Street gangs

[dialamah]

15 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

Your equations are mind-boggling so let's stick to the facts. What do we know? Nothing more than what your study actually said.

1) Blacks have more "problem areas" than any other visible minority.

2) Caucasians are more firmly entrenched in crime than visible minorities.

I have no problem recognizing that Caucasians are more "entrenched" than Chinese or South Asian or many of the other minorities. But here's the kicker: Based on the 2016 census. Although 22.3% of Canadians were "visible minorities" Blacks comprised only 3.5%. Surely you can see how lumping them in with all the other visible minorities dilutes their criminality as suggested in point 1).

Are you at least starting to recognize that you might be one of the "usual suspects"?

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada

"Dilutes their criminality".  The study I linked to talks about proportion within the groups, so how is "diluted" if more than one group is combined?

Say the study numbers broke down like this

Out of 300 prisoners;

100 are Caucasian - 40 are violent/entrenched; 60 involved with drugs.

100 are Blacks - 20 are violent/entrenched; 80 are involved with drugs.

100 Asians - 10 are violent/entrenched; 90 are involved with drugs.

Show me how you would combine those numbers to demonstrate how the Black group has a higher percentage of violent/entrenched criminals than the Caucasion group.  I do not think you can do it.

Also, the study looked only at the prison population, which means the population outside the prison is irrelevant. 

If you are trying to say that Blacks are more "criminal" than other groups because they comprise only 3.5% of the population outside of jail, but a higher percentage inside jail, thats a different discussion. Its also a discussion where social factors will be dismissed as reasons for higher incarceration rates of Blacks by those with a "Blacks are just more criminal" bias, ignoring studies and facts that demonstrate criminality is much more related to social factors than race.

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Yes, its sad.  I wonder why so many indigenous folks are represented in our jails, on our streets and in our morgues?  Must be they chose it somehow, because certainly all the studies about history, poverty and discrimination resulting in poor outcomes (ie: addiction, jail, death) for this group are wrong, given they were carried out by academics.  And, as everyone knows academics are all left-wing shills with a clear agenda of beating down White people (especially men) while providing excuses and freebies to lazy, entitled, criminally-minded natives.

An interesting response. You have rapidly shifted gears from furiously denying there is any sort of statistical problem vis a vis black crime, to admitting this is the case with natives but then sarcastically demanding why anyone ought to be surprised.

I guess you just don't like natives as much as you like Blacks. Otherwise you'd be furiously denying there is a disproportionate amount of native crime too.

 

[dialamah]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

An interesting response. You have rapidly shifted gears from furiously denying there is any sort of statistical problem vis a vis black crime, to admitting this is the case with natives but then sarcastically demanding why anyone ought to be surprised.

I guess you just don't like natives as much as you like Blacks. Otherwise you'd be furiously denying there is a disproportionate amount of native crime too.

 

I calmly referenced an article about the difference in the criminality of Caucasian, Black and Asian inmates-people who are already in jail, and then proceeded to calmly defend my point of view.   This study had nothing to do with how many of each were in prison as compared to their population outside of prison, only the different profiles of crime and behavior of the different groups.    Why people end up in jail in the first place is an entirely different topic; studies (with facts and all that stuff) demonstrate that people who are marginalized tend to end up in jail in greater proportion than those who are not.  Doesn't matter if they are white/brown/black.   In our society, black/brown people tend to be marginalized in higher proportions than white, therefore, they will tend to end up in jail in higher proportion than whites.

Perhaps if you weren't so furious, you could have followed along and realized these are two different populations (1. inmates and 2. general population) and therefore, two different arguments.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I calmly referenced an article about the difference in the criminality of Caucasian, Black and Asian inmates-people who are already in jail, and then proceeded to calmly defend my point of view.   This study had nothing to do with how many of each were in prison as compared to their population outside of prison, only the different profiles of crime and behavior of the different groups.    Why people end up in jail in the first place is an entirely different topic; studies (with facts and all that stuff) demonstrate that people who are marginalized tend to end up in jail in greater proportion than those who are not.  Doesn't matter if they are white/brown/black.   In our society, black/brown people tend to be marginalized in higher proportions than white, therefore, they will tend to end up in jail in higher proportion than whites.

Perhaps if you weren't so furious, you could have followed along and realized these are two different populations (1. inmates and 2. general population) and therefore, two different arguments.

You posted that as a defense against someone talking about the disproportionate number of Blacks involved in crime, suggesting that the study found 'visible minorities' less likely to commit crime. But in actuality it showed Blacks were more likely to commit crime. 

Yes, the background social issues are important, but until you acknowledge the problem in the first place it's pretty hard to address the background social causes.

[dialamah]

31 minutes ago, Argus said:

You posted that as a defense against someone talking about the disproportionate number of Blacks involved in crime, suggesting that the study found 'visible minorities' less likely to commit crime. But in actuality it showed Blacks were more likely to commit crime. 

Nope, I posted that as an example of how people reject facts which do not align with their point of view.  My argument was strictly "Here is a study about different criminal profiles of inmates.   The study did not say "Blacks were less likely to commit crime"; it said "These are the kinds of crimes Blacks commit, and how entrenched they are in a criminal lifestyle".  It provided the same information for Asians and Caucasians.  Statistically speaking, the people in this study were 100% likely to commit a crime, every single one of them, simply because they were already in prison for having done so.   It seems neither you nor CP seem to be able to abide the notion that Blacks aren't as violent as Whites, even though here is a study on actual criminals which suggests that is true.  Of course, Blacks/Asians are more likely (according to this study) to be in jail for drug-related offenses.  

 

Quote

Yes, the background social issues are important, but until you acknowledge the problem in the first place it's pretty hard to address the background social causes.

So far my arguments have been:

Black, Caucasian, Asian inmates have different criminal profiles;

Blacks/Aboriginals are more likely to end up in prison because of background social causes.

What exactly am I not acknowledging?

 

Edited June 24, 2018 by dialamah

[Centerpiece]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

"Dilutes their criminality".  The study I linked to talks about proportion within the groups, so how is "diluted" if more than one group is combined?

Say the study numbers broke down like this

Out of 300 prisoners;

100 are Caucasian - 40 are violent/entrenched; 60 involved with drugs.

100 are Blacks - 20 are violent/entrenched; 80 are involved with drugs.

100 Asians - 10 are violent/entrenched; 90 are involved with drugs.

Show me how you would combine those numbers to demonstrate how the Black group has a higher percentage of violent/entrenched criminals than the Caucasion group.  I do not think you can do it.

Also, the study looked only at the prison population, which means the population outside the prison is irrelevant. 

If you are trying to say that Blacks are more "criminal" than other groups because they comprise only 3.5% of the population outside of jail, but a higher percentage inside jail, thats a different discussion. Its also a discussion where social factors will be dismissed as reasons for higher incarceration rates of Blacks by those with a "Blacks are just more criminal" bias, ignoring studies and facts that demonstrate criminality is much more related to social factors than race.

 

I have no idea of the details of the study but clearly it accounted for several visible minorities - and said that Blacks have more "problem areas than the other minorities - but to use your math approach, here's what I was saying - out of 300 prisoners. Remember - these numbers are mine - just to demonstrate how the study could be/should be interpreted.

50 Caucasian - 20 violent/entrenched

50 Chinese - 10 violent/entrenched

50 Latino - 15 violent/entrenched

50 South Asian - 15 violent/entrenched

50 Middle Eastern - 10 violent/entrenched

50 Black - 35 violent/entrenched

That gives us 250 visible minorities - 34% of whom are violent entrenched - noticeable less than Caucasians even though it includes a 70% violent/entrenched rate among Blacks. Remember - the study compares Caucasians to the combined total of all visible minorities.

Does this mean that Blacks are pre-disposed to more criminality? Absolutely not. That would be genuine racism. But I'll go back to my original post and the reasons that put Blacks in situations where they have less of a chance to thrive - centered around the Baby Mom, fatherless households that are all too prevalent in low-income, Black communities.

You do them no favours by continuing to ignore the facts that are so blatantly obvious. That's all I'll say on this matter - it falls on deaf ears with the usual suspects.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Centerpiece said:

You do them no favours by continuing to ignore the facts that are so blatantly obvious. That's all I'll say on this matter - it falls on deaf ears with the usual suspects.

What facts am I so blatantly ignoring?   Nowhere does the study I linked to say that Blacks outperform Caucasians in terms of violence/entrenchment, but you seem to have a real need to interpret it that way.  Why?   Perhaps you failed to read the entire thing?  Here is another excerpt:

Quote

Most likely because of differences in offence type and criminal history, the current aggregate sentence length is significantly shorter for incarcerated visible minority offenders than for Caucasian offenders. This is the case for Black and “other visible minority” offenders, but not for Asian offenders. No significant differences were found between visible minority and Caucasian offenders serving time in the community.

This paragraph is pretty specific in stating that the less serious nature of crimes by Blacks results in shorter sentences than for Caucasians (and Asians).

So, who is ignoring facts provided? 

[Argus]

20 hours ago, dialamah said:

 It seems neither you nor CP seem to be able to abide the notion that Blacks aren't as violent as Whites, even though here is a study on actual criminals which suggests that is true. 

Maybe because we read more of the study than you did. The study made no such claim. And frankly, I would not believe it if it did. It runs 100% counter to everything else I've read, not to mention the daily news, over the past thirty years. I'm actually mildly surprised these days when I see a murder reported, other than domestics, and the killer is a white man.

You simply cannot abide anything which makes minorities look bad, and have to come back with something you hope will suggest whites are as bad or worse.

 

 

[dialamah]

36 minutes ago, Argus said:

And frankly, I would not believe it if it did.

This the point I was trying to make, of course.  Here's a summary of the conversation:

On 6/23/2018 at 7:10 AM, Centerpiece said:

 Get the facts - do the work - tell the truth - and work to stop the violence.....for the sake of the overwhelming, vast majority of the Black community that just wants to get on with their lives.

 

On 6/23/2018 at 8:36 AM, dialamah said:

I agree that accurate facts would be great.  Given the current notion among (some) people that academics are merely left-wing mouthpieces, I expect that if a conclusion that (for example) Black dysfunctional families were no more prevalent than White dysfunctional families and that the rate of crime was identical between Blacks and Whites, that conclusion would simply be disregarded by those people who preferred their bias over facts.   

CP doubted this, so I posted a study that I'd posted about before and that had been rejected by certain posters.   The study presented facts about the different profiles of Blacks/Asians/Caucasions/other minorities who were in or had been in prison.  But it didn't completely skewer Blacks, it even suggested that in some small and pretty specific ways, Blacks might not be worse than Whites when it comes to criminal behavior.   But this wasn't acceptable to you, so you argued and argued, and finally admitted:  "I don't believe the study says what you are claiming, and even if it did, I wouldn't believe it."   

This also goes to the other thread on media:  People believe what they want to believe, regardless of the information/facts in front of them.

(The biggest problem I have with the study is its age: published in 2004, the data may be too old to be reliable.  Nonetheless, it is *facts* collected by the prison system which you *chose* to reject because you didn't like what those facts suggested - not because of its age).

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by dialamah

[Centerpiece]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

This also goes to the other thread on media:  People believe what they want to believe, regardless of the information/facts in front of them.

(The biggest problem I have with the study is its age: published in 2004, the data may be too old to be reliable.  Nonetheless, it is *facts* collected by the prison system which you *chose* to reject because you didn't like what those facts suggested - not because of its age).

 

Dialamah - put your "study" aside and just look at the real world.  Year after year in the GTA, we see a large number black faces among the killers and their victims - from such a small percentage of the population. To me, it's almost immoral that we keep making excuses - decade after decade while blacks go on killing blacks and terrorizing neighbourhoods. There are reasons why the police have trouble getting people to cooperate - and it's almost entirely due to intimidation - fear of reprisal. It'll only stop when we step up and deal with the fatherless youth culture. There's a big difference between a single mom and an accepted culture of Baby Moms and sperm donators.

[Argus]

18 minutes ago, dialamah said:

CP doubted this, so I posted a study that I'd posted about before and that had been rejected by certain posters.   The study presented facts about the different profiles of Blacks/Asians/Caucasions/other minorities who were in or had been in prison.

The study depends on interpretation and knowing definitions. Why, for example, did it not simply give criminal offense by type of offender?  Something like that is harder to misinterpret. It does know this information, because it occasionally drops tidbits here and there, such as saying asians are in for drugs more than blacks  or that 32% of blacks are in for robbery vs 16% of asians So why does it not simply list a series of offenses and the number of offenders in each rather than dancing around the subject? It says more blacks (28%) are in maximum security than any other group, but not why. You don't go to Max just for robbery. This is a bureaucratic study ever so carefully parsing its words to avoid giving offense. I'm looking for straight on statistics like they do in the US and UK.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Argus

[dialamah]

29 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Dialamah - put your "study" aside and just look at the real world.  Year after year in the GTA, we see a large number black faces among the killers and their victims - from such a small percentage of the population. To me, it's almost immoral that we keep making excuses - decade after decade while blacks go on killing blacks and terrorizing neighbourhoods. There are reasons why the police have trouble getting people to cooperate - and it's almost entirely due to intimidation - fear of reprisal. It'll only stop when we step up and deal with the fatherless youth culture. There's a big difference between a single mom and an accepted culture of Baby Moms and sperm donators.

For sure, CP, I am not going to doubt your anecdotal information.   The study wasn't even about percentages of Black vs. percentage of non-Black who commit crimes; it was only a profile of the type of crime/criminal entrenchment based on ethnicity, more or less.  The point of the exercise was simply that, even when presented with facts provided by an organization who should "know", it's argued against by people who have biases - and in this case, it keeps drifting to the wrong argument.   

Children raised in poverty tend to have more issues and engage in more criminality than children raised in more affluent households, regardless of race.  It's not just that economic pressures tend to lead to family breakdown, but that economic pressures also lead to violence.  When the oil industry collapsed in Alberta, domestic abuse calls rose significantly, and no doubt led to family breakdown for at least some couples - even among Caucasian people.

Addressing these issues will help all kids raised in poverty, just Black kids.   You perhaps don't mean it, but focusing on Blacks as if they are the only subgroup that suffers from these things seems racist.  Addressing these problems in society will also benefit almost every kid, regardless of race, who comes from a marginalized subgroup.   White drug addicts/White single mothers are also a 'marginalized subgroup', though quite possibly not as marginalized as Indigenous or Black groups.  

Edited June 25, 2018 by dialamah

[dialamah]

35 minutes ago, Argus said:

It says more blacks (28%) are in maximum security than any other group, but not why. You don't go to Max just for robbery.

You can end up in Maximum Security (and in solitary confinement) just for masturbating or even talking back to a guard .   It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the crime you were originally in prison for.   And guards have biases too - if they believe Blacks are more violent, they're going to come down harder on them.  If Caucasian/Asian inmates have resources available to them that they can share with guards, they can get an easier ride.

[Centerpiece]

5 hours ago, dialamah said:

For sure, CP, I am not going to doubt your anecdotal information.   The study wasn't even about percentages of Black vs. percentage of non-Black who commit crimes; it was only a profile of the type of crime/criminal entrenchment based on ethnicity, more or less.  The point of the exercise was simply that, even when presented with facts provided by an organization who should "know", it's argued against by people who have biases - and in this case, it keeps drifting to the wrong argument.   

Children raised in poverty tend to have more issues and engage in more criminality than children raised in more affluent households, regardless of race.  It's not just that economic pressures tend to lead to family breakdown, but that economic pressures also lead to violence.  When the oil industry collapsed in Alberta, domestic abuse calls rose significantly, and no doubt led to family breakdown for at least some couples - even among Caucasian people.

Addressing these issues will help all kids raised in poverty, just Black kids.   You perhaps don't mean it, but focusing on Blacks as if they are the only subgroup that suffers from these things seems racist.  Addressing these problems in society will also benefit almost every kid, regardless of race, who comes from a marginalized subgroup.   White drug addicts/White single mothers are also a 'marginalized subgroup', though quite possibly not as marginalized as Indigenous or Black groups.  

Your one-size-fits-all ignores the central issue within the Black community - an issue that for the most part is non-existent with other minorities. The Baby Mom culture  that rendors Black children fatherless drives them towards street gangs - seeking some sort of validation, acceptance and to some degree, a curious form of love. Baby Mom is not a trite term - it's the willingness to have children with many "fathers" who have no role or acceptance of the children. You won't find this in any other minority - many of whom face the same obstacles. Sure, we can and should continue to address true poverty in Canada - but until we also consider this blatantly clear difference, we'll just continue to bury Black kids. Harsh but true.

[dialamah]

38 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Your one-size-fits-all ignores the central issue within the Black community - an issue that for the most part is non-existent with other minorities. The Baby Mom culture  that rendors Black children fatherless drives them towards street gangs - seeking some sort of validation, acceptance and to some degree, a curious form of love. Baby Mom is not a trite term - it's the willingness to have children with many "fathers" who have no role or acceptance of the children. You won't find this in any other minority - many of whom face the same obstacles. Sure, we can and should continue to address true poverty in Canada - but until we also consider this blatantly clear difference, we'll just continue to bury Black kids. Harsh but true.

Ok.  

[Hates politicians]

Here's a fact. If they were sent to the gas chamber upon conviction they would'nt be a repeat offender.

[Hates politicians]

On 6/25/2018 at 11:55 AM, dialamah said:

For sure, CP, I am not going to doubt your anecdotal information.   The study wasn't even about percentages of Black vs. percentage of non-Black who commit crimes; it was only a profile of the type of crime/criminal entrenchment based on ethnicity, more or less.  The point of the exercise was simply that, even when presented with facts provided by an organization who should "know", it's argued against by people who have biases - and in this case, it keeps drifting to the wrong argument.   

Children raised in poverty tend to have more issues and engage in more criminality than children raised in more affluent households, regardless of race.  It's not just that economic pressures tend to lead to family breakdown, but that economic pressures also lead to violence.  When the oil industry collapsed in Alberta, domestic abuse calls rose significantly, and no doubt led to family breakdown for at least some couples - even among Caucasian people.

Addressing these issues will help all kids raised in poverty, just Black kids.   You perhaps don't mean it, but focusing on Blacks as if they are the only subgroup that suffers from these things seems racist.  Addressing these problems in society will also benefit almost every kid, regardless of race, who comes from a marginalized subgroup.   White drug addicts/White single mothers are also a 'marginalized subgroup', though quite possibly not as marginalized as Indigenous or Black groups.  

Can't do the time, don't do the crime

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, Hates politicians said:

Can't do the time, don't do the crime

Never understood that expression.

I suppose it's nice that it rhymes, but saying it makes one sound like a 70s TV cop, ie.Kojak dumb.

 

[turningrite]

On 6/24/2018 at 2:12 PM, dialamah said:

I calmly referenced an article about the difference in the criminality of Caucasian, Black and Asian inmates-people who are already in jail, and then proceeded to calmly defend my point of view.   This study had nothing to do with how many of each were in prison as compared to their population outside of prison, only the different profiles of crime and behavior of the different groups.  

Actually, you haven't referenced an article. You've merely inserted quotations from an article or study for which as far as I can see you provide no title or link. The text you copy in the post to which dialamah has replied raises issues and questions that are worth pondering. If Caucasian offenders tend to be the most hardened criminals, at least in generalized comparison to visible minority offenders, who are determined to be of lower risk and need as well as better educated and more likely to be employed, why then do visible minority activists continuously stress the need for great social supports for members of their communities? The conclusions in the article/study seem contrary to the standard media narrative. This morning I read a column in the Toronto Star asserting that the problems arising with Toronto's gangs emerge from a lack of subsidized housing as well as other supports, along with the obligatory nod to racism. Is this explanation, generally the standard response of the left, not the truth? Are the entrenched and most dangerous criminals actually Caucasians for whom we're simply not providing targeted programs and services, as a quotation you copy appears to suggest? Sometimes context is important, so it would be useful to be able to read the actual article or study you're discussing.

Edited July 6, 2018 by turningrite

[Centerpiece]

On 6/30/2018 at 4:01 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Never understood that expression.

I suppose it's nice that it rhymes, but saying it makes one sound like a 70s TV cop, ie.Kojak dumb.

 

It is indeed an old expression - and meant to mean "watch out - there are consequences to your actions". Our revolving door justice system has diluted the "consequences" to the point that Gangs consider sentences the "cost of doing business". Here's a link to some statistics that surprised even me. Take a look at the "median length" of days in custody. The median for all violent offences is 75 days - and keep in mind, these are sentences. It doesn't account for parole (after as little as serving one-third of the sentence) or statutory release, which is pretty well mandatory after serving two thirds of the sentence. It's really quite interesting.

Link: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14226/tbl/tbl06-eng.htm

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by Centerpiece

[Argus]

On 6/30/2018 at 4:01 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Never understood that expression.

I suppose it's nice that it rhymes, but saying it makes one sound like a 70s TV cop, ie.Kojak dumb.

 

Kojak wasn't dumb! 

[taxme]

On 6/24/2018 at 8:55 AM, Argus said:

Since we're on the topic of minorities and crime, this was in the paper today.

Half of all youth in custody are natives. Nearly half of all women in custody are natives.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-nearly-half-of-youth-incarcerated-across-canada-are-indigenous/

What an awful racist thing to be saying about Indians.     

[cannuck]

On 6/24/2018 at 10:04 AM, dialamah said:

Yes, its sad.  I wonder why so many indigenous folks are represented in our jails, on our streets and in our morgues? 

This IS a free country.  One can choose to learn some skills, get and hold a job and hold it becoming a productive citizen.   You can choose not to do so, but your life will become miserable.   IF you happen to have a treaty number, though, you have a choice not available to the rest of Canada:  you can simply stay at home, drinking, doing drugs, commit crimes, or go to the big city and do the same since you know with absolute certainty you will receive financial support.  On top of that you can get in sync with an entire community and culture of victim belief - supported (even created) by the left spectrum of politics who use this kind of BS to justify their "us against them" zealous religion.

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

This IS a free country.  One can choose to learn some skills, get and hold a job and hold it becoming a productive citizen.   You can choose not to do so, but your life will become miserable.   IF you happen to have a treaty number, though, you have a choice not available to the rest of Canada:  you can simply stay at home, drinking, doing drugs, commit crimes, or go to the big city and do the same since you know with absolute certainty you will receive financial support.  On top of that you can get in sync with an entire community and culture of victim belief - supported (even created) by the left spectrum of politics who use this kind of BS to justify their "us against them" zealous religion.

Indigenous Canadians at least have the virtue of being able to claim they've legitimately been victimized. The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which is incorporated into the Canadian constitution, essentially grants the Crown sovereignty over indigenous lands in return for treaty rights and government support. We can't really ignore this aspect of the Canadian political, legal and social reality. In the context of an increasingly urban and post-industrial country, however, it's unlikely that a culture of injury can improve the lot of indigenous Canadians. A recent media report suggests that despite billions of tax dollars being poured into indigenous job training programs over the past decade the unemployment rate experienced by indigenous workers remains much higher than is the case for other Canadians. We have to be honest about the extent to which cultural attributes and belief systems within some minority cultures impact economic and social outcomes and limit the degree to which government intervention can counter negative beliefs. I suspect that those raised in environments where they're taught that failure is preordained and/or attributable to others are in general and will continue to be less likely to succeed.

Edited November 7, 2018 by turningrite

[cannuck]

250 years ago...even 50 years ago, some of this might be valid.  There is simply no excuse to continue on in the same way today.  I have lived beside and worked on reserves, and have friends, family and co-workers who are aboriginal.   All it takes is the decision to leave the lifestyle of violence, drugs, alcohol and violence behind, plus a bit of effort.  Our "Indian Industry" however (the gov't and leeches...er... consultants and contractors) resist this as it is how they make their considerable living, and governments seem to get in step as they seem to think that pandering to the status quo maintains hope of winning a large voting block (generally over on the left end of the spectrum).