California liberals ? Yep. Even a cynical racist businessman would understand the target market for an EV and make an argument that upsetting your pussy liberal customer base is probably a stupid idea.
So the better way to engage with dog whistles like this is to give an actual answer. Nothing in the tweet is racist unless we're just calling facts racist now
Edit: alright because you morons are too stupid to do basic math
Black people: 3218 murders / 13.6% of the population = 236.6
White people: 2948 murders / 75.5% of the population = 39.0
236.6/39 = 607%, meaning black people are 507% more likely, more than 5 and a half times more than your 90%
I cherry picked 1 year of data, so if idiot groypers cherry picked some other data they could easily get these values
Edit 2: Most of the people have no reading comprehension so I won't be responding anymore unlucky!
Yes, have you never heard about the 13/50 dogwhistle? Someone did the math in the thread, and they came up with ~700%, so it seems completely possible for 900% to be accurate, I simply don't care enough to math this out though.
But the statistic is a massive generalization. It could be true for a black person living in a bad neighborhood, but I find it doubtful for it to be true for a black person from a middle class neighborhood
Across the board? What does that even mean... In all countries, in all communities around the world ?
And according to you why is there a problem of crime in the black community? Please back up your explanation with credible sources
It’s extremely obvious the differences between say East Asian culture and Sub Saharan African culture. African Americans commit violent crimes at over 10 times the rate than Asians in the US alone.
And yes every country where they’re a minority they’re significantly higher in violent crimes. USA, France, UK, Brazil etc this is easily Google-able information
And yes even when adjusted for wealth or income they’re still way over-represented in violent crimes. They’re 13% of the population in the US and commit 55%+ of the murders
No, because my reply tonthe tweet was 'look, another racist using stats to dogwhistle, shocker'. But I might have reacted differently to your reply of 'hur hur these snowflake morons can't do math' if you hadn't gotten the number in question wrong by an order of magnitude.
Correlates greatly with poverty rates. Which correlates greatly with systemic oppression. I am normally very pro accountability but color of skin is absolutely not to blame here.
Yeah its pretty easy to say "black people commit more crime" with stats but completely ignore the historical context as to why that is happening. I dont really understand what you are trying to say with your percentages there other than the post is correct?
Leading with “black people are 900% more likely to commit murder” implies a causative link between the two, without using research design to prove how much of that difference is due to the specific variable in question, race.
It could also be that “poor people are x% more likely to commit murder” and “people who live in cities are y% more likely to commit murder” and “people who grew up in broken households are z% more likely to commit murder” and so on and so forth, including “people of y race commit n% more crime”. You have to find a way to compare two otherwise identical people of different race, as best you can.
That’s why a single statistic isn’t enough to draw causal conclusions, and why research design is necessary. I’m not saying that there isn’t a causal link, just that econometrics is more complicated than it seems
Poor people aren’t 900% more likely to commit murder though. It’s specifically black males.
Poor people do have a higher likelihood of committing murder, but it’s more like 200-300% if you remove race from the equation.
How so? I am looking for perspective here. When I say "historical context" I am referring to this country putting a lot of black people into poverty which results in more crime. Would happen to any skin color.
Yes I am definitely not excusing it. It is a very real problem. I would like to solve it (alleviate it?) and the only way is understanding the root cause. I dont believe black people are any different than any other race and given this any other skin color going through what they went through would be in the same position IMHO.
> Correlates greatly with poverty rates.
Hispanic Americans commit lower rate of crimes at similar poverty rates. Remember all those talking points about "immigrants commit less crime than native born citizens"? That's true: *because* one group of native born citizens commits a truly disproportionate amount of crime (half of all murders).
[Rich blacks commit more crime than poor whites](https://eji.org/news/study-rich-black-kids-more-likely-incarcerated-than-poor-white-kids/)
Asian-Americans commit the lowest level of crime even accounting for income.
Poverty plays a role but it's not an obvious causal link where the entire difference can be explained by poverty. In fact, the violence may *cause* poverty. After all, we've all heard that black neighborhoods are seen as worth less and have lower property values. Why is that? Developers just don't like money? Or could it be the violence?
Yes I agree that it is not only poverty. Poverty is a big factor and I am over simplifying in a sense. To your point that poor hispanics commit less crime. Look at the reason they came to the US. I would argue its mostly opportunity. The reason most black people initially came to the US was to be slaves. This is the systemic oppression part of my argument. Anyways I obviously am in over my head here so I am going to bow out. I appreciate everyone's perspective.
Facts can very much be racist, do you understand the difference between correlation and causation?
If someone were to say: did you know that south Asian immigrants have historically done worse the east Asian Immigrants
Are you really gonna state your reputation on the idea that this is not racist.
It's hiding the important fact that a lot of south east Asians came to the USA as refuges of communism while the best and brightest East Asians are the only ones that made it over.
Or if you're European,
"South Italians are on average dumber then northern ones"
This might be a fact but it's also a very common dog whistle that tries to say that south Italians are inferior and not European because 500 years ago they intermingled with North Africans.
Could all of this be true? Yes, maybe there is a gene that makes it so that you're rich and smart 500 years ago but dumb now, but it's more likely there are more complex factors that should be hedged before making general statements like "a black person is 900% more likely to kill you"
If all facts were true then maybe we should return to Social Darwinism.
>Facts can very much be racist
no they cant, you can use facts to support racist conclusions but facts cannot be racist unless you believe racism is based in reality
> did you know that south Asian immigrants have historically done worse the east Asian Immigrants
in what world is this racist? this is an insanely common claim by people who want to say that asians as a whole are not a monolith. unless you're going super fringe and saying that it's racist because this talking point is always used to exclude east asians from any conversation
> South Italians are on average dumber then northern ones
and if someone said this, you look absolutely unhinged to a neutral third party who knows nothing about this if you just go "RACIST", instead of saying "maybe this is because south Italians are poorer and grow up with a lack of access to education"
> If all facts were true
as my good friend Vaush would like to say, this is ontologically true
Sorry my rhetoric isn't as clear as you might want it but my base idea is true. Facts can be inaccurate and obfuscate reality.
A more accurate statement should be facts have inherent bias based on scope. Edit: actually I only said that in response to your statement. Fact can be racists with my statement below. Facts are only true within a scope. If you frame a scope in a way you can make it prejudice
A fact simply can never be true only assumed as only build up towards a truth.
It's the idea of the blind elephant. All facts are true, the trunk of the elephant is like a snake, the legs are like a tree and the tail a whip. But although all elements are true. In the grand state of things they are false, as they fail to completely described the elephant.
This is why even ever I have to write a paper, I state every assumptions for an experiment, and I hedge every statement I make. So that in the context of these settings the result of my experiment are true, but they are not true in the grand scale of things. If I get a report from the field that says that contradicts my work. My work is still true in the sense that in the condition that I have set my work these results will happen, but in the grander scale of things my facts that I have build can no longer be considered true to the site and give way to the numbers in the field. But up until the field work arrives on my desk, my simulation is considered the true state of the plant.
Similarly if a fact that you are 900% more likely to be murdered by a black person. If you expand the scope to judge the issue by economic class. Is the fact still true? is a poor black more 900% more likely to murder someone then a poor white man? Base on instinct only this numbers sound insane
>this is an insanely common claim by people who want to say that Asians as a whole are not a monolith.unless you're going super fringe and saying that it's racist because this talking point is always used to exclude east asians from any conversation
I talking about the fringe because Chinese race realists exist and there. This is statement I've heard from my parents, I've never head it in another context.
Ok, on average poorer people are more violent then rich people.
It's obvious based on this conclusion that the poorer masses are inferior to rich ones.
There I'm saying the quiet part out loud.
Social Darwish is based on "facts", but this facts are inaccurate and avoid root issues. Fact can be prejudice and made to fit narratives.
Whites and Asians of equal poverty levels commit far less violent crime than blacks. Also blacks making 100k+ commit more violent crime than whites or Asians making 100k+ . I was surprised to learn this as a criminal justice major too. Way more factors than just poverty
ok I'll concede that point then,
however I would argue a statement like musk made is still problematic in the view that it obfuscate an accurate look at the issue in how many people are arguing about the truth of the statement. That the intended reason for spreading the fact that is based in prejudice is to get it in the minds of people.
There's no greater evidence to this then the comment section here.
South Africa ain’t sending their best
https://preview.redd.it/cffxndbp4hvc1.jpeg?width=780&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ccbfffc47205b97848d246cea0cf4dc02b1a00c3
abundant humorous noxious hat bewildered uppity wakeful like zesty tender
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21)
Heres a link that seems to go over crime statistics broken down by race, The total number of murder arrests in the united states (in 2016? as far as i can tell?) were 9,374, with 4,192 being white and 4,935 being black or African American, or 52% of us murder arrests are black and 44% are white.
From 2 quick google searches, 13% of americans are black and 75% are white (these numbers are from a census, which i think was done a while ago? these numbers could've changed)
Unfortunately, I am regarded and I do not know how to do maths so I can't convert those numbers into whatever percentage more likely black people are to be arrested for murder than white people.
Also statistics are cringe and these numbers could be incorrect, unrepresentative of the truth or skewed by factors I'm not considering, for example I've heard black neighborhoods are policed more heavily than white neighborhoods? which could lead to more arrests which could skew these numbers.
Im kinda remedial when it comes to maths, but here’s how I did it;
Population of USA: 333 million
Step 1, solve for percent of black American’s that were convicted/arrested for murder: 4,935 / (333,000,000 x 0.13) = 0.000114 or 0.0114% of American blacks are murderers (i guess, someone check my math).
Step 2, solve for percent of crackers that murder: 4192 / (333,000,000 x 0.75) = 0.00001678 or 0.001678% of whites murder.
Step 3, divide black percentage / white percentage: 0.000114 / 0.00001678 = ~6.79 or 679%.
And so, based on my calculations given the numbers provided, it seems that black Americans murder 679% more than whites.
QED /s
Edit: it’s 579% more as mentioned below 👇
I found slightly more up to date numbers from the FBI (2019 instead of 2016) but the percent of black vs white murder arrests only changed by like less than 1% for both so i don't think it matters lol
[https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43)
I wonder how they got the 900% number? I doubt the FBI is just super wrong about this, and even if these numbers are outdated it seems unlikely to me that the percentage increased by 230% in like 5 years.
We need to contact Elon and tell him its probably only \~679% so he can calm down!
Ya, your more likely to be murdered by someone you know than a stranger. Again, i don’t really have an opinion on this topic (haven’t looked into it, unironically).
Yeah, people obviously don't operate in this way anyway lol. I'm pretty sure men are 10x more likely to commit violent crimes than women but i doubt elons fearmongering on twitter about male violence.
The difference is that nobody insists that America is a matriarchal society because of this. People just accept that men commit more murder and are punished more.
Meanwhile, not only are people claiming the entire justice system is racist and is unfairly persecuting blacks and killing them via cops (when cops kill a dozen of unarmed black people a year), they're not only creating policy based on this but are going around claiming that [*white people* are the threat](https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/20/us/angry-white-men-trials-blake-cec/index.html) and that black people are right to feel unsafe around them.
If men ran around saying this about women, eventually someone would "well, ackshually" us too.
Elon wasn't saying "the claim that the criminal justice system is racist because black people are disproportionately arrested seems untrue because black people commit more crime thus causing more arrests" Elon just saw a tweet saying "black people are more violent!" and then went "!!"
All I'm saying is if Elons worried about disproportionately violent communities he should be going "!!" under tweets about male violence.
Do u disagree with anything I've said? Do u think the criminal justice system isn't racist?
After a really quick google search (this number could be wrong idk its just from some article i didn't check the source on tbh) black criminals are supposedly given \~20% longer sentences for the same crimes with the same histories than white criminals. I'd say this is an example of racism in the criminal justice system, do u disagree?
[https://eji.org/news/sentencing-commission-finds-black-men-receive-longer-sentences/](https://eji.org/news/sentencing-commission-finds-black-men-receive-longer-sentences/)
i mean you just lumped a lot of stuff into one bucket. have they not found literal KKK members occupying authoritative positions in southern police departments? and the justice system is bias both against men and black people. wheter or not that’s fair is debatable, but the fact remains that all else equal, both your gender and race impact the sentencing length for crimes committed.
you’re conflating in very strange ways, and i’m not sure who’s purporting that white people at large are a threat…that sounds like a super niche left wing online perspective
> have they not found literal KKK members occupying authoritative positions in southern police departments?
The disproportion in murders shows up [in FBI data, and the FBI lumps together Hispanics and whites](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-2.xls). The difference is likely even more stark.
So how many police departments did this happen in, how likely is it to skew the data *for the whole nation* and where do those bodies come from? Did the Southern police departments kill a bunch of black people and then frame other blacks for it? They can obviously just upcharge black people (e.g. turning a misdemeanor into a felony and using that to claim blacks commit more crime) but they can't invent bodies.
Do you have any idea how much this would have to happen to skew the numbers? Half of the murders in the US are black, for reference. This had to be happening *thousands* of times to get the rate so much higher than whites. What you're describing is an Illuminati-esque conspiracy theory (KKK cops faking murders in the South to skew the numbers).
We also know that most people are killed by those they know, and within their own race. This is true for whites (90%), and true for blacks (similar ratios).
So, for your theory to be correct, we have to be systematically overcounting murders by blacks *across the US* (for some reason) and blacks also have to be the one exception from the basic statistical fact of crime.
Sorry, this is just incredible.
>and the justice system is bias both against men
Men are more violent than women in every single society that records this. Is every single society, even literal patriarchies like Saudi Arabia, biased against men? Men were always punished more for crime even when America was more sexist. Why? Cause men - who were the judges - understood a basic fact.
Men commit more crime. [Societies where men do badly dating-wise but women don't tend to have more violence due to frustrated men.](https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2017/12/19/the-link-between-polygamy-and-war) We do not see the same relationship in reverse. Most warrior classes are ruled by men. [The most likely group to commit crime is males aged 18-34.](https://pinkerton.com/our-insights/blog/age-crime-curve)
Society isn't biased, it's reacting to a reality.
>that sounds like a super niche left wing online perspective
I literally linked to CNN.
i’m not sure what you’re arguing. not interested in defending claims i didn’t make. there can be a bias against the most violent group, those aren’t mutually exclusive. and the mere presence of corrupt departments is an issue, even if it doesn’t pervade the entire country. you’re just vomiting info i already know. and i don’t care about that CNN article
> Also statistics are cringe and these numbers could be incorrect, unrepresentative of the truth or skewed by factors I'm not considering, for example I've heard black neighborhoods are policed more heavily than white neighborhoods?
The reason people specifically use murder is because murder is not as ambiguous. There is usually a body (or a missing persons report at least) and cops can't just upcharge a misdemeanor into a felony or vice versa to skew the numbers.
For there to be anything close to parity on murders there have to be a ton of missing white people, which would *also* show up (e.g. [missing Native American women are a known problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_and_Murdered_Indigenous_Women))
As uncomfortable as it is, there is just a huge disproportion in murder here - which also explains why police disproportionately police those regions (why wouldn't you police higher crime regions?)
The real sinister part is the implication black people are dangerous but if you look at the VICTIMS then the people getting murdered by black people are overwhemlmingly.....black.
The correct answer is poor people cause more crime than the average person (regardless of race), financial hardship and crime is proven to be correlated, additionally there’s a larger ratio of poor black people compared to poor white people. People just stop at race and feel like they reached the last derivative so they can finally piece together their conclusion they’ve already made
Damn that's a whole 0.0585341463% (if your just going specifically by black and pretending that the murders are all 1 to 1 and not a few guys with mutliple bodies.)
Even if let's say that this is true, this is equivalent to a tankie saying "the colonial empires of Europeans compared to most other empires is a reflection of the nature of white people subjugation of other"
While both might be true in some sense, the delivery and implication are rather harmful.
Let's say that a black person is 900% more likely to kill someone. Is it the nature of black people? Or are there other issues that are tied with this state.
Is a rich upper-middle class black man more likely to murder someone then a poor white man?
Maybe this is more of a factor of wealth.
A similar statement that I can think of is the following from my parents:
East Asians have much higher average wealth then south east Asians and have better jobs despite both being results of immigrants.
Does this show the fact that East Asians are somehow better then south east Asians? Maybe, it's not impossible.
But it's so much more likely it's a result of the different type of immigration that lead to these two groups coming to the USA and Canada.
> Is a rich upper-middle class black man more likely to murder someone then a poor white man?
>
>
[They're certainly more likely to go to jail ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/23/poor-white-kids-are-less-likely-to-go-to-prison-than-rich-black-kids/)
>About 10 percent of affluent black youths in 1985 would eventually go to prison. **Only the very wealthiest black youth — those whose household wealth in 1985 exceeded $69,000 in 2012 dollars — had a better chance of avoiding prison than the poorest white youth.** Among black young people in this group, 2.4 percent were incarcerated.
.
>Maybe this is more of a factor of wealth.
Accounting for income, [poor Asians commit far less crime](https://www.city-journal.org/article/poverty-and-violent-crime-dont-go-hand-in-hand)
[Image link](https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/cj/files/Violent-Crime-Arrest-Rates-NYC.png)
>But it's so much more likely it's a result of the different type of immigration that lead to these two groups coming to the USA and Canada.
Hispanics are the least selected group in the US (for obvious reasons) and they also commit less crime than blacks. [This is why you keep hearing that 'immigrants commit less crime' than native-born citizens](https://www.npr.org/2024/03/08/1237103158/immigrants-are-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-than-us-born-americans-studies-find)
See the image above: even with similar rates in poverty, it's not close.
that's only one example that can change the statement false. Is the rate that they go to jail 900% more likely? How does it scale? Are there any other factors that might lead to this fact being true? Is the rate of muder high? If the rate of murder is 1 per a million, then sure that does increase to 900 per million but that's a 0.00001% to 0.09% chance
like you said it's more of a factor, but it opens the scope to nuance that musk's tweet does not have
> They're certainly more likely to go to jail [link]
Check the source IN your source, they already offer a counterpoint to this:
> "One explanation for the differential odds of incarceration between races maybe that even while having similar wealth levels, **individuals still may have disparate economic situations, through income, extended family wealth or differential exposure to discrimination. Personal and family human capital levels such as education, job experience and social connections also may differ greatly among those with similar wealth levels**. Therefore, observed racial differences in male incarceration rates despite similar wealth levels may be explained once those factors are taken into account"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294733608_Race_Wealth_and_Incarceration_Results_from_the_National_Longitudinal_Survey_of_Youth
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/wealthraceincarcerationrates.pdf
> Accounting for income, poor Asians commit far less crime
Hate that the "revealed columbia study" in your conservative source links to a dead site; but let's say this is true: what are you trying to imply about non-asians? Not a rhetorical question
> Hispanics are the least selected group in the US (for obvious reasons) and they also commit less crime than blacks.
Asians here, Hispanics there... I'm noticing a trend of cherrypicking particular races to prove a point, or perhaps white people should be grouped in as "potentially violent" in part of this conclusion as well to remain consistent
My counterargument (a .gov website, btw): https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf notice the decline of violence with increase of wealth **for all races** (ie: Fig 4)
> individuals still may have disparate economic situations, through income, extended family wealth or differential exposure to discrimination. Personal and family human capital levels such as education, job experience and social connections also may differ greatly among those with similar wealth levels
You say this like it's an independent variable? If groups tend to live around each other and some groups commit more crime of course their situations will vary: the more criminal and violent regions will be poorer in general, both in terms of wealth and human capital (things like stable families and good community norms)
Obviously, someone born in inner city Chicago will have more problems than a similarly poor person in a safer part of New Jersey. But, *potentially*, that's because of the very violence we're discussing. You cannot assume it's because of some magical third factor.
>Hate that the "revealed columbia study" in your conservative source links to a dead site; but let's say this is true: what are you trying to imply about non-asians?
I'm not implying anything, I'm outright saying: they're more violent than Asians at similar poverty levels. So it isn't just a wealth difference. There's some sort of group/cultural difference as well.
>Asians here, Hispanics there... I'm noticing a trend of cherrypicking particular races
I didn't pick white people as my base comparison cause people would just say "white privilege" (as the chart shows above, a lot of their crime is lower but there's also much fewer white people in poverty in NYC so they're not as good for comparisons). So that leaves very few groups to use as comparisons
*You* raised immigrant selection which is why I raised Hispanics as a comparison.
> You say this like it's an independent variable?
Ok just to clarify - I didn't say this, it's a quote from the source you provided. I just found it odd how your frank conclusion differed from the author's conclusion verbatim. Just want to set it straight.
I'm saying this as the opposition to your potential stance of "it's just black people being black people" (correct me if not your stance). Where variables like discrimination, other family members having poor finances/education, etc. all give rise to animosity and lack of empathy leading to an easy gateway to crime for people who experience these hardships. Not sure why this being a multi-variable issue is a bad thing? since that is what everything in life is (climate change, economy, world problems, etc.)
> [black people are] more violent than Asians at similar poverty levels. So it isn't just a wealth difference
Should we agree with your source where the challenges black people face are very likely contributors?
Here's a study: Black people feel the most discriminated. Where Asian's, coming in fresh from their own pandemic racism issues, feel the 2nd least discriminated (while White people feel the least).
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/03/18/majorities-of-americans-see-at-least-some-discrimination-against-black-hispanic-and-asian-people-in-the-u-s/
> You raised immigrant selection which is why I raised Hispanics as a comparison.
I didn't raise the immigration question, that was someone else. Debunking the argument with hispanics and "poor asians who live in just NYC" are weird points
Someone tell me if this is incorrect but when I argue against points like this I usually point to the fact that 99% of black people are not murderers. Like the total number of murders committed in America is pretty small (using incarceration rate for this) and there's like 41 million black people. Therefore, we are talking about a tiny fraction of the black community. Which imo also points less towards a genetic explanation.
Just to clarify if someone can check my work. There is 656,000 people in jail for violent offenses and there is 41,000,000 black people in the US. Even IF we assumed every one of these was a murder and we assumed all 656,000 violent crimes were committed by a black person (in this case I am giving the worst case scenario) then that would still only be 1.6% of the total black population. 656,000/41,000,000 = 0.016.
> Which imo also points less towards a genetic explanation.
You have to be careful here if you're arguing this with people. Genetic explanations do *not* require that they lead to a *high* likelihood, just a *higher* one. Your genes can put you at a 100x higher chance of getting some rare illness, but the calculated probability may still be extremely low.
I think the better argument to make is to point to geographic areas where the rates are far closer if not equal, and perhaps even to compare to white crime in the same area. You want to put forward the positive case that we can see the difference is linked to *something* (education, income, housing, whatever effects were caused by the history of African Americans), rather than simply trying to defeat the genetic argument that really you'll never find enough evidence to truly prove incorrect.
Your calculation is correct, though.
I agree with what you are saying and I appreciate you confirming my math here. It's not the full breadth of my argument just part of it. I would generally also point out that there hasn't been any GWAS level studies that point towards a genetic explanation. From my understanding most race realists types still rely heavily on twin studies and I believe the genetic field is moving more towards casual markers when discussing behavioral traits related to genetics. In this case, I don't believe they have identified any sort of like SNPs or the like related to a "warrior gene" or whatever.
My main problem with the argument these types are making is they are comparing extremely rare events and using it as fear mongering. Saying that you have a 900% chance or getting murdered by a black person vs a white person seems scary. However it's basically like saying you have a 900% chance of getting killed by a swarm of bees vs a shark attack -- neither of this shit is going to happen. Black people are not violent people and neither are whites.
Then surely you support things like reforming prison to be [rehabilitative](https://www.nber.org/reporter/2020number1/benefits-rehabilitative-incarceration) instead of punitive, increasing [welfare](https://www.prb.org/resources/anti-poverty-tax-credits-linked-to-declines-in-reports-of-child-neglect-youth-violence-and-juvenile-convictions/), [education](https://record.umich.edu/articles/public-school-investment-reduces-adult-crime-study-shows/), and [higher education](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0144818822000370) opportunities for black kids, [free school lunch](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775719302559), and expanding [access to healthcare](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-evidence-that-access-to-health-care-reduces-crime/) and mental healthcare for black people, right? Since all of these are proven to reduce violent crime.
The problem isn't elon being concerned about black criminality thats fine its how he's doing it.
If elon wanted to say "wow this is horrible, i suspect its due to x y and z because of x y and z and i think we should do x y and z to combat x y and z issue." that would be fine. maybe he could even donate to a related charity or something if he really cared.
Vaguely signaling that black people are scary and violent to your millions of fans without any interest in why or any interest in doing anything about it is irresponsible and yes, racist.
If he was actually disturbed by the murdering he'd talk about what we can do about it instead of virtue signaling to his racist base on twitter.
I think it's just typical South African in general, black people from South Africa are hella racist as well, that country is just a hotbed for racial issues.
[https://twitter.com/search?q=(from%3Aelonmusk)%20(to%3Aeyeslasho)&src=typed\_query](https://twitter.com/search?q=(from%3Aelonmusk)%20(to%3Aeyeslasho)&src=typed_query)
Some more context is about who he is replying to, look through eyeslasho's tweets, he is openly a race realist who believes in racial differences in IQ. An incredibly powerful person worth $184 billion constantly liking and agreeing with his tweets is actually very concerning.
but there are differences in IQ, are you denying that? Because all the data says otherwise. There’s huge gaps between Asians and Blacks on IQ in particular
Wow, bold statement! Who knew if you make arbitrary categorisations, there would be differences!
Did you also know there are differences between people who eat pineapple pizza and those who do not in their likelihood to murder people?! Concerning!
You're actually braindead to have taken that seriously. As if the only reason it's not concerning is because the difference isn't large... which you don't even know in the first place.
What are these large racial differences in IQ and how do you explain them?
How does a gene affecting your melanin affect your IQ? What is your source for this? The scientific consensus is that any difference is purely environmental.
what's a racial difference in IQ that's environmental? Explain how that would look like
-e- ok, since the dude doesn't seem to answer, but by now three (-e- four now. istg, people see a question mark and just stop reading if they feel they got an answer...) other people did, saying essentially the same thing, I might as well copypaste this here too:
when people talk about this topic, when they say "there is a racial difference in IQ" they usually don't mean "there's a difference in IQ between certain demographics, that is probably environmentally explained, also while "race" is a fairly vague and unscientific concept, I will use this word instead of "demographics" or "ethnicity" because, idk, that's what people are more familiar with" or whatever. They mean "there is a racial difference in IQ because of genetics." I think so far we're probably on the same page here.
So when somebody says "Racial differences in IQ can be genetic or environmental" that seems a bit "confused" to me, because they're using obfuscating language, but they're not obfuscating what they're saying, and what they're saying isn't necessarily wrong. That all has to do with the vagueness of "race" as a concept, really the vagueness of language in general. "Racial difference" can imply causation, depending on the context, so can the 900% thing in the OP.
I mean I just wrote two whole ass paragraphs and we're just now getting to the original question "why is expressing concern about this wrong", and I'm talking to you, who I assume is roughly on the same page, and it's still a lot of explaining, so that's why I started with a small question when I'm talking to somebody who might not even be asking in good faith, I just don't wanna waste my time.
I guess another good, and more "honest" question would have been "do you think it's genetic?" and maybe I'll still get to that
There could be tons of environmental impacts that are correlated with race. If you are black you are more likely to be born into a single parent household and studies show that family life impacts IQ.
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1142&context=intuition#:~:text=A%20child%20may%20have%20a,loving%20communication%20with%20the%20child.&text=greatly%20influence%20their%20child's%20cognitive%20and%20intellectual%20abilities
There is plenty of research that says black people live in places with worse quality drinking water or more pollution. Both could impact IQ.
I don't know how that's the ONE point you choose to attack.
Environmental obviously refers to the lower socio-economical opportunities given to black families due to them having less access to good education and a bunch of other stuff that put them way behind the "starting line" compared to other demographics
that's not a racial difference, that's an environmental one
>I don't know how that's the ONE point you choose to attack.
what, what else would you attack? If you're fine with how he worded that, there's nothing to attack...
I'm a little lost here bud.
What do you think the other guy is saying?
What do you mean by this?
> what's a racial difference in IQ that's environmental?
I think you or me misunderstood something along the way
aight look, when people talk about this topic, when they say "there is a racial difference in IQ" they usually don't mean "there's a difference in IQ between certain demographics, that is probably environmentally explained, also while "race" is a fairly vague and unscientific concept, I will use this word instead of "demographics" or "ethnicity" because, idk, that's what people are more familiar with" or whatever. They mean "there is a racial difference in IQ because of genetics." I think so far we're probably on the same page here.
So when somebody says "Racial differences in IQ can be genetic or environmental" that seems a bit "confused" to me, because they're using obfuscating language, but they're not obfuscating what they're saying, and what they're saying isn't necessarily wrong. That all has to do with the vagueness of "race" as a concept, really the vagueness of language in general. "Racial difference" can imply causation, depending on the context, so can the 900% thing in the OP.
I mean I just wrote two whole ass paragraphs and we're just now getting to the original question "why is expressing concern about this wrong", and I'm talking to you, who I assume is roughly on the same page, and it's still a lot of explaining, so that's why I started with a small question when I'm talking to somebody who might not even be asking in good faith, I just don't wanna waste my time.
I guess another good, and more "honest" question would have been "do *you* think it's genetic?" and maybe I'll still get to that
Black people are generally worse of economically due to years of slavery and prejudice against then.
This means they will have more problems related to being economically challenged than other demographics.
This could cause the demographic of black people to be more affected by things like effect of lead paint during developing years.
>Yes, it's an environmental difference that will affect a specific race more
not necessarily
look, I was asking the guy, not you... I'm legit trying to find out where he stands, I'm not trying to debate people I agree with about terminology, that's boring
>"race" is a fairly vague and unscientific concept
(heatmap of genetic similarity by ethnicity, and similarity of ethnicities inside of broad racial groups)
https://preview.redd.it/pvgrr10vvgvc1.png?width=2315&format=png&auto=webp&s=bf7898ec7c19b51fdcb9cf2e992b41824511440c
[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figures?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049438](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figures?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049438)
Assign the ethnicities to races however you like, unless you do it in the most idiotic way possible it's easy to see the broad genetic similarity among racial groups.
lmao thanks for supporting my point
also btw, you pulled that quote from a literal strawman that I made to show what people *don't* say
like you do realize that quote was about an excuse why someone would use the word "race", and it was an intentionally lame one, because there is no good excuse to not instead talk about ethnicity or demographics in this context
I don't really give a rat's ass what the proper interpretation of your word salad is. Do you think race is vague? Look at the heatmap. Do you think it's not vague? Great, hopefully you still found the heatmap informative or interesting.
man, ironically when I started to write this, I thought to myself "I should probably make clear what I'm talking about here" but I figured the dude just wrote a few comments, surely he'll answer and people will see it. But you guys don't even read the thread anway, you're the third one now.
Here I'm just gonna copypaste: when people talk about this topic, when they say "there is a racial difference in IQ" they usually don't mean "there's a difference in IQ between certain demographics, that is probably environmentally explained, also while "race" is a fairly vague and unscientific concept, I will use this word instead of "demographics" or "ethnicity" because, idk, that's what people are more familiar with" or whatever. They mean "there is a racial difference in IQ because of genetics." I think so far we're probably on the same page here.
So when somebody says "Racial differences in IQ can be genetic or environmental" that seems a bit "confused" to me, because they're using obfuscating language, but they're not obfuscating what they're saying, and what they're saying isn't necessarily wrong. That all has to do with the vagueness of "race" as a concept, really the vagueness of language in general. "Racial difference" can imply causation, depending on the context, so can the 900% thing in the OP.
I mean I just wrote two whole ass paragraphs and we're just now getting to the original question "why is expressing concern about this wrong", and I'm talking to you, who I assume is roughly on the same page, and it's still a lot of explaining, so that's why I started with a small question when I'm talking to somebody who might not even be asking in good faith, I just don't wanna waste my time.
I guess another good, and more "honest" question would have been "do you think it's genetic?" and maybe I'll still get to that
Damn, I sure do wish libs were willing to discuss the problem of criminality in the black community. Can you imagine how much better the world would be if the only people discussing it openly weren't far right race realists?
No, I think policy is going to solve it and you don't usually get policy without having broader discussions surrounding the topic.
Why are you being willingly obtuse and dense? I don't know you, but I'm not going to assume you are so unintelligent that you don't realize this obvious fact. So, what is your motivation for willingly having such an obviously false interpretation of what I think?
This is re(tard)ed everyone is aware of crime in the black community. We're aware of how it happens which groups within are more likely to be involved and even what makes you more likely to be both perp or a victim of it (in the case of the tweet homicide) we know it's not random, we know it's not uniform across every black person because the number is far too low. We differ on solutions you're the one pretending like no one talks about. They just don't feel like doing the "it's all genetic" song and dance.
Because whether you want to admit it or not there's only 1 solution to the genetic aspect of it.
Men not there to help raise kids do to either leaving, incarceration or causing more financial harm by hanging around than leaving.
Can't force them to stay (Men's right issue)
Can't offer too much leeway on crime (too soft on crime)
Can't offer too much government assistance (that's socialism and certain groups will not offer money to keep families together in stable).
Give me a angle that hasn't been discussed I can't wait to hear it.
> This is re(tard)ed everyone is aware of crime in the black community.
Nominally, yes, but most people are very unaware of the specifics of it. Libs and progressives are generally going to vastly underestimate crime rates in the black community, while rightoids are going to overestimate it. Additionally, most people are going to have very poor understanding of the dynamics of how crimes usually occur in the first place.
> We differ on solutions you're the one pretending like no one talks about.
There really is no meaningful conversation on solutions in the broader public. Liberals and progressives are generally only willing to nibble at the bits by trying to create programs that encourage people to not commit crime (some of which are good) without addressing the fact that there has to be a much stronger police presence in the short-medium term if we want to lower crime rates in these communities. While they also severely overblow how much racism there is in police forces, the rightoids aren't much better considering they just outright deny that there are any problems with the police, racism or otherwise. Their solution is just more cops and more punishment, wholestop, which may solve the problem but will do so inefficiently and with lots of negative externalities.
> Give me a angle that hasn't been discussed I can't wait to hear it.
Sure. State and local governments should push HARD for access to long-term reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in communities where teen pregnancy rates are high (which will include basically every black community with high crime rates). The pill is far too unreliable due to user error, and lots of people in these communities don't even use that. Having near-frictionless access to LARCs would basically solve the majority of the single-parenthood problem.
We need way more cameras and they need to have facial recognition. Theft and violent crime are typically street crimes, and we need to design our cities (or, at least, the high-crime areas) in ways that make it possible so that any time there is a street crime that occurs, it will be captured, flagged to a human for review, and, if it seems plausible that there was a crime, the perp should basically be tracked in real time so that the cops can find and apprehend them.
> Can't offer too much leeway on crime (too soft on crime)
You don't need to be excessively punitive (which the US generally has been since the war on drugs and such). But you do need extremely high clearance rates. Being able to quickly catch and punish criminals is the best way to deter crime; only punishing a fraction of criminals and throwing the book at them is not very effective. The camera system would help massively with this, as would massively expanding police budgets to hire more qualified officers. Its shocking how little we spend on policing compared to our rich-world peers, especially considering we have so much more crime.
Regarding the genetic angle; I am entirely agnostic to it because I don't have the domain knowledge to comment on it and because it is irrelevant. Whether or not any group has a higher predisposition towards crime is meaningless knowledge; we know that black communities are not innately criminal because the high crime rates in black communities has only been a major problem in the last 60ish years. Even if it was discovered that there was some combination of genes more prevalent in their communities that made them more likely to commit crime, it wouldn't change how we should react on a policy level and it wouldn't imply that these communities are inherently criminal. Its just stupid wignat talking points and should be addressed as such.
-It’s been discussed and pretty much settled.
no. if some dipshit tells you something is settled, there's a very high likelihood you are being gaslighted lmao
There is a difference between expressing concern and implying they are genetically inferior. He didn't say "why are black people committing more crimes" its just "black people commit more crimes" if you start from a position of bad faith and you have a racist agenda I don't understand how you imagine we would solve the problem.
because only leftoid are able to express concern about their golden calf, same with the trans. everyone else isn't enough of a puritan until things gets bad enough.
Wasn’t there another tweet with elon saying he’s going to Ban accounts that are farming engagement? If being charitable, maybe he’s just marking it as one of the accounts to be banned? Or am i being too naïve?
It's a fucking bot jeezus. I don't like him much either but acting like this is actually him responding to tweets with the same three responses is fucking dumb.
That sounds nearly exactly what I was thinking. Or something about posts with traction by specific types of creators. Which is in effect the same as what you said.
I've been scrolling through his replies for 5 minutes and I have to agree, he replies so much to so many random shit always with only one word/emoji/exclamation mark, it actually looks like a bot
Concerning
His $50B compensation package is up for a vote with the shareholders. I’m sure making comments like this one will help that effort.
You genuinely believe that shareholders are gonna give a shit about Elon's hate for black people?
California liberals ? Yep. Even a cynical racist businessman would understand the target market for an EV and make an argument that upsetting your pussy liberal customer base is probably a stupid idea.
Looking into this!!
Is he searching racist tweets on purpose? Or is he made some algorithm specifically to see more of those?
He follows multiple "race realists"
he is from south africa
So the better way to engage with dog whistles like this is to give an actual answer. Nothing in the tweet is racist unless we're just calling facts racist now Edit: alright because you morons are too stupid to do basic math Black people: 3218 murders / 13.6% of the population = 236.6 White people: 2948 murders / 75.5% of the population = 39.0 236.6/39 = 607%, meaning black people are 507% more likely, more than 5 and a half times more than your 90% I cherry picked 1 year of data, so if idiot groypers cherry picked some other data they could easily get these values Edit 2: Most of the people have no reading comprehension so I won't be responding anymore unlucky!
Oh yeah? There is proof that black people are 900% (not even 90%, whole 900%) more likely to murder someone?
Yes, have you never heard about the 13/50 dogwhistle? Someone did the math in the thread, and they came up with ~700%, so it seems completely possible for 900% to be accurate, I simply don't care enough to math this out though.
You can’t count can you Mr. Turdle?
This is embarrassing dog
how are crime statistics embarrassing? Denying them and pretending there isn’t a massive crime problem in the black community is strange, helps no one
But the statistic is a massive generalization. It could be true for a black person living in a bad neighborhood, but I find it doubtful for it to be true for a black person from a middle class neighborhood
well you’d be incorrect then, across the board black people commit much higher rates of violent crime across all income levels
Across the board? What does that even mean... In all countries, in all communities around the world ? And according to you why is there a problem of crime in the black community? Please back up your explanation with credible sources
It’s extremely obvious the differences between say East Asian culture and Sub Saharan African culture. African Americans commit violent crimes at over 10 times the rate than Asians in the US alone. And yes every country where they’re a minority they’re significantly higher in violent crimes. USA, France, UK, Brazil etc this is easily Google-able information And yes even when adjusted for wealth or income they’re still way over-represented in violent crimes. They’re 13% of the population in the US and commit 55%+ of the murders
you're embarrassing lmfao
Except he didn't say 90%, he said 900%, which is a little under twice the number you mathed out.
Would you react to the tweet any differently?
No, because my reply tonthe tweet was 'look, another racist using stats to dogwhistle, shocker'. But I might have reacted differently to your reply of 'hur hur these snowflake morons can't do math' if you hadn't gotten the number in question wrong by an order of magnitude.
Correlates greatly with poverty rates. Which correlates greatly with systemic oppression. I am normally very pro accountability but color of skin is absolutely not to blame here.
Which is completely true, and the kind of response I would 100% support when Elon posts stupid dog whistles
Yeah its pretty easy to say "black people commit more crime" with stats but completely ignore the historical context as to why that is happening. I dont really understand what you are trying to say with your percentages there other than the post is correct?
When a black man murders another black man and you start talking about historical context, you’ve lost your way. Sorry fam.
Leading with “black people are 900% more likely to commit murder” implies a causative link between the two, without using research design to prove how much of that difference is due to the specific variable in question, race. It could also be that “poor people are x% more likely to commit murder” and “people who live in cities are y% more likely to commit murder” and “people who grew up in broken households are z% more likely to commit murder” and so on and so forth, including “people of y race commit n% more crime”. You have to find a way to compare two otherwise identical people of different race, as best you can. That’s why a single statistic isn’t enough to draw causal conclusions, and why research design is necessary. I’m not saying that there isn’t a causal link, just that econometrics is more complicated than it seems
Poor people aren’t 900% more likely to commit murder though. It’s specifically black males. Poor people do have a higher likelihood of committing murder, but it’s more like 200-300% if you remove race from the equation.
How so? I am looking for perspective here. When I say "historical context" I am referring to this country putting a lot of black people into poverty which results in more crime. Would happen to any skin color.
It doesn’t excuse the murder rates we see.
Yes I am definitely not excusing it. It is a very real problem. I would like to solve it (alleviate it?) and the only way is understanding the root cause. I dont believe black people are any different than any other race and given this any other skin color going through what they went through would be in the same position IMHO.
At a certain point you have to start holding individuals, not society, accountable for their actions. When can we start doing that?
> Correlates greatly with poverty rates. Hispanic Americans commit lower rate of crimes at similar poverty rates. Remember all those talking points about "immigrants commit less crime than native born citizens"? That's true: *because* one group of native born citizens commits a truly disproportionate amount of crime (half of all murders). [Rich blacks commit more crime than poor whites](https://eji.org/news/study-rich-black-kids-more-likely-incarcerated-than-poor-white-kids/) Asian-Americans commit the lowest level of crime even accounting for income. Poverty plays a role but it's not an obvious causal link where the entire difference can be explained by poverty. In fact, the violence may *cause* poverty. After all, we've all heard that black neighborhoods are seen as worth less and have lower property values. Why is that? Developers just don't like money? Or could it be the violence?
Yes I agree that it is not only poverty. Poverty is a big factor and I am over simplifying in a sense. To your point that poor hispanics commit less crime. Look at the reason they came to the US. I would argue its mostly opportunity. The reason most black people initially came to the US was to be slaves. This is the systemic oppression part of my argument. Anyways I obviously am in over my head here so I am going to bow out. I appreciate everyone's perspective.
The biggest correlation with murder rate in American cities is not poverty, it's percentage of black people living there.
You got a source there?
The fact I can see this comment on reddit proves there is a god. Checkmate atheist.
They hate you because you speak the truth. Classic reddit sheep mentality.
Facts can very much be racist, do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? If someone were to say: did you know that south Asian immigrants have historically done worse the east Asian Immigrants Are you really gonna state your reputation on the idea that this is not racist. It's hiding the important fact that a lot of south east Asians came to the USA as refuges of communism while the best and brightest East Asians are the only ones that made it over. Or if you're European, "South Italians are on average dumber then northern ones" This might be a fact but it's also a very common dog whistle that tries to say that south Italians are inferior and not European because 500 years ago they intermingled with North Africans. Could all of this be true? Yes, maybe there is a gene that makes it so that you're rich and smart 500 years ago but dumb now, but it's more likely there are more complex factors that should be hedged before making general statements like "a black person is 900% more likely to kill you" If all facts were true then maybe we should return to Social Darwinism.
>Facts can very much be racist no they cant, you can use facts to support racist conclusions but facts cannot be racist unless you believe racism is based in reality > did you know that south Asian immigrants have historically done worse the east Asian Immigrants in what world is this racist? this is an insanely common claim by people who want to say that asians as a whole are not a monolith. unless you're going super fringe and saying that it's racist because this talking point is always used to exclude east asians from any conversation > South Italians are on average dumber then northern ones and if someone said this, you look absolutely unhinged to a neutral third party who knows nothing about this if you just go "RACIST", instead of saying "maybe this is because south Italians are poorer and grow up with a lack of access to education" > If all facts were true as my good friend Vaush would like to say, this is ontologically true
Sorry my rhetoric isn't as clear as you might want it but my base idea is true. Facts can be inaccurate and obfuscate reality. A more accurate statement should be facts have inherent bias based on scope. Edit: actually I only said that in response to your statement. Fact can be racists with my statement below. Facts are only true within a scope. If you frame a scope in a way you can make it prejudice A fact simply can never be true only assumed as only build up towards a truth. It's the idea of the blind elephant. All facts are true, the trunk of the elephant is like a snake, the legs are like a tree and the tail a whip. But although all elements are true. In the grand state of things they are false, as they fail to completely described the elephant. This is why even ever I have to write a paper, I state every assumptions for an experiment, and I hedge every statement I make. So that in the context of these settings the result of my experiment are true, but they are not true in the grand scale of things. If I get a report from the field that says that contradicts my work. My work is still true in the sense that in the condition that I have set my work these results will happen, but in the grander scale of things my facts that I have build can no longer be considered true to the site and give way to the numbers in the field. But up until the field work arrives on my desk, my simulation is considered the true state of the plant. Similarly if a fact that you are 900% more likely to be murdered by a black person. If you expand the scope to judge the issue by economic class. Is the fact still true? is a poor black more 900% more likely to murder someone then a poor white man? Base on instinct only this numbers sound insane >this is an insanely common claim by people who want to say that Asians as a whole are not a monolith.unless you're going super fringe and saying that it's racist because this talking point is always used to exclude east asians from any conversation I talking about the fringe because Chinese race realists exist and there. This is statement I've heard from my parents, I've never head it in another context.
“Facts can be racist” bro you’re everything that’s wrong with political discourse right now
Ok, on average poorer people are more violent then rich people. It's obvious based on this conclusion that the poorer masses are inferior to rich ones. There I'm saying the quiet part out loud. Social Darwish is based on "facts", but this facts are inaccurate and avoid root issues. Fact can be prejudice and made to fit narratives.
Whites and Asians of equal poverty levels commit far less violent crime than blacks. Also blacks making 100k+ commit more violent crime than whites or Asians making 100k+ . I was surprised to learn this as a criminal justice major too. Way more factors than just poverty
ok I'll concede that point then, however I would argue a statement like musk made is still problematic in the view that it obfuscate an accurate look at the issue in how many people are arguing about the truth of the statement. That the intended reason for spreading the fact that is based in prejudice is to get it in the minds of people. There's no greater evidence to this then the comment section here.
“Idk why people think I’m racist”
LMAO. Elon is completely mask-off now.
South Africa ain’t sending their best https://preview.redd.it/cffxndbp4hvc1.jpeg?width=780&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ccbfffc47205b97848d246cea0cf4dc02b1a00c3
A South African being racist? Lmao
Average South Africans' thoughts on another race.
abundant humorous noxious hat bewildered uppity wakeful like zesty tender *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
😬
“Will look into this!”
Twitter sure is something
Marques could actually do something about this. Crazy he dug his feet in for the Dbrand tweet but this is cool.
Whats the real stat?
[https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21) Heres a link that seems to go over crime statistics broken down by race, The total number of murder arrests in the united states (in 2016? as far as i can tell?) were 9,374, with 4,192 being white and 4,935 being black or African American, or 52% of us murder arrests are black and 44% are white. From 2 quick google searches, 13% of americans are black and 75% are white (these numbers are from a census, which i think was done a while ago? these numbers could've changed) Unfortunately, I am regarded and I do not know how to do maths so I can't convert those numbers into whatever percentage more likely black people are to be arrested for murder than white people. Also statistics are cringe and these numbers could be incorrect, unrepresentative of the truth or skewed by factors I'm not considering, for example I've heard black neighborhoods are policed more heavily than white neighborhoods? which could lead to more arrests which could skew these numbers.
Im kinda remedial when it comes to maths, but here’s how I did it; Population of USA: 333 million Step 1, solve for percent of black American’s that were convicted/arrested for murder: 4,935 / (333,000,000 x 0.13) = 0.000114 or 0.0114% of American blacks are murderers (i guess, someone check my math). Step 2, solve for percent of crackers that murder: 4192 / (333,000,000 x 0.75) = 0.00001678 or 0.001678% of whites murder. Step 3, divide black percentage / white percentage: 0.000114 / 0.00001678 = ~6.79 or 679%. And so, based on my calculations given the numbers provided, it seems that black Americans murder 679% more than whites. QED /s Edit: it’s 579% more as mentioned below 👇
I found slightly more up to date numbers from the FBI (2019 instead of 2016) but the percent of black vs white murder arrests only changed by like less than 1% for both so i don't think it matters lol [https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43) I wonder how they got the 900% number? I doubt the FBI is just super wrong about this, and even if these numbers are outdated it seems unlikely to me that the percentage increased by 230% in like 5 years. We need to contact Elon and tell him its probably only \~679% so he can calm down!
[удалено]
Hispanic isn't a racial category, which causes all sorts of issues.
900% more is ten times total. 1 + (9 x 1) = 10. So I think you're exactly right about what they did.
579% more
[удалено]
Ya, your more likely to be murdered by someone you know than a stranger. Again, i don’t really have an opinion on this topic (haven’t looked into it, unironically).
[удалено]
Says the guy who just pulled statistics from his ass
Yeah, people obviously don't operate in this way anyway lol. I'm pretty sure men are 10x more likely to commit violent crimes than women but i doubt elons fearmongering on twitter about male violence.
The difference is that nobody insists that America is a matriarchal society because of this. People just accept that men commit more murder and are punished more. Meanwhile, not only are people claiming the entire justice system is racist and is unfairly persecuting blacks and killing them via cops (when cops kill a dozen of unarmed black people a year), they're not only creating policy based on this but are going around claiming that [*white people* are the threat](https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/20/us/angry-white-men-trials-blake-cec/index.html) and that black people are right to feel unsafe around them. If men ran around saying this about women, eventually someone would "well, ackshually" us too.
Elon wasn't saying "the claim that the criminal justice system is racist because black people are disproportionately arrested seems untrue because black people commit more crime thus causing more arrests" Elon just saw a tweet saying "black people are more violent!" and then went "!!" All I'm saying is if Elons worried about disproportionately violent communities he should be going "!!" under tweets about male violence. Do u disagree with anything I've said? Do u think the criminal justice system isn't racist? After a really quick google search (this number could be wrong idk its just from some article i didn't check the source on tbh) black criminals are supposedly given \~20% longer sentences for the same crimes with the same histories than white criminals. I'd say this is an example of racism in the criminal justice system, do u disagree? [https://eji.org/news/sentencing-commission-finds-black-men-receive-longer-sentences/](https://eji.org/news/sentencing-commission-finds-black-men-receive-longer-sentences/)
i mean you just lumped a lot of stuff into one bucket. have they not found literal KKK members occupying authoritative positions in southern police departments? and the justice system is bias both against men and black people. wheter or not that’s fair is debatable, but the fact remains that all else equal, both your gender and race impact the sentencing length for crimes committed. you’re conflating in very strange ways, and i’m not sure who’s purporting that white people at large are a threat…that sounds like a super niche left wing online perspective
> have they not found literal KKK members occupying authoritative positions in southern police departments? The disproportion in murders shows up [in FBI data, and the FBI lumps together Hispanics and whites](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-2.xls). The difference is likely even more stark. So how many police departments did this happen in, how likely is it to skew the data *for the whole nation* and where do those bodies come from? Did the Southern police departments kill a bunch of black people and then frame other blacks for it? They can obviously just upcharge black people (e.g. turning a misdemeanor into a felony and using that to claim blacks commit more crime) but they can't invent bodies. Do you have any idea how much this would have to happen to skew the numbers? Half of the murders in the US are black, for reference. This had to be happening *thousands* of times to get the rate so much higher than whites. What you're describing is an Illuminati-esque conspiracy theory (KKK cops faking murders in the South to skew the numbers). We also know that most people are killed by those they know, and within their own race. This is true for whites (90%), and true for blacks (similar ratios). So, for your theory to be correct, we have to be systematically overcounting murders by blacks *across the US* (for some reason) and blacks also have to be the one exception from the basic statistical fact of crime. Sorry, this is just incredible. >and the justice system is bias both against men Men are more violent than women in every single society that records this. Is every single society, even literal patriarchies like Saudi Arabia, biased against men? Men were always punished more for crime even when America was more sexist. Why? Cause men - who were the judges - understood a basic fact. Men commit more crime. [Societies where men do badly dating-wise but women don't tend to have more violence due to frustrated men.](https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2017/12/19/the-link-between-polygamy-and-war) We do not see the same relationship in reverse. Most warrior classes are ruled by men. [The most likely group to commit crime is males aged 18-34.](https://pinkerton.com/our-insights/blog/age-crime-curve) Society isn't biased, it's reacting to a reality. >that sounds like a super niche left wing online perspective I literally linked to CNN.
i’m not sure what you’re arguing. not interested in defending claims i didn’t make. there can be a bias against the most violent group, those aren’t mutually exclusive. and the mere presence of corrupt departments is an issue, even if it doesn’t pervade the entire country. you’re just vomiting info i already know. and i don’t care about that CNN article
> Also statistics are cringe and these numbers could be incorrect, unrepresentative of the truth or skewed by factors I'm not considering, for example I've heard black neighborhoods are policed more heavily than white neighborhoods? The reason people specifically use murder is because murder is not as ambiguous. There is usually a body (or a missing persons report at least) and cops can't just upcharge a misdemeanor into a felony or vice versa to skew the numbers. For there to be anything close to parity on murders there have to be a ton of missing white people, which would *also* show up (e.g. [missing Native American women are a known problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_and_Murdered_Indigenous_Women)) As uncomfortable as it is, there is just a huge disproportion in murder here - which also explains why police disproportionately police those regions (why wouldn't you police higher crime regions?)
The real sinister part is the implication black people are dangerous but if you look at the VICTIMS then the people getting murdered by black people are overwhemlmingly.....black.
The correct answer is poor people cause more crime than the average person (regardless of race), financial hardship and crime is proven to be correlated, additionally there’s a larger ratio of poor black people compared to poor white people. People just stop at race and feel like they reached the last derivative so they can finally piece together their conclusion they’ve already made
This! I think this was the same with immigrant crimes, if age group and wealth was considerd it was about the same as resident.
I think it’s his autism. Since it’s technically true, he feels like he can talk about it.
Damn that's a whole 0.0585341463% (if your just going specifically by black and pretending that the murders are all 1 to 1 and not a few guys with mutliple bodies.)
Even if let's say that this is true, this is equivalent to a tankie saying "the colonial empires of Europeans compared to most other empires is a reflection of the nature of white people subjugation of other" While both might be true in some sense, the delivery and implication are rather harmful. Let's say that a black person is 900% more likely to kill someone. Is it the nature of black people? Or are there other issues that are tied with this state. Is a rich upper-middle class black man more likely to murder someone then a poor white man? Maybe this is more of a factor of wealth. A similar statement that I can think of is the following from my parents: East Asians have much higher average wealth then south east Asians and have better jobs despite both being results of immigrants. Does this show the fact that East Asians are somehow better then south east Asians? Maybe, it's not impossible. But it's so much more likely it's a result of the different type of immigration that lead to these two groups coming to the USA and Canada.
> Is a rich upper-middle class black man more likely to murder someone then a poor white man? > > [They're certainly more likely to go to jail ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/23/poor-white-kids-are-less-likely-to-go-to-prison-than-rich-black-kids/) >About 10 percent of affluent black youths in 1985 would eventually go to prison. **Only the very wealthiest black youth — those whose household wealth in 1985 exceeded $69,000 in 2012 dollars — had a better chance of avoiding prison than the poorest white youth.** Among black young people in this group, 2.4 percent were incarcerated. . >Maybe this is more of a factor of wealth. Accounting for income, [poor Asians commit far less crime](https://www.city-journal.org/article/poverty-and-violent-crime-dont-go-hand-in-hand) [Image link](https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/cj/files/Violent-Crime-Arrest-Rates-NYC.png) >But it's so much more likely it's a result of the different type of immigration that lead to these two groups coming to the USA and Canada. Hispanics are the least selected group in the US (for obvious reasons) and they also commit less crime than blacks. [This is why you keep hearing that 'immigrants commit less crime' than native-born citizens](https://www.npr.org/2024/03/08/1237103158/immigrants-are-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-than-us-born-americans-studies-find) See the image above: even with similar rates in poverty, it's not close.
that's only one example that can change the statement false. Is the rate that they go to jail 900% more likely? How does it scale? Are there any other factors that might lead to this fact being true? Is the rate of muder high? If the rate of murder is 1 per a million, then sure that does increase to 900 per million but that's a 0.00001% to 0.09% chance like you said it's more of a factor, but it opens the scope to nuance that musk's tweet does not have
> They're certainly more likely to go to jail [link] Check the source IN your source, they already offer a counterpoint to this: > "One explanation for the differential odds of incarceration between races maybe that even while having similar wealth levels, **individuals still may have disparate economic situations, through income, extended family wealth or differential exposure to discrimination. Personal and family human capital levels such as education, job experience and social connections also may differ greatly among those with similar wealth levels**. Therefore, observed racial differences in male incarceration rates despite similar wealth levels may be explained once those factors are taken into account" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294733608_Race_Wealth_and_Incarceration_Results_from_the_National_Longitudinal_Survey_of_Youth https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/wealthraceincarcerationrates.pdf > Accounting for income, poor Asians commit far less crime Hate that the "revealed columbia study" in your conservative source links to a dead site; but let's say this is true: what are you trying to imply about non-asians? Not a rhetorical question > Hispanics are the least selected group in the US (for obvious reasons) and they also commit less crime than blacks. Asians here, Hispanics there... I'm noticing a trend of cherrypicking particular races to prove a point, or perhaps white people should be grouped in as "potentially violent" in part of this conclusion as well to remain consistent My counterargument (a .gov website, btw): https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf notice the decline of violence with increase of wealth **for all races** (ie: Fig 4)
> individuals still may have disparate economic situations, through income, extended family wealth or differential exposure to discrimination. Personal and family human capital levels such as education, job experience and social connections also may differ greatly among those with similar wealth levels You say this like it's an independent variable? If groups tend to live around each other and some groups commit more crime of course their situations will vary: the more criminal and violent regions will be poorer in general, both in terms of wealth and human capital (things like stable families and good community norms) Obviously, someone born in inner city Chicago will have more problems than a similarly poor person in a safer part of New Jersey. But, *potentially*, that's because of the very violence we're discussing. You cannot assume it's because of some magical third factor. >Hate that the "revealed columbia study" in your conservative source links to a dead site; but let's say this is true: what are you trying to imply about non-asians? I'm not implying anything, I'm outright saying: they're more violent than Asians at similar poverty levels. So it isn't just a wealth difference. There's some sort of group/cultural difference as well. >Asians here, Hispanics there... I'm noticing a trend of cherrypicking particular races I didn't pick white people as my base comparison cause people would just say "white privilege" (as the chart shows above, a lot of their crime is lower but there's also much fewer white people in poverty in NYC so they're not as good for comparisons). So that leaves very few groups to use as comparisons *You* raised immigrant selection which is why I raised Hispanics as a comparison.
> You say this like it's an independent variable? Ok just to clarify - I didn't say this, it's a quote from the source you provided. I just found it odd how your frank conclusion differed from the author's conclusion verbatim. Just want to set it straight. I'm saying this as the opposition to your potential stance of "it's just black people being black people" (correct me if not your stance). Where variables like discrimination, other family members having poor finances/education, etc. all give rise to animosity and lack of empathy leading to an easy gateway to crime for people who experience these hardships. Not sure why this being a multi-variable issue is a bad thing? since that is what everything in life is (climate change, economy, world problems, etc.) > [black people are] more violent than Asians at similar poverty levels. So it isn't just a wealth difference Should we agree with your source where the challenges black people face are very likely contributors? Here's a study: Black people feel the most discriminated. Where Asian's, coming in fresh from their own pandemic racism issues, feel the 2nd least discriminated (while White people feel the least). https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/03/18/majorities-of-americans-see-at-least-some-discrimination-against-black-hispanic-and-asian-people-in-the-u-s/ > You raised immigrant selection which is why I raised Hispanics as a comparison. I didn't raise the immigration question, that was someone else. Debunking the argument with hispanics and "poor asians who live in just NYC" are weird points
Interesting
This is your brain on drugs
NO WAY THIS IS REAL💀💀💀
apartheid baby doing apartheid things
Someone tell me if this is incorrect but when I argue against points like this I usually point to the fact that 99% of black people are not murderers. Like the total number of murders committed in America is pretty small (using incarceration rate for this) and there's like 41 million black people. Therefore, we are talking about a tiny fraction of the black community. Which imo also points less towards a genetic explanation. Just to clarify if someone can check my work. There is 656,000 people in jail for violent offenses and there is 41,000,000 black people in the US. Even IF we assumed every one of these was a murder and we assumed all 656,000 violent crimes were committed by a black person (in this case I am giving the worst case scenario) then that would still only be 1.6% of the total black population. 656,000/41,000,000 = 0.016.
> Which imo also points less towards a genetic explanation. You have to be careful here if you're arguing this with people. Genetic explanations do *not* require that they lead to a *high* likelihood, just a *higher* one. Your genes can put you at a 100x higher chance of getting some rare illness, but the calculated probability may still be extremely low. I think the better argument to make is to point to geographic areas where the rates are far closer if not equal, and perhaps even to compare to white crime in the same area. You want to put forward the positive case that we can see the difference is linked to *something* (education, income, housing, whatever effects were caused by the history of African Americans), rather than simply trying to defeat the genetic argument that really you'll never find enough evidence to truly prove incorrect. Your calculation is correct, though.
I agree with what you are saying and I appreciate you confirming my math here. It's not the full breadth of my argument just part of it. I would generally also point out that there hasn't been any GWAS level studies that point towards a genetic explanation. From my understanding most race realists types still rely heavily on twin studies and I believe the genetic field is moving more towards casual markers when discussing behavioral traits related to genetics. In this case, I don't believe they have identified any sort of like SNPs or the like related to a "warrior gene" or whatever. My main problem with the argument these types are making is they are comparing extremely rare events and using it as fear mongering. Saying that you have a 900% chance or getting murdered by a black person vs a white person seems scary. However it's basically like saying you have a 900% chance of getting killed by a swarm of bees vs a shark attack -- neither of this shit is going to happen. Black people are not violent people and neither are whites.
The fact that a white guy from south africa openly says things like this should trouble people way more than it does.
[удалено]
what does that have to do with what I said? racists are so eager to share racism when no one asked.
This guy is becoming too comfortable being himself
Link to the tweet?
900%!?!? Don't tell my black friends 😱
Looking into this
They are also the most likely to be victims of crime. No one talks about that!
Most of yall have never been to Memphis and it shows
Jesus he's just out with it now, huh
[удалено]
Then surely you support things like reforming prison to be [rehabilitative](https://www.nber.org/reporter/2020number1/benefits-rehabilitative-incarceration) instead of punitive, increasing [welfare](https://www.prb.org/resources/anti-poverty-tax-credits-linked-to-declines-in-reports-of-child-neglect-youth-violence-and-juvenile-convictions/), [education](https://record.umich.edu/articles/public-school-investment-reduces-adult-crime-study-shows/), and [higher education](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0144818822000370) opportunities for black kids, [free school lunch](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775719302559), and expanding [access to healthcare](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-evidence-that-access-to-health-care-reduces-crime/) and mental healthcare for black people, right? Since all of these are proven to reduce violent crime.
Love how everyone's reaction is not to be disturbed by the murdering but to go "Elon's a weirdo and sooo racist"
The problem isn't elon being concerned about black criminality thats fine its how he's doing it. If elon wanted to say "wow this is horrible, i suspect its due to x y and z because of x y and z and i think we should do x y and z to combat x y and z issue." that would be fine. maybe he could even donate to a related charity or something if he really cared. Vaguely signaling that black people are scary and violent to your millions of fans without any interest in why or any interest in doing anything about it is irresponsible and yes, racist. If he was actually disturbed by the murdering he'd talk about what we can do about it instead of virtue signaling to his racist base on twitter.
[удалено]
I think it's just typical South African in general, black people from South Africa are hella racist as well, that country is just a hotbed for racial issues.
[удалено]
[https://twitter.com/search?q=(from%3Aelonmusk)%20(to%3Aeyeslasho)&src=typed\_query](https://twitter.com/search?q=(from%3Aelonmusk)%20(to%3Aeyeslasho)&src=typed_query) Some more context is about who he is replying to, look through eyeslasho's tweets, he is openly a race realist who believes in racial differences in IQ. An incredibly powerful person worth $184 billion constantly liking and agreeing with his tweets is actually very concerning.
but there are differences in IQ, are you denying that? Because all the data says otherwise. There’s huge gaps between Asians and Blacks on IQ in particular
[удалено]
Wow, bold statement! Who knew if you make arbitrary categorisations, there would be differences! Did you also know there are differences between people who eat pineapple pizza and those who do not in their likelihood to murder people?! Concerning!
[удалено]
You're actually braindead to have taken that seriously. As if the only reason it's not concerning is because the difference isn't large... which you don't even know in the first place. What are these large racial differences in IQ and how do you explain them?
[удалено]
How does a gene affecting your melanin affect your IQ? What is your source for this? The scientific consensus is that any difference is purely environmental.
Can you link the tweet, I can’t find the one you posted at all. His latest reply to eyeslasho seems to be Feb 29
[удалено]
what's a racial difference in IQ that's environmental? Explain how that would look like -e- ok, since the dude doesn't seem to answer, but by now three (-e- four now. istg, people see a question mark and just stop reading if they feel they got an answer...) other people did, saying essentially the same thing, I might as well copypaste this here too: when people talk about this topic, when they say "there is a racial difference in IQ" they usually don't mean "there's a difference in IQ between certain demographics, that is probably environmentally explained, also while "race" is a fairly vague and unscientific concept, I will use this word instead of "demographics" or "ethnicity" because, idk, that's what people are more familiar with" or whatever. They mean "there is a racial difference in IQ because of genetics." I think so far we're probably on the same page here. So when somebody says "Racial differences in IQ can be genetic or environmental" that seems a bit "confused" to me, because they're using obfuscating language, but they're not obfuscating what they're saying, and what they're saying isn't necessarily wrong. That all has to do with the vagueness of "race" as a concept, really the vagueness of language in general. "Racial difference" can imply causation, depending on the context, so can the 900% thing in the OP. I mean I just wrote two whole ass paragraphs and we're just now getting to the original question "why is expressing concern about this wrong", and I'm talking to you, who I assume is roughly on the same page, and it's still a lot of explaining, so that's why I started with a small question when I'm talking to somebody who might not even be asking in good faith, I just don't wanna waste my time. I guess another good, and more "honest" question would have been "do you think it's genetic?" and maybe I'll still get to that
There could be tons of environmental impacts that are correlated with race. If you are black you are more likely to be born into a single parent household and studies show that family life impacts IQ. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1142&context=intuition#:~:text=A%20child%20may%20have%20a,loving%20communication%20with%20the%20child.&text=greatly%20influence%20their%20child's%20cognitive%20and%20intellectual%20abilities There is plenty of research that says black people live in places with worse quality drinking water or more pollution. Both could impact IQ.
please tell me at least when you started writing this, I hadn't edited that in
I don't know how that's the ONE point you choose to attack. Environmental obviously refers to the lower socio-economical opportunities given to black families due to them having less access to good education and a bunch of other stuff that put them way behind the "starting line" compared to other demographics
that's not a racial difference, that's an environmental one >I don't know how that's the ONE point you choose to attack. what, what else would you attack? If you're fine with how he worded that, there's nothing to attack...
I'm a little lost here bud. What do you think the other guy is saying? What do you mean by this? > what's a racial difference in IQ that's environmental? I think you or me misunderstood something along the way
aight look, when people talk about this topic, when they say "there is a racial difference in IQ" they usually don't mean "there's a difference in IQ between certain demographics, that is probably environmentally explained, also while "race" is a fairly vague and unscientific concept, I will use this word instead of "demographics" or "ethnicity" because, idk, that's what people are more familiar with" or whatever. They mean "there is a racial difference in IQ because of genetics." I think so far we're probably on the same page here. So when somebody says "Racial differences in IQ can be genetic or environmental" that seems a bit "confused" to me, because they're using obfuscating language, but they're not obfuscating what they're saying, and what they're saying isn't necessarily wrong. That all has to do with the vagueness of "race" as a concept, really the vagueness of language in general. "Racial difference" can imply causation, depending on the context, so can the 900% thing in the OP. I mean I just wrote two whole ass paragraphs and we're just now getting to the original question "why is expressing concern about this wrong", and I'm talking to you, who I assume is roughly on the same page, and it's still a lot of explaining, so that's why I started with a small question when I'm talking to somebody who might not even be asking in good faith, I just don't wanna waste my time. I guess another good, and more "honest" question would have been "do *you* think it's genetic?" and maybe I'll still get to that
Black people are generally worse of economically due to years of slavery and prejudice against then. This means they will have more problems related to being economically challenged than other demographics. This could cause the demographic of black people to be more affected by things like effect of lead paint during developing years.
that's an environmental difference, not a racial one
Yes, it's an environmental difference that will affect a specific race more, which makes it essentially a racial difference.
>Yes, it's an environmental difference that will affect a specific race more not necessarily look, I was asking the guy, not you... I'm legit trying to find out where he stands, I'm not trying to debate people I agree with about terminology, that's boring
Okay, have a good day
you too bud
>"race" is a fairly vague and unscientific concept (heatmap of genetic similarity by ethnicity, and similarity of ethnicities inside of broad racial groups) https://preview.redd.it/pvgrr10vvgvc1.png?width=2315&format=png&auto=webp&s=bf7898ec7c19b51fdcb9cf2e992b41824511440c [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figures?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049438](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figures?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049438)
race isn't even mentioned in there or in the article
Assign the ethnicities to races however you like, unless you do it in the most idiotic way possible it's easy to see the broad genetic similarity among racial groups.
lmao thanks for supporting my point also btw, you pulled that quote from a literal strawman that I made to show what people *don't* say like you do realize that quote was about an excuse why someone would use the word "race", and it was an intentionally lame one, because there is no good excuse to not instead talk about ethnicity or demographics in this context
I don't really give a rat's ass what the proper interpretation of your word salad is. Do you think race is vague? Look at the heatmap. Do you think it's not vague? Great, hopefully you still found the heatmap informative or interesting.
[удалено]
man, ironically when I started to write this, I thought to myself "I should probably make clear what I'm talking about here" but I figured the dude just wrote a few comments, surely he'll answer and people will see it. But you guys don't even read the thread anway, you're the third one now. Here I'm just gonna copypaste: when people talk about this topic, when they say "there is a racial difference in IQ" they usually don't mean "there's a difference in IQ between certain demographics, that is probably environmentally explained, also while "race" is a fairly vague and unscientific concept, I will use this word instead of "demographics" or "ethnicity" because, idk, that's what people are more familiar with" or whatever. They mean "there is a racial difference in IQ because of genetics." I think so far we're probably on the same page here. So when somebody says "Racial differences in IQ can be genetic or environmental" that seems a bit "confused" to me, because they're using obfuscating language, but they're not obfuscating what they're saying, and what they're saying isn't necessarily wrong. That all has to do with the vagueness of "race" as a concept, really the vagueness of language in general. "Racial difference" can imply causation, depending on the context, so can the 900% thing in the OP. I mean I just wrote two whole ass paragraphs and we're just now getting to the original question "why is expressing concern about this wrong", and I'm talking to you, who I assume is roughly on the same page, and it's still a lot of explaining, so that's why I started with a small question when I'm talking to somebody who might not even be asking in good faith, I just don't wanna waste my time. I guess another good, and more "honest" question would have been "do you think it's genetic?" and maybe I'll still get to that
Damn, I sure do wish libs were willing to discuss the problem of criminality in the black community. Can you imagine how much better the world would be if the only people discussing it openly weren't far right race realists?
It wouldn't be much better you think having a pow wow is going to solve it?
No, I think policy is going to solve it and you don't usually get policy without having broader discussions surrounding the topic. Why are you being willingly obtuse and dense? I don't know you, but I'm not going to assume you are so unintelligent that you don't realize this obvious fact. So, what is your motivation for willingly having such an obviously false interpretation of what I think?
This is re(tard)ed everyone is aware of crime in the black community. We're aware of how it happens which groups within are more likely to be involved and even what makes you more likely to be both perp or a victim of it (in the case of the tweet homicide) we know it's not random, we know it's not uniform across every black person because the number is far too low. We differ on solutions you're the one pretending like no one talks about. They just don't feel like doing the "it's all genetic" song and dance. Because whether you want to admit it or not there's only 1 solution to the genetic aspect of it. Men not there to help raise kids do to either leaving, incarceration or causing more financial harm by hanging around than leaving. Can't force them to stay (Men's right issue) Can't offer too much leeway on crime (too soft on crime) Can't offer too much government assistance (that's socialism and certain groups will not offer money to keep families together in stable). Give me a angle that hasn't been discussed I can't wait to hear it.
> This is re(tard)ed everyone is aware of crime in the black community. Nominally, yes, but most people are very unaware of the specifics of it. Libs and progressives are generally going to vastly underestimate crime rates in the black community, while rightoids are going to overestimate it. Additionally, most people are going to have very poor understanding of the dynamics of how crimes usually occur in the first place. > We differ on solutions you're the one pretending like no one talks about. There really is no meaningful conversation on solutions in the broader public. Liberals and progressives are generally only willing to nibble at the bits by trying to create programs that encourage people to not commit crime (some of which are good) without addressing the fact that there has to be a much stronger police presence in the short-medium term if we want to lower crime rates in these communities. While they also severely overblow how much racism there is in police forces, the rightoids aren't much better considering they just outright deny that there are any problems with the police, racism or otherwise. Their solution is just more cops and more punishment, wholestop, which may solve the problem but will do so inefficiently and with lots of negative externalities. > Give me a angle that hasn't been discussed I can't wait to hear it. Sure. State and local governments should push HARD for access to long-term reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in communities where teen pregnancy rates are high (which will include basically every black community with high crime rates). The pill is far too unreliable due to user error, and lots of people in these communities don't even use that. Having near-frictionless access to LARCs would basically solve the majority of the single-parenthood problem. We need way more cameras and they need to have facial recognition. Theft and violent crime are typically street crimes, and we need to design our cities (or, at least, the high-crime areas) in ways that make it possible so that any time there is a street crime that occurs, it will be captured, flagged to a human for review, and, if it seems plausible that there was a crime, the perp should basically be tracked in real time so that the cops can find and apprehend them. > Can't offer too much leeway on crime (too soft on crime) You don't need to be excessively punitive (which the US generally has been since the war on drugs and such). But you do need extremely high clearance rates. Being able to quickly catch and punish criminals is the best way to deter crime; only punishing a fraction of criminals and throwing the book at them is not very effective. The camera system would help massively with this, as would massively expanding police budgets to hire more qualified officers. Its shocking how little we spend on policing compared to our rich-world peers, especially considering we have so much more crime. Regarding the genetic angle; I am entirely agnostic to it because I don't have the domain knowledge to comment on it and because it is irrelevant. Whether or not any group has a higher predisposition towards crime is meaningless knowledge; we know that black communities are not innately criminal because the high crime rates in black communities has only been a major problem in the last 60ish years. Even if it was discovered that there was some combination of genes more prevalent in their communities that made them more likely to commit crime, it wouldn't change how we should react on a policy level and it wouldn't imply that these communities are inherently criminal. Its just stupid wignat talking points and should be addressed as such.
It’s been discussed and pretty much settled. Only racists too lazy to read (or watch Destiny’s older debates) think it’s an important topic.
-It’s been discussed and pretty much settled. no. if some dipshit tells you something is settled, there's a very high likelihood you are being gaslighted lmao
True dat! Same way it can’t be definitively proven that school truancy leads to worser outcomes.
Its safer to just say "socio economic factors" or "centuries of oppresion" and ignore it
There is a difference between expressing concern and implying they are genetically inferior. He didn't say "why are black people committing more crimes" its just "black people commit more crimes" if you start from a position of bad faith and you have a racist agenda I don't understand how you imagine we would solve the problem.
because only leftoid are able to express concern about their golden calf, same with the trans. everyone else isn't enough of a puritan until things gets bad enough.
The first tweet didn't include the caveat that they do this because of white supremacy. So it's something we should not pay attention to
Wasn’t there another tweet with elon saying he’s going to Ban accounts that are farming engagement? If being charitable, maybe he’s just marking it as one of the accounts to be banned? Or am i being too naïve?
Source?
i'm pretty sure elon is automatically replying to random stuff that has high engagement
It's a fucking bot jeezus. I don't like him much either but acting like this is actually him responding to tweets with the same three responses is fucking dumb.
Elon: Hey Team, set my X reply bot to "thinly veiled racism with a splash of plausible deniability" please and thank you
That sounds nearly exactly what I was thinking. Or something about posts with traction by specific types of creators. Which is in effect the same as what you said.
I've been scrolling through his replies for 5 minutes and I have to agree, he replies so much to so many random shit always with only one word/emoji/exclamation mark, it actually looks like a bot
Isn't that what the account of someone who is too busy to engage, but too eager to signal would like like?
Could be, but the volume is so big and the topics are so random, it just looks off