/human-races-exist-refuting-eleven-common-arguments-against-the-existence-of-race/
"There is More Genetic Variation Within Races than Between Them

This is related to those Fst values I just mentioned. An Fst value is the proportion of genetic variation within a species that is contained between populations rather than within them. It is true that the human Fst value is less than 0.5, meaning that less than 50% of our genetic variation is between populations. But this is normal in the animal kingdom and it is normal among species that have recognized subspecies. The above chart clearly shows that there are several species which have less variation between populations than humans do which also have recognized subspecies. Moreover, the genetic differences between races are more than enough to ensure that members of the same race are virtually always more genetically similar to one another than members of different races (Witherspoon et al. 2007).

Further still, as was reviewed above, the genetic distance between races is greater than the genetic distance between members of the same race, and genetic differences within race are enough to cause important differences in physical and mental traits. Because of this, the proportion of genetic variation contained between human races, rather than within them, cannot legitimately be used to discard the existence, or significance, of race."

I want this meme to die. How stupid can you be?

...

Read the thread, there are examples of black crime being higher in low population areas than white higher population dense areas where both are poor

...

and their seems to be a fact ignoring that crime is more correlated towards communities in poverty than those in not, just because their is more crime in certain areas where blacks are dominant does not mean the poverty is the main factor in crime rates.

...

Where did I deny the obvious again?

I noted that you brought up an area with a lot of variables even explicitly mentioned population density, then proceeded to ignore it.

Anyways I looked up these two communities. Let's go over the numbers again.

Berlin as of 2010:

Population density:

Racial Makeup:

Friendly as of 2010:

Population density:

Racial makeup

First note the population densities. The one which you stated has higher crime also has a significantly higher population density.

Now note the racial makeup. Friendly which you called black is 77% white.

Either you got your cities mixed up or you pulled this out of your ass entirely. "But you're still going to deny the obvious, enjoy your cognitive dissonance, you idiot." :^)

this is me
this is not me >>1003232
you are responding as if
>>1003232 was me. It wasn't. THE NEW YORK TIMES debunked your race denialist bullshit , seriously, fuck off. nytimes.com/2005/03/14/opinion/a-family-tree-in-every-gene.html

...

>13.39% white, 77.67% African American
YOU FUCKING RETARD, DO YOU SEE THE COMMA?
city-data.com/city/Friendly-Maryland.html

Sure poor and urban areas have more crime but blacks still commit more crime than comparable whites. No one said that race is the only issue. It's just dishonest to pretend it doesn't exist

And I gave you an example of comparing poor/white/rural Berlin to poor/black/extremely rural Penbroke Township. Penbroke has a higher crime rate.

Marital Status, immigrant generation dimensions od neighborhood social context explain the Whole latino-White disparity and 60% of Black white disparity in crime, and that's only 3 factIors explored.
The point is thoses issues are multifactorials, and behind your race classification lies a lot of parameters you can't just sum up to genetics.

Albionsim dosnt have much to do with the genetic composition of 'race' groups.

...

shit misread that bit. Anyways the issue of population density still stands as I pointed out

virginia.edu/woodson/courses/aas102 (spring 01)/articles/aaa_race.html

No, it doesn't, Penbroke is more than twice as rural as Berlin and has a higher crime rate.

The first large paragraph cites Lewontin's fallacy, are you really this retarded?

ALL SUBSPECIES HAVE THIS "WITHIN SUBSPECIES" VARIATION FACTOR.
Compare men and women. Wow, you have men that are 7 foot tall and 3 feet tall, and the average difference between men and women is only a few inches, more variation within men! I guess that means women are just as strong as men, women also have penises, also don't have 40% less upper body mass, they're EXACTLY the same XDD!

And no, men and women are not subspecies, I was just using that as an example of disparate groups that are covered by the "within group variation" Lewontin's fallacy autism.

debunkingdenialism.com/2015/02/03/mailbag-fetishizing-richard-lewontin/
If you post TRS as a source, you have no right to complain.

Boio. Stop with these memes. Anyways I'll try not to sperg with the reading again let's see

Rural black pembroke right?

Moving onto berlin again:

I dunno my dude. I mean cherry picking neighborhoods is a pretty dubious method from the beginning. is there something I'm missing here?

...

if you're going to cherrypick communities at least find one that fulfills all the differences in variables mentioned.

That Berlin is also more rural, so although it is slightly wealthier, which would be a "worse environment" for crime, it's MUCH more urban than Penbroke, you have one way in which Penbroke is set up for less crime (density), one way it is set up for more crime (less income), so it balances out to some degree.

Super poor blacks commit more crime than poor whites, yes.
Let's compare blacks to whites that are poorer, to again, prove that blacks in better material conditions commit more crime. Serbia doesn't have Russia's large nonwhite populations, so that's what I'll use, also note that Germany has an extremely low murder rate while being more urbanized than Serbia.
Black/African American income in the U.S.: $22,740 (in 2004, more than a decade ago)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States
Blacks commit 50% of murders in the United States. In 2013, there were 13,716 homicides in the U.S., let's be generous and say that blacks commit only 45% of murders in the US. That means they commited 6172.2 of those 13,716 homicides in 2013.
Black Americans were 38,929,319 (12.6% )of the U.S. 308,745,538 total population in 2010 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States
(6172 number of murders /38,929,319 black population )x100,000= 15.85 murders/100,000
Serbia:
"In 2012, Serbia had a murder rate of 1.2 per 100,000 population.[1] There were a total of 111 murders in Serbia in 2012.[1]"
$14,047 per capita IN 2016
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Serbia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Serbia
Blacks had a murder rate 13.2 times higher, despite me underestimating how wealthy they are (essentially, using the data of per capita GDP in 2016 makes Serbians look not as poor as they are relative to American blacks, if I wanted to push the narrative that extremely poor whites are still less criminogenic than blacks I would look for more accurate income/person comparisons).

This shitty blog fails to address
1. This "criticism" which implies races are not significantly different applies to recognized subspecies. Either there is no such thing as a subspecies (a population with enough genetic distinction to be considered distinct from other populations, but not its own species), or your critique is irrelevant.
2. "The error is easily illustrated. If one were asked to judge the ancestry of 100 New Yorkers, one could look at the color of their skin. That would do much to single out the Europeans, but little to distinguish the Senegalese from the Solomon Islanders. The same is true for any other feature of our bodies. The shapes of our eyes, noses and skulls; the color of our eyes and our hair; the heaviness, height and hairiness of our bodies are all, individually, poor guides to ancestry.

But this is not true when the features are taken together. Certain skin colors tend to go with certain kinds of eyes, noses, skulls and bodies. When we glance at a stranger's face we use those associations to infer what continent, or even what country, he or his ancestors came from – and we usually get it right. To put it more abstractly, human physical variation is correlated; and correlations contain information.

Genetic variants that aren't written on our faces, but that can be detected only in the genome, show similar correlations. It is these correlations that Dr. Lewontin seems to have ignored. In essence, he looked at one gene at a time and failed to see races. But if many – a few hundred – variable genes are considered simultaneously, then it is very easy to do so. Indeed, a 2002 study by scientists at the University of Southern California and Stanford showed that if a sample of people from around the world are sorted by computer into five groups on the basis of genetic similarity, the groups that emerge are native to Europe, East Asia, Africa, America and Australasia – more or less the major races of traditional anthropology.

One of the minor pleasures of this discovery is a new kind of genealogy. Today it is easy to find out where your ancestors came from – or even when they came, as with so many of us, from several different places. If you want to know what fraction of your genes are African, European or East Asian, all it takes is a mouth swab, a postage stamp and $400 – though prices will certainly fall.

Yet there is nothing very fundamental about the concept of the major continental races; they're just the easiest way to divide things up. Study enough genes in enough people and one could sort the world's population into 10, 100, perhaps 1,000 groups, each located somewhere on the map. This has not yet been done with any precision, but it will be. Soon it may be possible to identify your ancestors not merely as African or European, but Ibo or Yoruba, perhaps even Celt or Castilian, or all of the above.

The identification of racial origins is not a search for purity. The human species is irredeemably promiscuous. We have always seduced or coerced our neighbors even when they have a foreign look about them and we don't understand a word. If Hispanics, for example, are composed of a recent and evolving blend of European, American Indian and African genes, then the Uighurs of Central Asia can be seen as a 3,000-year-old mix of West European and East Asian genes. Even homogenous groups like native Swedes bear the genetic imprint of successive nameless migrations."
From the earlier linked NYT article.

Self-identified race matches genetically detected race.
"What makes the current study, published in the February issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, more conclusive is its size. The study is by far the largest, consisting of 3,636 people who all identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic. Of these, only five individuals had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the box they checked at the beginning of the study. That's an error rate of 0.14 percent."
'This shows that people's self-identified race/ethnicity is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background,' Risch said.
med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2005/01/racial-groupings-match-genetic-profiles-stanford-study-finds.html\
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622

Holla Forums btfo. I agree with you on some economics but you are in denial when it comes to race.

What is so difficult to understand in the concept of multifactorial issue?

Why do you cling to the genetic/ income dichotomy (I'm also watching you comrades)?

tradingeconomics.com/serbia/population-density-people-per-sq-km-wb-data.html
81,52/km2. Which is quite low, and that's only one fucking factor.

debunkingdenialism.com/2016/04/30/mailbag-modern-high-throughput-genomics-versus-race-realism/

No fucking shit.

where were they btfo?

fucc me wrong reply.

Okay, if it's a "multi-factor" issue, show me one place on Earth where blacks have lower crime rates than whites in similar material conditions?
Hypothetically, let's say your life depended on giving me an example of this. Can you give me a single fucking example? JUST ONE? If it's at least 100 people, I'll count it as statistically significant.

You realize the distinction between infancy, adolescence, and old age is "arbitrary" ("does it occur EXACTLY 2, 3, etc."), that doesn't mean there's no difference between an infant and an old person. Applying the word "arbitrary" doesn't mean that racial differences aren't real. What it boils down to is if you take two groups of blacks and whites, compare them, yes, the blacks are going to be less intelligent and have significantly higher crime rates.

reminder

I don't deny that men commit more crime, they have higher testosterone, this ignores that white men (unlike blacks) actually contribute to society, video related, men are actually net-tax contributors, women aren't, but that's not really what they're around for anyways.
youtube.com/watch?v=9V6s92p42UM

>thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-poverty-and-crime/

Why did the writer for this article cite Land, McCall, and Cohen? It seems like the study was arguing exactly against it.

(a) methodological contributions: references to collinearity, corrective statistical procedures, principle components analysis/index construction, the partialling fallacy aswell as other justifications involving the choice of level of aggregation and transformations of the dependent variable; (b) implications of findings concerning structural covariates of crime/homicide: acknowledging inconsistencies of past research andthe consistency found in more recent literature; and (c) greater attention to the selection and/or expansion of structural characteristics: including urban disadvantage and resource deprivation, racial composition, family structure/divorce, and variousother social and economic characteristics to name a few. We next consider each of these three themes.

Wilson’s arguments about the ever-deteriorating plight of urban-dwelling African Americans by providing empirical evidence of worsening economic hardships for those living in urban centers during the 1970s

Still looking over these articles now, with more off an eye because of this (and well because of the other website that doesn't know how to cite in-text). Also the fact that the some/most of the citations to the sources are all fucked up, going to university home pages so I have to search around for it.

Here is the article where I found it from, it's McCall talking about the study 20 years later.

>socant.chass.ncsu.edu/documents/McCall,_P_1.pdf

Woops, I fucked up!
I used the crime rate data for Pembroke Pines, I meant Pembroke Township, Illinois.
bestplaces.net/crime/city/illinois/pembroke_township
Compare to Berlin:
bestplaces.net/crime/city/new_hampshire/berlin
This actually shows a greater difference in crime rates, but still, apologies for the mistake.
clrsearch.com/Pembroke-Township-Demographics/IL/Crime-Rate

Alternative Hypothesis has said on his channel that he will cite studies whose abstracts "hurt" his case if the data actually supports it, and that when people tell him that the abstract contradicts his claims he tells them to look at the actual data. If you are saying that the author talking about their work at a later date suggested this author was against any "racist" conclusions being drawn, that doesn't mean "racist" conclusions aren't a valid result of looking at the data.

And I know it's actually two guys who run that channel so I should have said "their."

If they had similar material conditions, the crime rates would be similar you dunce.
I don't put blacks on a pedestal because i don't see whites as übermenschen.
And how do you expect a fucking shitposter on the interwebs to be able to check for at leasts dozens of variables to determinate similar material conditions?
Look at a big part of racial disparity is linked to a few non genetic factors. And there could be very well other factors not studied here playing a role.

If the biggest part of race difference in crime rate do not have its origins in genetics, why should gice a fuck about race as a biological category?

So when a factor proves black crime, it's evidence of their savagery; but when another factor proves male crime, you brush it aside and directly go for an unrelated excuse. Really makes you think.

So you watch Black Pigeon unironically. Huge surprise.

Let's say that's the case. So?

And what would that be?

I didn't used charged terminology like that. It proves blacks are more criminogenic than whites, and since blacks don't actually contribute to white standard of living but just make us less safe and ruin previously homogenous communities (Detroit used to be a nice place to live, so did Baltimore.)

No, the point was that white men (although more violent than white women) actually contribute to society. Black men are more violent than white men and are huge net tax burdens on society (blacks on average "contribute" -$8,000 in the US).
So women need men to pay taxes and men need women to be wives. White people (male or female) don't need blacks, blacks are a burden who lower the quality of life for whites. Send them back.

Being mothers and looking after the house, in general, not that I'm in favor of barring women from working etc. but they're not going to be net-tax contributors even if you do have 40 years of feminist bullshit and affirmative action trying to force them into the workplace.

there's not a rational reason for whites to want them around.* I believe in freedom of association, and forcing whites to integrate with less intelligent and more violent people is not morally or practically justified in any way, so what I would suggest is a complete end to forced integration/diversity/affirmative action/if not balkanization of the U.S. into ethnostates.

He doesn't cite the abstract, but he used the numbers. However, now I can see why he uses those numbers. Though, the study is a classic and it should talk about the conclusion of the study. Not doing it is just dishonest.

"In the closing paragraph of the study, the authors raised an important question regarding the extent to which the invariances found for covariate relationshipsto the total homicide rate apply to disaggregated rates as well. Land et al. asked whether the deprivation index, population structure index, and percent divorced covariate are associated with different subtypes or categories of homicide. Key to this question is the idea that homicide is multidimensional; homicides vary in terms of the motive, characteristics of the victim and offender, setting, and circumstances. For example, a homicide in which a female suspect kills a male victim, her lover, during a heated argument in the home can be considered distinct from a homicide in which a young gang member robs and then kills an intoxicated stranger who is drinking in analley; these killings are different with respect to a number of characteristics."

Source: webfiles.uci.edu/ckubrin/Struc Covariates of Homicide.pdf?uniq=fn1t9r

Another interesting paper on this.
digitalcommons.newhaven.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=criminaljustice-facpubs

So basically, blacks always have higher crime rate than whites in similar economic conditions, race is the best predictor for crime in a neighborhood (thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-poverty-and-crime/), and your excuse for this is that the variables that are worse predictors of crime are more important than the variable that best predicts it?

"They argue that structurally induced social
disorganization and spatial isolation of disadvantaged communities are the main culprits in the
higher violence rates among blacks"
Kek

Seriously?

...

Your whole post is entirely based on the notion that it is acceptable to judge and treat individuals according to the statistical tendencies of the group they belong to, as exemplified by your elaborate political plans of sending every black back to Africa and every woman back to the kitchen.

I can't think of a shittiest world view.

...

well this thread went to shit. maybe we should try this again?