Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Race/ethnicity
Think police are racist killers? The newest data shows ...
FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 3
The Truth about Interracial Violent Crime Frontpagemag
Interracial violence in America, by the numbers Power Line
Fact check: False data on U.S. racial murder rates Reuters
Race, Ethnicity and Marriage in the United States
FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 6
Comments on Esternalizza tu' sorella: COMDATA: RITRATTO DI ...
Most crime is intraracial, where both victims and offenders share the same race, but when violent crime is interracial, blacks commit a far higher percentage than whites. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics 2018 study, 15.3% of crimes against whites were committed by blacks for a total of 547,948 crimes. In contrast, whites committed 10 ... 1 Includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.; NOTE: This table is based on incidents where some information about the offender is known by law enforcement; therefore, when the offender age, sex, race, and ethnicity are all reported as unknown, these data are excluded from the table. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) collects information on victimization characteristics, including race and ethnicity. Since 2003, two questions on the NCVS obtain information on the respondent's race and Hispanic origin: (1) whether the respondent is of Hispanic origin, and (2) which race or races they identify with. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2018 there were 593,598 interracial violent victimizations (excluding homicide) between blacks and whites in the United States. Blacks committed 537,204 of those interracial felonies, or 90.4 percent, while whites committed 56,394 of them, or about 9.5 percent. Moreover: Welcome to Comdata's Cardholder Services Internet portal. If you have previously registered, enter your Username and Password. 1 Includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.; NOTE: This table is based on incidents where some information about the offender is known by law enforcement; therefore, this table excludes data when the offender age, sex, race, and ethnicity are all reported as unknown. All states experienced an increase in the percentage of interracial and interethnic married-couple households from 2000 to 2012-2016. Two states, Hawaii and Oklahoma, and the District of Columbia increased by 4.34 percentage points or more. Whites committed 14.4 percent of all interracial violent victimization, or 91,470 felonious assaults on blacks. Blacks commit around 70 percent of black-white interracial homicides. lavoro in comdata dal 2007 ho iniziato come operatore cc 187 e due anni dopo a seguito di una crisi della commessa sono approdata al cc 191. tralascio commenti a libello gestionale (dipendenti, lavoro, turni...) spesso non mi trovo d'accordo su molte politiche aziendali, al momento però ho solo una domanda: ora che telecom è stata venduta ad una compagnia spagnola, che fine faremo? è il ... FBI data does not support the numbers put forth in this claim on interracial crime and police killings. Most U.S. murders for white and Black victims are intraracial. This article was produced by ...
Race Pill Science
2019.06.29 18:52 ayejitRace Pill Science
A critical response to subreddits that attempt to subvert the distinction between empirical reality and racist role-playing/pornographic fantasy. Dedicated foremost to an honest and evidence-based discussion on the influence of race and colorism in dating, and, secondarily, to dissecting the hypermasculine BBC mythology serving at the core of dehumanized interracial fetishism.
2020.09.23 18:57 golokoyoI want to talk about China and misinformation.
I'm choosing to post this in this subreddit because I think it relates heavily to libertarianism. This is a difficult conversation to have, because I'm always called a shill for China when I bring it up. I just want people to be more skeptical about the criticisms we see about China. Do not mistake this as sympathy for China. In fact, I believe there are truths to all claims made against China. This is about the manipulation of truth, and why that occurs. And just so you're clear where I stand, America is better in nearly every way (for now). I'll give some background. I've been a content moderator for almost two years now. I can't talk about my job due to an NDA, but I'll say that it involves viewing a lot of conspiracy theories (among other things, like exploitation and violence), and that I never have the authority to remove content. I've followed some rabbit holes pretty deep without being a believer. Many of these rabbit holes can be traced to the Falun Gong. They are a far right, somewhat mysterious cult with a ton of capital that has legitimate claims of persecution by China. They are headquartered in NYC and run The Epoch Times (you may have seen their ads on youtube, or received their "newspaper" that they deliver to neighborhoods around the western world.) They spread misinformation that is emphatically pro-Trump, they claim corona is made in a lab, and they despise the CCP. The Falun Gong also has ties to a youtube channel called Edge of Wonder, which spreads Q-anon to a younger audience. They were prosecuted in China because they were growing and the CCP saw them as a threat to their power. I do not envy anyone who the CCP deems a threat, and I have no doubt that these people were treated inhumanely. At the same time, this is no excuse the allow them to spread lies and grow their cult in America. Their beliefs state that gays are abhorrent abominations and interracial babies are abominations that prevent salvation, and at the same time they call out China for being oppressive (China is, just pointing out hypocrisy). Being a victim does not remove you from scrutiny. My point about the Falun Gong is that people will misrepresent the facts so they can grow their belief system. When it comes to libertarianism, we ought to caution ourselves with this misinformation. The people propagating these lies are always far-right and typically have dogmatic views behind them. This article about Tibetan labor camps that was posted here yesterday was uncovered by Dr Adrian Zenz, who says his journalism is led by God (probably should be led by truth, right?). The claims made in this article are essentially the same claims (with different weight, scale, and ethical considerations) waged against Jeff Bezos and he's treatment of his workers, but it is framed as genocide. I haven't seen evidence that their labor has been forced upon them, but I will change my tune if I do. As far as I can tell, this is exploitative labor, which I won't defend. The point is, this is jumping the gun, and trying to frame an exploitation as forced labor, and even genocide. Ultimately, I worry about our citizens being lied to, because when we are lied to we get the patriot act. We get mass surveillance. I fear for what our AG will do if he can fully tie protestors to communism. Facial recognition may be implemented. His recent move to ban funding to cities that work to defund the police mirrors the social credit system we see in China, and he's reasoning boils down to "these are commie cities." When it comes to a global conflict between two superpowers like the USA and China, we ought to be concerned about our own rights first and foremost. I personally view the CCP as communist in name only. They don't have many private corporations since their large companies have ties to their government. Well, so are ours. They make claims that we are a country that commits atrocious, and they are right. We do the same to them, and we are right. We don't want to become China so we can compete with China. That's where this is heading, and we will only accept this if our government can stoke that nationalism. "China is stealing our data through TikTok. Let's use our government to take over the app! Oh, China still has access to our data? Oh well." Trump wants to impose patriotic re-education, yet the cult who fled China emphatically support this president? Our government is competing for world dominance, and that comes at the expense of us, just like in China. OANN, The Epoch Times, FOX news, our president. All of these entities propagate misinformation and that apparatus will strip us of our rights if we don't combat it. TL;DR: Misinformation is used to submit you. Pay attention to misinformation, especially if it plays off your preconceived notions. Americans already hate China, so when misinformation about them is propagated it is exceptionally hard to call out.
See the original article and the garbage it inspired. If you were to find the about page of his blog, you would know that he defends the blog from promoting white supremacy by simply reporting the facts. A strict reading could put together that it doesn't mean that one couldn't defend or rationalize past systems of white supremacy. I've recently revisited and clarified the issues of his Slave trade article, and soon I plan on talking about multiple issues with his slavery article as well, so today I will do the same with this one. The running theme of the piece is that disparities during Jim Crow either couldn't be explained specifically by segregation, or that disparities came larger after the 1960s thus segregation as a factor is ruled out. The problems are that -
For each aspect that he measures, he doesn't tie it to a specific expert claim on how Segregation played a role in the disparity.
He doesn't account for post-1960s factors that causes the persisting or larger disparity, and assumes post-1960s is a systematically neutral control.
For certain disparities he compares, they are inappropriate and are not indicative of what he purports.
And for the record, no, he doesn't actually talk about voting or juror restriction by race. The article- We first get a rationalization of his analysis.
When I was younger, I would read world atlases. And sometimes I would come to an article, say an article on the country Colombia, and it would say that Colombia is a world leader in coffee production, then list off some other “cash crops”. Then it would go into the growing textiles sector, and mention that it has some problem with debt. Maybe it’s a leading producer of phosphates as well or something. And if you read all of this qualitative, subjective description, you would never realize that Colombia was poor. It’s not until you got to “per capita GDP” that you would discover that it was $3,000 per capita. You could also have someone qualitatively describe a football game between Auburn and Alabama. And they could do highlights, and describe some of the big plays, and you wouldn’t know that Alabama completely steamrolled Auburn until you looked at the box score. Or imagine if your son was “describing” qualitatively and subjectively how he was doing in his classes. As a parent you don’t care, you want to see the damn grades. And so the effects of segregation on blacks. What does the data say? Because in school when segregation is taught, it’s the equivalent of describing a football game by just looking at the highlights and not the box score. It’s cat-lady storytime. Well, there are a few big go-to topics that popped into my mind to try to quantify the effects of segregation on blacks: cops and courts, schools, income and lynching. So that’s what I go-to’d.
1. Incarceration rate The incarceration rate for blacks relative to whites has increased at least since 1930, probably long before that. So in terms of blacks being targeted for being sent to prison, it looks like they were substantially less targeted compared to today. So if the legal systems were unfair during segregation, they appear to be even more unfair today. Or perhaps they weren’t unfair during segregation, are unfair today, or perhaps the laws are different today in a way that disparately impacts blacks more than they did in the past. There are all sorts of things we can speculate, but it’s not immediately or obviously apparent, from the data, that the legal system was particularly keen on incarcerating blacks compared to today.
So for those of you more keen on race and mass incarceration, you would know that this is particularly strong in Northern Urban regions rather than the South. A whole demographic transition occurred that accounted for it. Not to mention he never actually looked for studies that purport to address biases during Jim Crow. What does he find through is roundabout ways?
2. Prison sentences For prison sentences, the numbers have been remarkably stable. When you look at length of prison terms for blacks compared to whites after the FIRST release from prison, it’s very close. The first release data is important because none of these are repeat offenders. Repeat offenders get more time, and blacks are more likely to be repeat offenders. That said, based on the data below, blacks serve roughly ~15% longer prison terms for their first term. It could be because the crimes blacks commit within each category are, on average, more severe. It could be racial bias on the part of judges. Or it could be that blacks have worse courtroom behavior, as when IQ is controlled for, the racial gap in prison sentences goes away. But what you don’t see is blacks having longer prison sentences during segregation. Black Multiple of White Median Time Served For ALL Releases in State and Federal Prisons Now what if we looked at median prison time served just in the South, and back in 1937 – smack in the middle of “Jim Crow” – and included repeat offenders, of which black inmates are a higher proportion today? The result is not that much different from the entire US today: Black Multiple of White Median Time Served For ALL Releases in 14 Southern States in State and Federal Prisons Remember, the 1937 data is JUST from the South, supposedly the hot seat of bigotry, and includes repeat offenders. Homicide data is an unweighted average of each category. In 1937 and 1952 they used Murder and Manslaughter, in 1964 they just had Homicide, and in 2009 they had Murder, Negligent Manslaughter and Non-Negligent Manslaughter. In case you think I am cherry-picking the years to paint a particular narrative, these are literally just the years used in the Bureau of Justice report I am citing. And so what we can see is that the black-white incarceration gap is wider today than it was in 1930. In addition, the racial gap in sentence length for first offenders does not appear to have changed at all. Even the data that INCLUDED repeat offenders just in the South in 1937 doesn’t differ that much from the first-time offender data nationally and later. And so this makes the idea that the current US legal system was more biased against blacks during segregation than it is today SEEM false.
So this is a good example of a data point that doesn't correspond to a specific Civil Rights claim for Jim Crow relative to the post-1960s. Mass incarceration is usually shown as being a post 1960s phenomenon of bias as a particular, in connection to Blacks increasing presence in the North. His source supports it. On page 88.
The median time served for the total was 17 days. For blacks the median was 2 days longer, 19 days. Interestingly, there were larger differences between whites and blacks in time served in the North than in the South. The median time served in the North for whites was 18 days and for blacks a full week longer, 25 days. In the South the median was 17 days for blacks and 16 days for whites. Looking at time served by offense, these differences continue.
Typical civil rights claims are in regard the lack of Black Jurors deals with not simply length of prison time but biases towards choosing conviction by a white jury relative to a comparable white defendant, which this doesn't study. Therefore, the proper way how to study this would be conviction rates in the same region overtime, such as the South, and compared between different types of juries and defendants. I lack data on this, but one form of bias I have found was application of the death Penalty for rape in the South from the 1930s to the 1960s was harsher not just for Black Criminals, but for Black criminals accused ofraping whites. In further detail, 13% of Black rapists in 11 southern states received the death penalty compared to 2% of whites. Decreases in overall non-white (likely black) executions, by his source, decreased sharply after the 1960s. Overtime, rates of executions decreased even though crime increased into this period. Mind you, there were death penalty changes around this time. This source, btw, contains a variety of measurements by race during Jim Crow into the present that could suggest bias outside of merely prison sentences.
3. Lynching A related topic to this is lynching. From Richard M. Perloff, Professor of Communication at Cleveland State University: “Approximately 4,742 individuals were lynched between 1882 and 1968; of the victims, 3,445 or 73 percent were Black.” All lynchings were in response to a claimed offense, such as a rape or stealing cattle. Blacks were 72.65% of all recorded lynchings while being ~26.87% of the population of the South at the time. The Black population of the Southern US 1880-1970 averages 26.87% at each decade. And so based on their population alone, if lynchings were race-neutral, and we knew nothing about race differences in violent crime going in, we would expect 26.87% of all lynchings to be of blacks. Blacks comprised 72.65% of all lynchings, giving them a representation 2.70 times their population. However, according to wikipedia, most lynchings occurred between 1882 and 1920, and during that time period the average black population was 31.76% of the southern US population. Using this number, blacks as a percentage of lynchings are only 2.29 times their percentage of the population. If we split the difference and just say that the black population of the south was 29.32% of the total population, then blacks as a percentage of lynchings was 2.48 times their percentage of the population. By comparison, in 2010, blacks comprised 12.6% of the total US population, but were 38.13% of the population charged for violent crimes, giving them a representation 3.03 times their population. And so by raw numbers the lynch mobs appear to be slightly less racially targeting than the current US legal system is. Here are those numbers put in a table:
So when I first read this I thought he was comparing lynchings to police shootings. The second time shows me how asinine he is. This is a good example of an inappropriate comparison. Being charged with a crime isn't the same as a lynching, lynchings are categorized by the source he originally used for sentencing as an execution, one of the trends that decreased in rates for blacks and as established was higher in the South in ways suggestive of bias. From his source-
Almost three-fourths (73 percent) of those lynched between 1890 and 1962 (the date of the last recorded lynching) were black, and in the same period, 54 percent of those executed were nonwhite. About 90 percent of those dying under State authority were executed for homicide. Only 41 percent of illegal lynchings were for homicide (Tables 2-1 and 2-2).
This is more or less consistent with my studies showing that, in the South, rape (the next largest portion of lynching offenses After Homicide) was disproportionately applied to black men with death. Lynchings, as well decreased in accordance with campaigning against it as established in my Dwight Murphey post. This would be an example of civil rights interacting with oppression.
4. Income This is where arguments regarding the negative effects of segregation start to have some backing in data. Looking at census data from 1948, we can see that black income as a proportion of white income went from around 44% in 1948 to about 80% in 2000. This looks like a massive effect from desegregation on it’s face: 📷 However, there is some interesting data from 1880. If you just look within regions, the racial gap is much less. At that time, black workers earned on median 37% of what white workers earned. However, if you just looked at the south, blacks earned 58% of what white workers earned. So just with that regional control we’re already almost half way to the current black-white income ratio. Population and wage income by race and region in 1880 But the paper did something else – it looked at black labor income relative to whites, but just looked a rural southern whites and blacks, and only looked at labor income. And in that instance, black income was 89% of white income: 📷 And so when you look at the same region, and the same kind of work, and just compare the wages of workers, the black-white income gap in the rural South was only 11%, lower than it is today. And that difference could very plausibly be due to blacks having fewer skills on average in 1880. I would be interested to see similar thin slices just looking at urban blacks in the south vs. urban whites in the south, and urban blacks in the north to urban whites in the north. I suspect that the more you held constant region and urban/rural divide, the smaller the racial gap would be. Which is to say, that it seems like much of the black-white income gap could have been a function of blacks living in rural areas (which were poorer back then) and living in the south (which was poorer back then). In addition, we can see that the narrowing of the black-white income gap roughly corresponds with blacks moving out of the south. This is not a 1:1 correlation, but it is does suggest that simply moving out of the south), which began in earnest around 1910, is part of the explanation for the narrowing of the black-white income gap: 📷 And in the north, where more of the blacks were slaves who had earned their freedom before 1865, black wages as a proportion of white wages were higher. In fact blacks in the north were wealthier than whites in the south for quite some time. Moreover, the narrowing of the black-white income gap at the national level occurred almost entirely during segregation. So to say that the smaller amount of narrowing that occurred following desegregation was in fact a result of desegregation is something that sounds kinda plausible – there’s certainly a little story you can tell – but there’s very little data for it. The most you could say is that there was a brief acceleration of the narrowing of the black-white income gap immediately after 1965, but that could be a coincidence, and even if you want to say it was a result of the civil rights act, then the acceleration versus a continuation of the previous trend is still only going to be like 2%. Now as for why the black-white income gap narrowed from 1948 (at least) to 2000, that’s another topic. I suspect much of it has to do with the economic rise of the south and the migration of blacks away from the rural economy. Also this higher income may not have corresponded with a rise in living standards relative to whites since the cost of living may have increased, but that’s more speculative. But desegregation doesn’t appear to have any relevance to it. So even the narrowing of the black-white income gap, long touted as prime evidence that segregation was previously suppressing black wages, the evidence is not so clear on that.
So, he decreased the gap however in a way that was not applied to the modern gap, therefore makes his comparison null. He spends most of this section explaining factors pertaining to geography and the like explaining the gap, even though it's existence is tied to both slavery and the economic and educational limitations of the South for Blacks. This can be seen in the lack of second generation benefits of white migrants relative to black migrants, those born in the North being positively selected for those returning to the South, and the steeper reduction in poverty among southern Blacks due to migrants that returned to the South. Likewise, despite his claims that Northern Blacks being richer than Southern Whites, he doesn't produce a chart or study showing that.
5. Wealth and Employment Two more things to consider is that up until the 1950’s blacks had employment rates similar to that of whites. And the unemployment rate in blacks grew much more after 1965: 📷 And in terms of wealth, black wealth as a proportion of white wealth has remained stagnant since 1963: Moreover, I would say that the absolute disparity is more important than the black-white ratio. Because lets say you have $10 and Bob has $100. That’s a $90 gap. Depending on your job, that’s a day’s wage, or half a day’s wage. Now if you have $100 and Bob has $900, now you’re looking at multiple days’ wage. And so on and so on. So even though the relation is the same, the practical importance of the gap is growing. Also just the total dollar amount difference is increasing. And these are all in “2013 dollars”, which adjusts for inflation. And so when people say that the relative economic situation of blacks has improved relative to whites since segregation, they’re looking at one thing: nominal income at the national level. They’re not looking at employment, at wealth, or how much, if at all, the income gap has narrowed when controlling for what region of the country we’re looking at, or if it’s urban or rural.
While this is worth pointing out, it fails to account for complex factors of the great migration. While gains were present, unemployment increased due to urban living and relatively higher demands in skill compared to the South. This can be seen by actually referencing the study he pulls the chart from, where changes in unemployment occur earlier and become starker outside of the South. What is also interesting his how an earlier study done by one of the researchers of the 1999 study he cites notes how human capital can't explain as much of the gap in the North as it can in the South.
6. Schools Another argument that segregation depressed black economic success is their lower school funding. On average, from 1890 to 1950, the average of how much each state spent on black schools as a proportion of what they spent on white schools was 56.96%. So they had less funding. But funding for what? For “better teachers”? What’s a “better teacher”? What has been found in the US is that increased real spending on schools has not increased overall performance since the 1970s, and more importantly voucher studies have shown that the school an individual goes to has no real impact on either GPA, standardized test scores or future college attendance. So the fact that additional funding didn’t matter in 1970 is one thing. But did it matter from 1870 to 1954? Well, we don’t have regular standardized tests from that time period, but we do have a nationally representative IQ test done in 1917 for all US army conscripts for World War 1. In it blacks scored a median of 83 compared to the white score that was set to 100. Today the black median is still at 85. Okay, two points. And my guess is they were hollow for “g” anyway. Certainly there were journalists at the time who did “investigative journalism” and wrote anecdotal reports of how bad the black schools were. Michael Moore does “investigative journalism” today too about how great the Cuban healthcare system is. Walter Duranty visited the USSR in the 1930s and came back writing glowing reviews of the benevolent, if firm, policies of Stalin. Maybe they were telling the truth, maybe they were making things up, who knows. Black schools were probably worse But the question is how much worse really? And for most people, did it even matter? Most of what people learn in school they forget anyway, so aside from literacy and basic math, the practical importance of school would be minimal for most people at that time. And the culture of school credentials as a signal to employers hadn’t developed yet, so at the time any “educational disadvantages” blacks had, whatever they were and if any, would not matter in terms of credential-signaling because that hadn’t developed yet, and in terms of knowledge beyond basic literacy and math – that all gets forgotten anyway.
He could've mentioned the Coleman Report but didn't. This is a pretty major study in this particular field of social science, so for Faulk to miss something crucial to grounding his point only demonstrates his lack of familiarity with the material.
I'm going to to assume, since the link is dead, that the studies referenced in that link doesn't account for how money is spent.
His study cites work from a cosumer behavior course, not actual studies on schools.
A recent study shows that for Jim Crow, school quality accounts for the majority of the wage gap for the era.
Previous data given regarding the Great Migration would indicate that education and a market to use it made generational different for blacks, even considering selection.
7. Countrymen? This section is a bit of a digression. In a broader sense, blacks weren’t seen as legitimate countrymen to some extent for some time in the region. And so since the blacks were viewed as “foreigners” to southern whites, who to some extent viewed northern whites as foreigners as well, they didn’t think they owed the blacks equal school funding any more than they owed people from Peru or Romania or China equal school funding. I.e. the black-white gap in school funding meant as much to them as the american-chinese gap in school funding, as both the Chinese and the blacks were foreign to the southern whites. Now you can have whatever opinion you want about it, and say that blacks were rightful countrymen of southern whites, and really pound your fists in self-righteous certainty about it because you “know it to be true”. That’s certainly your viewpoint. But understand that it is just your viewpoint, and when you realize that the southern whites viewed blacks the way we look at illegal immigrants today, and that the times during which either repatriation of blacks to Africa or creating a separate black country out of land in the US were serious proposals were still in living memory at the time. Today blacks have been part of the US for so long that such proposals probably seem bizarre to you. And they would bizarre and cruel if implemented today. But also remember that the US had to impose military governments in the south in order to pass the 14th amendment that gave the blacks citizenship. And Oregon, New Jersey and Ohio renounced their ratification of the 14th amendment after the fact in protest of this action. Obviously is was a symbolic gesture, but it showed that opposition to the way the 14th amendment was passed wasn’t considered some kooky fringe idea at the time. Of course it is now because if you bring up the use of military governments in passing the 14th amendment – well, “only racists talk about that”, so it just gets dismissed. But yes, understand that the 14th amendment was seen like granting “amnesty” to the illegals is today – it would be creating an alternative method of granting citizenship for a specific group of non-citizens in the US today. (And the fact that more whites supported granting citizenship to the black slaves at the time than supporting granting amnesty to illegals today is support for a theory I have about whites in the past being more “neurologically left-wing” even if they would be considered today to hold “far-right” positions by today’s standards.)
Despite whatever perceptions American whites had about Americans blacks, it doesn't change the facts were that blacks were not comparable to the Chinese at the time. The cultural gaps and their economic history on a racial basis doesn't justify it.
The basis of historical relativism in this case was seeming argued further in his MLK video, now deleted. That is, as argued by others before, whites didn't have to pay taxes for Black schools. This causes obvious problems as the average black had only limited wealth to tax in large part due to limited skills.
Faulk's self prophesied Conclusion- So, what do we learn from his conclusions? He bizarrely begins with a tangent on the Zimmerman and Wilson trials and the correlated of media knowledge. Some excerpts.
The jurors certainly knew more facts about each case than the general public did. Moreover, whites are more likely to believe Zimmerman and Wilson were justified, and whites do better on tests of current events knowledge. In addition, males, who do better on current events knowledge tests than females, also were more satisfied with the Zimmerman verdict than women, and women do worse on current events knowledge tests. Also, people with higher education levels approved the verdict as well. Thus, all three factors that correlate with general political and current events knowledge (being white, being male and having lots of time in school) also correlate with approving the Zimmerman trial verdict. And the people who had the MOST knowledge – the jurors – unanimously found Zimmerman not guilty. If you go by the literature in news media talking about “institutional racism” and “white privilege”, it’s not immediately obvious that the aggregate of all media is any less obsessed with the plight of the coloreds than they were in 1964. Maybe they were, but I have no way to really tell.
Do you see it? Do you see that lack of any real transition? Maybe some further comment can help.
But lets say Derrick Wilson killed “the gentle giant” in 1961. There was no internet in 1961, what you knew about the events was what a few major news outlets chose to report. As it happens, a jury also found J.W. Milam and Roy Bryant not guilty of murder in their killing of Emmett Till. And what do you know about that event? Do the facts you know of the Emmett Till verdict seem to paint a one-sided story to where it is unbelievable, yes, unbelievable that a jury would find Bryant and Milam not guilty?
Once again we have a comparison that isn't proper. The modern day examples leaves no ambiguity as to who killed who, it was a matter of whether the killing was justified or not. The Emmett Till situation was vastly different, since the matter of whether or not Till was killed, whether or not Milam and Bryant were guilty, or exactly what happened between Till and Bryant in the store. Her own account only goes as far as to say that she was grabbed by the waist, while press releases by the defense/police was explicitly more violent. Both stories differ from her original account to her lawyers. Even the officer who initially believed that the body belonged to Till changed his mind when the town's reputation began to be tarnished. Furthermore, even if we are to treat the Till case like the modern day examples, it only shows the hairiness of the case itself. Despite the defense being that Till is not confirmed dead, and that the brothers were innocent of murder, part of their defense regarding Till's actions and the release of Louis Till's rape record by politicians shows a blatant message. That even if the brothers killed Till, it was justified despite nonetheless being illegal. Anyone, however, can read the various sources that talks about the issue at length. Personally I have Devery Anderson's most recent book.
Because we all know that the courts in the South were incredibly unfair to the blacks? Except there’s no real data to support that at the time,
In regards to death penalties, legal and illegal, for interracial rape, we do. This is supported, along with the data, In regards to changing testimonies in the case of Till, from the police, we do. From the fact that shortly afterward another white on black murder with a white witness (and multiple black ones) claiming otherwise. Said white was not only a friend of the defendants of the Till case, but was defended by the same officer who doubted the corpse's identity. Point is that an entire survey of the south as a premise of bias is unnecessary (though supportive) of bias. The specific town where the crime took place has plenty of evidence of bias during the trial stemming from community values.
and victim surveys from modern times correspond with the police arrest rates, and police are more likely to kill a white person in any given arrest situation, are more likely to shoot blacks in simulations, and the black percentage of killing cops is higher than their percentage of being killed by cops. And in fact the black incarceration rate relative to whites is HIGHER than it was during segregation.
Irrelevant to the context of Till, a circumstance so legally unique from the above examples it shows Faulk's ignorance. The only connection is the matter of white credibility in modern settings verses in the context of a particular case.
As shown in previous articles, modern “institutional racism” in terms of police and court bias, callbacksand educationalopportunities are very easily revealed to be phantasms – or at the very least the issue of whether or not they exist is much more complex than the basic statistics you hear on tumblr and huffpo posts would suggest.
Both articles are shitty, see United Left on the school vouchers argument.
Recent studies have shown that residential racial segregation has increased in the United States. This is an improvement over older studies which simply looked at cities and the percentage of each race in the cities. These newer methods actually look at the likelihood of you having a neighbor of a different race, and find that racial segregation is increasing.
So it's basically comparing two different types of "segregation", the conventional method comparing pre-1960s trends nonetheless decreasing.
We already know that schools are more segregated than they were during the late 1960s. Now this is a profound thing; you’ve been to school. You had first hand experience with how racially segregated they were. THAT was close to what it was like during Jim Crow that we hear so many stories about. So… how segregated did it seem?
In other places on this site, Sean and I make arguments about how currently, blacks and hispanics are not getting a raw deal in employment, courts or education. But what surprised me was just how much, looking into the past, the old days seem so similar to today in terms of the lot of blacks compared to whites. They are drawn parallel. The past is not far away, it’s right here. 60 years ago was yesterday.
Only your superficial understanding of the 1960s, or any decade before.
2020.08.28 07:34 fishersucksreloadedThe Hispanic Paradox debunking socioeconomic status as a cause for the prevlance of black crime
I suggest reading the comments for a laugh, the white liberals are raging and I am beating them down, downvote if I'm lying about that https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219 (Estimates as of July 2019) White-60.1% Blacks-13.4% Hispanic-18.5% Asian-5.9% 1. Blacks commit 38.7% of the murders, most years are similar around 37 38 so they are overrrepresented in murder about 3x. Feel free to go look at the other years. The 13-50 stat is not correct, that is looking at murder arrests and not all arrests result in convictions obviously so it is a bad away to look at it people should really be saying 13-37 or 3x. Nevertheless blacks are still largely overrepresented, while Hispanics interestingly who grow up in similar socioeconomic conditions are actually underrepresented committing about 0.5 of the murders we would expect them to given their population size (9.9% in 2018). It has actually come down I believe it was closer to 15% or something 5-6 years ago but you can go look at the data. Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls This remains true in regards true in regard to killing of law enforcement officers the past decade. Black = 199/537 = 37% so about 3x. Hispanic = 77/537 = 14% so a bit under what you would expect them to given they Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2019/tables/table-42.xls Even in 2010 Hispanics were 16% of the population so it is still below what you would expect Source: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb11-cn125.html 2. Look at the below graphic attached. Only 1 race commits more crime against other races, bigger than their proportion of the population. image: https://i.postimg.cc/4N1SjMHt/14.png Source: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf pg 14 So despite growing up in the same types of enviorments(gangs, drugs, typical inner city challenges) Hispanics commit vastly less violent crime then blacks. BUT BUT MAYBE THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN: A. Single Parent Households Hispanic lows 40% the past decade. Black Mid 60% the past decade. 20-25% more single parent households to me is not an adequate explanation for blacks being overrepresnted by 3x in murder and Hispanics underpresented by 1/2. In addition you get to a chicken-egg problem where there will inevitably be disagreement about why are there higher rates of single parent households. Source: https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-single-parent-families-by-race#detailed/1/any/false/37,871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38/10,11,9,12,1,185,13/432,431 Base source: Data Source: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Supplementary Survey, 2001 Supplementary Survey, 2002 through 2018 American Community Survey. B. Income In addition while Hispanics have had slightly more income the past few decades Maybe 5k more avg past few decades? Just a guess from graph. Source:https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2018/demo/p60-263/figure1.pdf The income difference is also not enough imo to explain the difference. C. Some "ENGRAINED LEGACY OF SLAVERY PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE EXPLANATINO" If you want to bring cultural explanations about the legacy of slavery psychological damage something like that I grew up in a low income black community and literally no one talks about that shit. More importantly why don't Hispanic Americans suffer from some engrained legacy of EXTREME violence as Mexico/central America where most of our Hispanic population is from has some of the highest murder rate in the world. Hispanic Population: https://archive.vn/20150125224414/http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_113_QTP10&prodType=table Murder rates: You can trace back to original source if you want from wikipedia citations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate D. More Hispanic Disadvantages that would point to more violent crime by Hispanics Additionally there is a significant portion of Hispanics that are not legally here and thus are severely limited in job hunting and further limited by limited English proficiency. Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/ "There were 4.9 million Mexican unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2017, down from 6.9 million in 2007. Meanwhile, the total from other nations, 5.5 million in 2017, ticked up from 2007, when it was 5.3 million. The number of unauthorized immigrants has grown since 2007 from both Central America and Asia. There were 1.5 million Central American unauthorized immigrants in 2007 and 1.9 million in 2017." We all know higher unemployment is tied to higher crime yet, the 3x vs. 0.5x nevertheless exists. In addition it's baffling with such a high number of people that literally cannot get a legal job hispanics have had higher income than blacks(even though only by a little but still) throughout the past ~50 years according to the source/chart in the income section. This assymetry is one of the most easily provable and "problematic" issues the woke doctrine faces if the facts ever become widely known. Most people assume Hispanic and Black crime rates are similar when in fact they are significantly different with it being difficult to attribute many of the socioeconomic and cultural explanations typically put forth to explain the entire "crime gap" difference between whites/asians vs. blacks. That's not even bringing the poor asians/islanders into the equation which I could again write an entire section if I could get a hold of the data(have looked a bit before did not find needed data but it might be out there) and which would present the same problems for the woke religion. TLDR: Despite having the same or similar socioeconomic cirucmstances Hispanics commit FAR less murders as well as interacial crime as blacks. Not sure about overall violent crime since did not calculate. Blacks are overrepresented in murder by 3x, Hispanics under by 0.5x. PULL YOUR WEIGHT AND START COMMITNG MORE MURDER AND INTERRACIAL CRIME HISPANICS, YOU ARE MAKING OUR BLACK KINGS LOOK BAD. Bonus: latino college enrollment https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/historic-latino-student-wave-reshapes-many-colleges-but-access-is-uneven/2018/12/17/86cc113c-c65e-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/08/school_enrollmentof.html https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/california/story/2020-06-16/uc-regents-unanimously-endorse-restoring-affirmative-action California freshmen who are Black increased from 4.3% in fall 2010 to 4.7% in 2019, while the Latino share grew from 22.9% to 34.3% during the same period.
2020.08.23 08:37 flesh_eating_turtleStudies and Sources to Debunk Racism and "Race-Realism"
Introduction We are all aware of the massive problems with racism, fascism, and so-called "race realism" these days. In order to protect people from falling into this bigoted nonsense ("muh bell curve"), I figured it would be helpful to compile a list of high-quality sources for refuting racist myths and pseudo-science. As always, the sources are listed at the end. "White People Are the Most Intelligent!" Over the last few decades, numerous studies have been conducted debunking the idea that there is a genetic IQ gap between whites and non-whites. We will now go over some of them. In 1959, German biologist Klaus Eyferth published a study in the journal Vita Humana (Human Development), which studied the IQ of white and mixed-race children in post-war West Germany. The mothers were all white German women, while the fathers were white and black members of the US occupying forces. The mothers were matched for socio-economic status, and the children were tested for their IQ. The results were as follows:
As is clearly observable, this study (which is commonly known as the "Eyferth Study") found no statistically significant difference between white and mixed-race children. The majority of researchers, including James Flynn (the researcher who discovered the Flynn Effect), Richard E. Nisbett, and Nathan Brody, feel that this study supports the conclusion that racial gaps in IQ are mostly or wholly environmental in origin. However, since many "race-realists" dismiss this study on the grounds that it only included men who had qualified for military service, we should look at a number of more recent studies on the matter, to make things clearer. One useful study was published in the journal Child Development in 1972. This experiment studied black, white, and mixed-race children raised in British long-stay residential nurseries, subjecting them to three different tests of cognitive ability. Two out of three tests found "no significant difference" between the various groups, while one test found "significantly higher" scores for non-whites. One wonders whether the racists would accept this as evidence of black superiority (I think we know the answer). Another important study was published in the journal Developmental Psychology in 1986. The author observed that black and interracial children raised by white parents had a significantly higher mean IQ score than age-matched children raised by black parents (117 vs 104), and argued that differences in early socialization explained this gap. Nisbett et. al's 2012 review found that these differences in socialization "were large enough to account for virtually the entire Black–White gap in IQ," lending more credence to the environmental argument. Rushton and Jensen (two leading figures of scientific racism in the USA) attempted to dispute the 1986 study by arguing that the children were surveyed before adolescence, and therefore the results were unreliable; however, subsequent research (such as this work by Richard Nisbett, published in 2009) found that there is virtually no gap in heritability between ages 7 and 17, and therefore, this argument falls apart. An aforementioned 2012 paper by Richard Nisbett (co-authored with James Flynn and other leaders in the field), published in the American Psychologist, reviewed numerous studies conducted over the past decades, finding that the evidence "fails to support a genetic hypothesis.” The authors instead argue for an environmental explanation of the racial IQ gap. In addition, a 2017 study in the Journal of Intelligence examined trans-racial adoptions, finding that "there is no consistent IQ difference between Black adoptees raised by Whites and White adoptees raised by Whites." This supports the "nil hypothesis" (i.e. "that adoptees of different races have similar IQs when raised in the same environment"), indicating that there is no genetic IQ gap between races. In the book IQ and Human Intelligence, Nicholas Mackintosh of Cambridge University surveyed various studies on the topic of race and IQ (including many of those previously mentioned), finding their results to be entirely compatible with a 100% environmental explanation of racial IQ gaps, with no significant evidence found for a genetic difference. Mackintosh's book also explores other common racialist arguments, such as old "whites have larger brains" line. He explains that there is no evidence to support a difference in IQ based on brain sizes; for example, he points out that men and women have gaps in average brain size, without an observable difference in average IQ's. This is corroborated by other experts, such as Nisbett et. al's 2012 review of the research on the topic. A study published in the journal World Archaeology in 2006 thoroughly debunks Rushton's claim that prehistoric whites were smarter than prehistoric blacks due to evolution. As it states:
Examination of the archaeological record does not support the claims made by these researchers [Rushton and his companions]. This suggests that regional differences in IQ test score results should not be ascribed to variations in human evolutionary development.
In 2005, Nisbett published an article in the journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, directly responding to Rushton and Jenson. He rips apart their various claims, stating that they "ignore or misinterpret most of the evidence of greatest relevance to the question of heritability of the Black-White IQ gap." Nisbett analyzes the research on race and IQ, and concludes that "the evidence most relevant to the question indicates that the genetic contribution to the Black-White IQ gap is nil." In short, decades of research have debunked the notion that whites and non-whites have a genetic difference in intelligence. Racial Bias and the Criminal Justice System There is significant evidence that the criminal justice system in the United States (including, but not limited to, the police and courts) are biased against black people. To begin with, black Americans are more likely to be killed by the police while unarmed than are white people. A 2016 study from the American Journal of Preventative Medicine found the following:
Black victims [of police shootings] were significantly more likely to be unarmed than white or Hispanic victims. Black victims were also significantly less likely than whites to have posed an immediate threat to [law enforcement].
A 2018 study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, found the following:
Police homicide risk is higher than suggested by official data. Black and Latino men are at higher risk for death than are White men, and these disparities vary markedly across place. Homicide reduction efforts should consider interventions to reduce the use of lethal force by police. Efforts to address unequal police violence should target places with high mortality risk.
A 2020 study in the journal Social Psychology and Personality Research, which employed a "crime rate–correcting benchmark" (thus accounting for differences in crime rates), found "strong and statistically reliable anti-Black racial disparity in police killings of unarmed civilians." Black people are more likely to be arrested than whites for crimes which both commit at similar rates. For example, a report from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) found that "Despite roughly equal usage rates, Blacks are 3.73 times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana." Research has also found that non-whites receive harsher penalties than whites do for the same crimes. For example, a report from the United States Sentencing Commission found that blacks receive sentences which are, on average, 20% longer than whites for the same exact crime. A 2011 study from the Sentencing Project has also found that only approx. 60% of the gap in racial imprisonment disparity can be explained by differing crime rates, meaning that approx. 40% is due to other factors, including racial bias. "Non-Whites Commit More Crime Than Whites!" Decades of research has found that, while there is a measured difference in crime rates among racial groups, this can be explained by socioeconomic factors, as well as discrimination in the criminal justice system. No compelling evidence has been found for a racial difference in crime rates when socioeconomic class is taken into account. The Oxford Handbook of Ethnicity, Crime, and Immigration summarizes these points quite well. A study published in the journal Social Forces in 1996 examined Columbus, Ohio, concluding that "differences in structural disadvantage account for black-white differences in crime across communities." In other words, the racial gap in crime rates can be explained by structural inequalities in material circumstances. A study published in the journal Criminology in 2003 found that social and environmental differences accounted for the gap in crime rates among racial groups, not some inherent tendency among any race. "Immigrants/Refugees Are Criminals!" Research consistently finds that immigrants (both legal and undocumented) commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens. Even the right-wing Cato Institute has published multiple reports supporting this conclusion, as has the Sentencing Project. The United States Census Bureau published a report confirming that native-born citizens are more likely to be convicted of a crime than immigrants (regardless of legal status). This was discussed in a 2015 report from the American Immigration Council. The Cato Institute also published a report finding no evidence to support the claims that refugees are more likely to commit violent crime or terror attacks, noting that nobody (refugee or non-refugee) from the nations on the Trump travel ban list had ever been involved in a terror attack of any kind. Their research also concluded:
Zero Americans have been killed by Syrian refugees in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The annual chance of an American dying in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee is one in 3.6 billion.
In other words, the research shows that refugees and immigrants do not commit more crime than native-born citizens. Conclusion Racism and "race realism" are cancers, which have been given an undeserved chance to reemerge in recent years. As such, it is essential that we all be well-informed on these issues, so that we may fight back against racist nonsense. Study this information carefully, and be prepared to deploy it when necessary. Sources
2020.08.18 01:22 fagmcgee4352How do so many people end up having 2 or 3 percent of their heritage from different continents?
So many people come back with Ancestry.com or whatever DNA test results saying they are 2% African and 3% South Asian then 95% of more what you would expect. Why is this so common when interracial marriage / children have been so socially unacceptable in the past? Have there just been that many rebels? Is it just noise in the data? Is it going back so far that eventually it always ends up in Africa?
2020.08.16 11:33 220878(Remote Viewing) Big City Exodus
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreheexodus-from-big-cities-covid-crime/ I cannot help but think of this: Interview With Stephan Schwartz Ph.D. Interviewed By Daniel Redwood D.C. REDWOOD: The project of yours that I find most intriguing is the 2050 Project. Could you tell us about that? SCHWARTZ: That's another variant of all this. When I was in government, I was asked to participate on a committee that the Secretary of Defense and the president of MIT put together, called, "Innovation, Technology and the Future." And then I was asked to host a television program called, "Conversations at the Smithsonian: Innovation, Technology and the Future." So I began reading a lot of futurist stuff. And if we all look back at what we were concerned about in the 1970s, the great fear was overpopulation, that we would run out of natural resources, nuclear war, just dreadful stuff. That was the settled wisdom of the futurists. If you read the futurist literature of that period, the Club of Rome or Paul Ehrlich's work, that's what it was saying. Well, none of it turned out to be true. So by 1978 I could see that pretty much all of what we had said about the future was wrong. And as I began to look at it, I realized that almost all predictions about the future are wrong. Not just details, but even the broad trends are not correct, despite the fact that people who write them up are very smart and diligent. So I thought that if we could use remote viewing to accomplish all that we had already done, why couldn't we get it to look at the future? This made me think, well, how far into the future would you go? Reading about various kinds of predictions, I realized that if you get even a century or so down the time line, things change so much that they become incomprehensible. As an example, if you had tried to explain the Internet to your grandmother 80 years ago, what would you say? I have this box on my desk and it links me up with a box on every other desk in the world, and it also stores all the information, and I can get it all and transmit. It's incomprehensible. If you were talking to a 17th century thinker, how would you possibly explain either the technology or the cultural effect of television? "There's a box that sits on a table and it's got dancing people in it." The whole concept is very hard to get hold of. In the late 19th century, before Pasteur, people couldn't think of germs. REDWOOD: Somewhat along these lines, I read in the paper today that last year in Boston a paralyzed man became the first person to send an email with his thoughts. There was a chip implanted in his brain that enabled him to do this. SCHWARTZ: Really! Well, all of these kinds of things led me to realize that I should not go too far down the timeline, because I wouldn't understand what I was being told. So I settled on the year 2050. And in 1978 I began collecting this data, and I've gotten about 4000 people to do this. I asked them to go forward in time to the year 2050 [while in a state of nonlocal awareness] and to describe what they see, what people wear, what kind of health care is there, very mundane stuff. How do you pay for things, what does your house look like, how many people live in your area. Not big, grandiose questions, just mundane stuff. How many children do you have? How do the children communicate? How do people travel? And I began to get, immediately, a view that was utterly different than the view that I had expected. It contradicted just about everything that I thought the future was about. REDWOOD: What did they see in 2050? SCHWARTZ: First of all, virtually every single person said that there is no overpopulation. Now this was very, very surprising. Because all of the predictions of the futurists were that we were going to have ten billion people and the world was going to crash. The 2050 viewers said no, overpopulation's not a problem, but underpopulation is a problem in many parts of the world. I couldn't figure out what that meant. But now we know that no Western democracy has a sustainable birth rate. The only reason America has a sustainable birth rate is because of immigration. The Japanese, for instance, are beginning to really seriously consider what happens when Japan becomes a fragment of its former self. There are now about 130 million Japanese, and the Japanese ministries are producing studies projecting that by 2050 there'll be about 60 million, about half the population they have today. That produces a very different looking country. The Italians don't have a sustainable birth rate. It goes on. The Islamic countries are among the only ones that do have sustainable birth rates. REDWOOD: These projections don't factor in major epidemics or wars. SCHWARTZ: The 2050 viewers also started talking about this blood disease. They said it came out of Africa and it crossed over from primates into human beings because they killed the primates and ate them. They said it swept across the world and killed millions and millions of people. This was the late 1970s, and I had no idea what that was. When I kept getting this I went to a friend who was, I believe, the Deputy Director of Cardiovascular Research at the National Institutes of Health and asked him, "What is this?" He said, "I haven't a clue." Not a clue. Then a few years later AIDS entered the scene, and of course we now know that AIDS crossed over from primates and came out of Africa, exactly as they described. I asked them, " Has there been a huge nuclear cataclysm?" Because, if you remember, this was during the Nuclear Freeze period when everybody was really seriously worried about nuclear exchange, atomic war. And these people said, "Nope, that didn't happen." They said one of the great powers has fallen (this is before the Soviet Union fell). Can you imagine anyone in the 1970s talking about the Soviet Union falling? So I said, "Oh, so things get better." They said, "No, they get more dangerous." Now, instead of having relatively stable conflict, you have all these little pockets of conflict that grow up, and they "tear the world apart," is the way they described it. Now we can see the process. But at the time I was getting this in the Seventies and Eighties, the idea that international terrorism and fundamentalist Islamists were going to become a major issue in the world, there was no one who predicted that. REDWOOD: What were some of the other key areas of agreement among most of the people involved in this 2050 project? SCHWARTZ: That there has been an energy revolution, that energy is no longer an issue. There's some decentralized kind of energy. This is a case where even though I was only looking less than a hundred years into the future, the descriptions don't mean anything to me or anyone else that I've shown them to. All I can tell you is they describe this thing, that's probably three feet high and maybe three feet wide, like a big box. There are various sizes of them. They sit in either individual homes or in neighborhoods and they provide power. In 2050, nobody thinks much about power anymore. I can't tell you what it is. I thought for a while that it was cold fusion, but we don't know yet whether cold fusion is real. I just don't understand. They try to describe it to you, but the technology has not yet been invented, the concept is not here yet. People say, "Well, it's a box." I said, "Does it get very hot?" thinking there might be something inside the box. They said, "No, it just kind of hums along and produces power. So I said, "How does it do that?" and they said, "Well, there are these wires." The net of it is, there has been an energy revolution, that's a big one, and also a medical revolution. Most illnesses, most chronic illnesses have disappeared. Multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy. The chronic genetic diseases have largely disappeared because they're engineered out at birth, or at pre-birth. REDWOOD: Engineered out a birth worldwide, or just in areas of affluence? SCHWARTZ: That's a really interesting question, Daniel. I think that is one of the central questions that we face. You know, when we think about what's going on in the world, we get lost in the local epiphenomena of the news, and we don't really see the bigger trends. That's why I started the Schwartzreport ( www.schwartzreport.net), to look at long range trends. One of the things I'm very concerned about is that I foresee the rise of a homo superioris, that another species is going to be created. That the affluent technologically advanced countries will have access to this and that the non-technological countries won't. You can already begin to see this, as genetic engineering continues to develop. The genome has been mapped, and we're beginning to figure out where the switches are that turn things off and on. People are going to order up children. You know, you want to have a child, so you go in, and you'll see some kind of health professional whose specialty doesn't exist at the moment, and they'll flip the switches. You'll say, "I want a child that's as smart as Stephen Hawking and as athletically endowed as Michael Jordan, and is as good looking as Angelina Jolie." Out of that will come this race of people, this subspecies of people who get engineered. And they will in turn pass this on to their progeny, and over centuries (this isn't all going to happen by 2050), what's going to happen is that the human species is going to diverge. So that people who do not have access to these technologies will continue to have illnesses, but people who are affluent will be able to avoid most of the chronic illnesses. People won't be born nearsighted anymore, diabetes will disappear, heart disease and hypertension, all of that. That's going to get tweaked. So our children or our children's children will benefit from that and will look very different. REDWOOD: So revolutions of the future might involve trying to spread this democratically to all. Or, more ominously, might also involve dealing with the side effects of what you have been describing. SCHWARTZ: Unintended consequences are the reason we really need to think about these coming changes. It's almost impossible, but absolutely critical, for a democracy to do this. In our system, we haven't really done very well with regard to unintended consequences. We need to do better and could do better. But I could paint you a scenario where the 'naturals" rise up against the "engineered" and there is a new kind of racial conflict. The 2050 viewers said that racism doesn't exist anymore, in the way we think of it. Think of the difference in just our lifetimes, how much that issue has changed. When I was a boy seeing an interracial couple was very unusual but today no one would remark on it. For most young people it's not an issue anymore. There is a meritocracy arising that trumps race. Not for everyone, I should add, but as a generality. So I think we're going to be looking in 2050 and beyond at a world where it is much more important whether you got the benefits of genetic engineering than what race you are. And that the more affluent countries are going to control this and benefit from it in ways that lesser developed countries are not. REDWOOD: The more affluent countries then may or may not be the ones that are the more affluent countries now. SCHWARTZ: Back when I was in government, everybody was yelling about the Japanese, but from my perspective the real issue was the Chinese. However, I did not see the Indians. The Chinese were obvious, because China is so big and the Chinese have a long history of private sector activity. It was only briefly interrupted by Communism. But if you look at the world that is emerging now, you look at a world where China and India become much more powerful factors in the world than, for instance, France. REDWOOD: In your 2050 Project, to get from what is relative overpopulation now to relative, or absolute, underpopulation . . . SCHWARTZ: In some areas. REDWOOD: . . . was there some sense of what shifted, if it wasn't a nuclear catastrophe? SCHWARTZ: Oh, yeah. They said this blood disease (which I now take to be AIDS) is just the first of several that sweep across the world. That's one of the reasons that I think we need to be paying much more attention to the World Health Organization's current concerns about this avian flu virus. Because I've seen projections [from WHO and others] that it could kill up to a quarter of the human species in less than six months. I was concerned, being an intellectual futurist, about nuclear war. As I said, this was in the 1980s, around the time of the nuclear freeze movement. So I go to these people and do these sessions -- I did hundreds and eventually thousands of them -- and they all say no, that's not what you need to be concerned about. You need to be worried about these diseases that come up and that we're completely unprepared for. These "bugs," as they called them. These are non-technical people I interviewed for the most part, ordinary folk, so they don't use complicated words. REDWOOD: How did you find these viewers? SCHWARTZ: They're self- selected, people who came to conferences or read about it in magazine articles and called me up and I did a session with them. And they very consistently said what you need to be concerned about are these diseases that sweep across the country and kill millions of people. Aside from the changes I've already mentioned, they also said that [in 2050] people don't travel much anymore. Businesses don't have to travel anymore. I asked why. The answer was that they have this kind of thing that you put on, and it sort of hooks up with your nervous system and it allows you to project your consciousness into an electronic place, and other people meet you there, and that's where you have meetings. What? What do you mean? Well, you know, it's like this thing, and it has wires, and you put it on and it's like an extension of your senses and you're not in the reality you're in, you're in this other reality, and other people are in there with you. That didn't mean anything to me. Soon after, I went up to MIT and I was invited to go up to their computer lab, where they were doing the early virtual reality work. As soon as I saw it, I got immediately that the viewers were talking about virtual reality. You put on something, you project your consciousness into another place, other people can join you there, and it's interactive. What was happening was, business travelers didn't physically travel. It takes a long time to fly to Hong Kong. You don't need to fly to Hong Kong. The people in Hong Kong and you can each go into virtual reality and you can have your meeting. As this gets more and more sophisticated, I can already see this emerging. But when I first started getting these descriptions, they were so incomprehensible to me that I would go over and over this stuff with these people. What do you mean, you put on a thing and project your consciousness? Are you, you? Well, yes, you're you, but you could also be somebody else. You could be whoever you want. And in virtual reality, that's true. You could be a wizard or a princess or a pussycat. You can define yourself and the people see you as the princess or the pussycat or the Zorgonian warrior, whatever it is. So they say that in 2050, a lot of business travel is done this way. REDWOOD: So this is beyond what we call teleconferencing? SCHWARTZ: Beyond teleconferencing, a next step. They also say that money has almost disappeared. That there's some sort of central accounting system, not even requiring that you have a card. I can't figure out whether it's that you use your thumb print or what it is. But they're all electronic transactions. The 2050s say that many people have left the cities, that cities are now quite small. REDWOOD: Did they say why? SCHWARTZ: Yes. Because people have organized themselves according to personal taste. Because there has been an energy revolution and there has been another information revolution, which I now take to be the wireless revolution. Again, this is the 1970s or early 1980s. I got my first computer in 1978 so I understood the idea of computers. They said no, you can carry your computer around with you. I had an early computer called an Osborne, which had a very small screen and weighed as much as a full suitcase. It was a sort of metal box and seemed very slick at the time. I said, "Oh you mean like a portable computer." And they said, "No, it's like this little tiny thing." I'm looking back through this data now, and I think they're also talking about a national identity chip that gets implanted. So they said that people didn't have to be in cities anymore. You could live anywhere you wanted to live because you had energy and you had information access, so a lot of the reasons that people lived in urban settings were no longer operative. What happened is that people sorted themselves out by personal taste. They live in, for want of a better term, colonies, or communities. REDWOOD: What about the United States as a nation? SCHWARTZ: They say that the United States doesn't exist as it presently does. That it still exists as a kind of overarching federal structure that does certain things, but that much control has devolved back to the more local level. There has been a schism, a really fundamental split about how things ought to be done. At the time that I was doing this, no one knew about the red-blue split that increasingly dominates our political landscape today. In the 1970s and 1980s when we were doing these interviews, it wasn't there. I mean, it was nascently there, but not fully expressed. Anyway, they say that in 2050 the United States does not exist in the sense that it does today. That people have moved out into small communities that are spread out all over the country, because energy and information transmission are no longer restrictive influences. Some of these are like hippie communes and some are militaristic. It's a kind of re-tribalization process. People like to hang out with people that agree with their point of view and don't like to hang out with people who don't agree with their point of view. I think we see that happening. You don't see a lot of fundamentalists hanging out at bars, for example. So you sign up for that and find a community that does what you want to do. You can see that already happening on the Internet; you see people sorting themselves out in discussion groups. What happens with greater information transparency is that people who have common interests find one another and they align with those people. The 2050 viewers describe these communities. Some of them are domed so that they can even control the weather. The weather has become a big deal. This was before global climate change [became a news item], but they described these huge weather changes and I couldn't figure out what they were talking about. Huge droughts that have rendered parts of the country uninhabitable. REDWOOD: Which parts? SCHWARTZ: The Southwestern United States. Look at Phoenix. This week for five days in a row it was over 119 degrees. I mean, imagine living out there if you had to experience that weeks at a time? I worked in the Libyan desert with the Bedouins. When it gets to be over 114, they quit. They don't work. They go back into their tents, "Come see us tomorrow." They work from dawn until about nine o'clock in the morning. By 10 o'clock, it's the full heat of the day and they don't come out until late in the afternoon. REDWOOD: So Phoenix as we know it would become unsustainable. SCHWARTZ: I can't imagine how they're going to maintain a city where they've got temperatures in the summertime that could typically run 110 to 130 degrees. It's like breathing oven air. Even now, they've got people dying. Then look at Europe, where they're having a drought and a heat wave, and they lost 15,000 people last year in France, because there's no air conditioning. The effects on the settled patterns of societies are going to be dramatic. Europeans don't have any air conditioning in their subways or in most houses. When it gets to be 100 degrees, [some] people die, old people particularly. I would say as a generality, that as time has gone on the descriptions that the 2050s gave me, have become more and more real to me, more and more accurate. So I'm re-examining all this data to get a sort of second order of information out. Because when I was analyzing a lot of it in the Seventies and Eighties and early Nineties, I just couldn't understand what they were talking about. REDWOOD: Were there other significant changes widely agreed upon by the 2050 viewers that we haven't yet touched upon? SCHWARTZ: Let's see. The fall of Russia, global climate change, the diseases, no nuclear war, the energy revolution, the virtual reality revolution. Oh, yes, health care! Very interesting. In the experience, I asked them to go to a place where health care is delivered. Stand outside of it, describe it, now go to the door. When you go in, who do you meet? What do you smell? Odors, textures? And what is it like, health care in 2050? First of all, there is emergency care. You fall off a ladder or have a car accident. There's trauma medicine which has become very highly evolved. Pharmacological medicine has almost disappeared, because most of the things that people take pharmaceuticals for no longer exist. That was of great interest to me, because I have hypertensive disease, it's a genetic predisposition. And they say, "Oh, no, all those diseases are gone." REDWOOD: Because of genetic engineering. SCHWARTZ: Yes. We don't have cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, diabetes. Those things are gone. They describe hospitals as being very peaceful and very organic, in a way. REDWOOD: A bit of a change. SCHWARTZ: Yes. There's crisis medicine, it's clear. One viewer, a rock climber, said she had a bad fall. "I broke my leg and one of my arms, but they took me there and they didn't have regular casts. They had this thing that they use to put your arm in the right position, and they put it in a little trough, and they spray this stuff and it kind of hardens, kind of like very stiff Jello, like a stiff plastic of some kind that breathes and there's something they put in so it doesn't itch." And she said that they use electricity and thereby cause the bones to heal very quickly. And, of course, there's now research on this, so that makes sense. So there's acute medicine, but the chronic conditions that people are heir to have largely disappeared. So the hospitals are much smaller. Most care is given on an outpatient basis. There is much more emphasis on preventive and maintenance care than on post-illness care. And people don't stay in hospitals for long periods of time. And they're not cold, sterile places; they're nurturing places. But there is this mix of biological, organic medicine, genetic engineering, and mechanical technologies. So it looks very different. And there are lots of little clinics. They describe a kind of extended village life. The communities sound to me like they are in the 5000-10,000 people range, towns. REDWOOD: Did the 2050 viewers say much about the economic arrangements in this decentralized setup? SCHWARTZ: People get together who are interested in the same thing in a town, and they work as a group to produce something. I've been thinking a lot about this recently. As I look at the outsourcing that is going on, where jobs are going overseas, what I think the 2050s are talking about is that people develop skill sets and they market them all over the world because of the information revolution. So it's a kind of re-tribalization and guilding. It produces a very different social order. It is not a bleak vision of the future. When you see movies about the future, like The Matrix, it's always so mechanistic, cold and machiny and inorganic and deadly. I don't get any of that. Housing is much more energy conserving. I'm just posting an article on the Schwartzreport today about materials we can make buildings out of that will suck pollutants out of the air. So this has already begun. The 2050s are describing constructions that are much more energy efficient, with much better insulation, more organic. They are scaled to people size. And you don't live in a place where you don't know your neighbors. People are much more engaged in the community. So it's not a bad world. REDWOOD: Did these future viewers talk at all about diet and what we will be eating? SCHWARTZ: In a way. They talk about communal growing of foods. Also, sanitation is handled differently. They describe something like what is done now in Davis, California where sewage is purified by plants, with pools of organisms that eat the stuff, and out flows fresh water. But not all of them. There are also these militaristic communities where people are very rigid about everything. It all depends on the people.
TRIGGER WARNING: This post talks about violence, racism, and death. Some links included may use graphic images or videos. Comments are disabled on this thread. If you have more resources to share please create a new thread using the flair "Resource". New information welcome! Recently, a lot has been happening. Besides this pandemic, we have seen a recent resurgence in civil rights activity, for good cause. "I can't breathe" For eight minutes and forty six seconds, George Floyd fought for his life as a white police officer knelt down with a knee on his neck. The three other officers involved did not try to stop him. As he begged for his life, bystanders filmed on their phones and pleased with the officers to stop. Since these horrible events, peaceful protests have been organized in the US and around the world. During this time, we have witnessed violent police brutality against peaceful protesters. The free press has been harrassed, arrested, and hurt by police as they try to carry out their duties to our "democracy" as journalists. While some corporations and politicians have been quick to say that something should be done, there has been a lack of meaningful actions taken. The worst part: this is not new. This is simply a continuation of the deep-seated racism that has plagued America since its establishment. These are dark times and many of us are confused about how to appropriately move forward and help those around them who are suffering. It's important to remember that silence is not an option. While we realize that as individuals, we may not have the power to make the great changes that need to be made, it's important for this subreddit to remain available for support and advice. And even if we cannot make huge changes on our own, we can still work to point you to places where you yourself can help and be an ally.
If you can protest, be sure you are doing so safely. There is still a pandemic happening and it didn't go away just because our attention began turning towards civil rights.
Here is a list of places you can donate. Here is a list of bail funds for those arrested, policy advocates, and charities that support the black community.
There is also a list of changes you can make in your personal life, books you can buy, businesses you can support, and various ways you can contribute to the movement.
This may not be a subreddit for politics or current events, but this reality affects interracial couples, too and it is important for us to acknowledge that and refrain from remaining silent.
2020.07.24 01:15 steelmanfallacyAge Gap Relationship Survey Results - Part #1
We are an AGR couple...Nadia, the girlfriend (F27), and Fynn, the boyfriend (M49). We recently created a survey because we were curious about age gap relationships (we're obviously in one ourselves). We love reading the stories in this sub and elsewhere on Reddit and we're both a bit nerdy so we decided to see if we could collect some data and help learn if there are some common patterns that we could find in AGRs. We also love stories so it was a bit of an effort to collect "anecdata". So the initial survey was using the free version of Survey Monkey which limited it to just 10 questions and 40 responses. We blew through that in like 45 minutes so we upgraded to the paid version of the survey tool and kept getting more and more survey responses. We added questions to the survey in a couple of tranches until it grew up to 27 questions. In total we collected 526 valid responses before we closed the survey. For the past few days, we've been reading through the survey responses and crunching the numbers. This post is the first of what we imagine is a few that will hopefully shed some light on age gap relationships but more importantly, we're hoping to spur more conversations and elicit even more stories.
The core idea of the survey was to ask the respondent to rate how happy they are with their AGR. We also ask them to rate how happy they think their partner is with the AGR. That's the main gist of it. We then also ask a ton of demographic and behavioral questions with the goal to see if certain things affect the overall happiness of the partners. So of the 27 questions, most of them are demographic or behavioral attributes like:
Age of the participants / age gap
Who is filling out the survey (younger / older partner)
How the couple met
And many more factors. We'll be diving into a bunch of these looking for takeaways. We don't want to get ahead of ourselves, but while the data are interesting (sometimes very much so), we have to say that the parts that we found most interesting were the stories survey respondents told. The questions sometimes had "other" and a field for comments. Some of the respondents told amazing stories in these comments. But we also asked respondents to "tell us their story" or "what advice would you have for other age gap couple?" and the answers do not disappoint. We'll be sharing those later.
But first, some disclaimers. Neither of us are researchers trained in the arts of survey design or even data analysis. We're nerds who love this stuff and are always learning more, but I'm sure we've made tons of mistakes and we look forward to you all pointing them out so we can learn even more. All of the respondents came from Reddit subs (here and a handful of others). This wasn't a randomized survey. Because we added questions over a couple of days, we don't have answers to all of the questions for all of the surveys. Of the 526 complete surveys, only 193 answered all 27 questions. You'll see for some of the questions we added later, where we have somewhere between 193 and maybe 300 responses, we *assume* that those responses are representative of the entire panel of respondents. We could be wrong on that. We were not able to control for duplicates, so it's possible some people submitted multiple surveys. I'm sure there are other assumptions...we'll update this section as appropriate.
So the first post is going to focus on the demographics of the survey respondents. As we mentioned earlier, there were 526 complete responses (bearing in mind that the first few hundred responses were only asked 10-15 questions and we added questions later). So when it makes sense, you'll see the number of respondents in the data that we share. One of the first questions we asked was about gender. As seen in this chart, the vast majority of respondents (77%) were female. About 1% were nonbinary, agender, or transgender and the remainder (about 21%) indicated male. Frankly we were a bit surprised at first that there was such a heavy skew toward female responses, but upon further reflection we thought that since most of the respondents were the younger partner (which is more often than not the female) and also given that this subreddit has more of a "relationship discussion" feel to it that it does seem reasonable to have a large female skew. Another thing we were curious about was whether we had enough data to look at homosexual as well as heterosexual relationships. But we only had data on 13 homosexual relationships (less than 3% of the respondents) which means for these survey results at least, we're going to focus on the heterosexual AGRs. Perhaps another survey in the future will allow us to look more deeply into homosexual relationships. 391 of the respondents indicated they were the younger partner. Of those, we had age data for 234 and the median age of the younger partner is 24.5 years old. Of the 135 respondents that indicated they were the older partner, we had age data for 79 of them and their median age was 45. We suppose it makes sense given the demographics of Reddit that we would have a sample biased toward the younger partner in the AGR. Something to keep in mind when we look at the happiness data is the perspective and whether if differs between the youngeolder partner. When we look at just the younger partner respondents, the range was wide from the youngest (17) to the oldest (56). We cross referenced the age of the younger partner and the age gap which you can visualize in this heat map. The rows are the age of the younger respondent and the columns is the age gap (5-year ranges). The colors are green (low frequency), yellow (medium frequency), and red (high frequency). The most common age / age gap is 23 years old for the younger partner and an 11-15 year age gap. 80% of the younger respondents are 29 years old or less. And, in fact, the most common age gap for younger partner respondents is 11-15 years, however as this chart shows, there is a wide distribution of age gaps ranging from <5 to >30 years. If we look at the older partner respondents, we see a different pattern in the age gap by age data which you can see from this chart. The most common age gap is still 11-15 years. We also found that 56 were AGRs where the male was the younger partner in the couple, or just over 10% of the responses to the survey. The age gap for younger male couples seem to be a bit smaller than with younger female couples. This chart shows that the most common age gap is 5-10 years (compared to 10-15 for younger female couples). We find this to be an interesting data point. Just anecdotally, it feels like far fewer than 10% of the posts in /agegap are about a younger male couple so perhaps these relationships are under represented in the forum? An interesting question. We also looked at the length of the AGR. While about 1/3 of AGR couples have been together *already* for less than one year, we were surprised to learn that 30% have been together for 1-2 years and a whopping 15%+ have been together for more than 5 years! Based on the comments there were some couples who had been together for 30 or even 40+ years. Very heart warming stories we hope to share later. We looked at ethnicity as well. The overwhelming majority (75%) of respondents identified as white as were their partners (77%). Zooming in on the younger partner, we found about 8% identified as Asian and another 8% identified as multiracial. This one was hard. As an interracial couple ourselves, we were sort of hoping to see more interracial couples (selfishly wanted to see more data on that) but we didn't really get enough data to dive more deeply into that. Perhaps an AGR is hard enough so interracial AGRs are just that much more rare? We did ask a bunch more questions on things like height and body type. We're very skeptical that these have any impact on happiness, but if we get bored we might go back and look. We only mention it in case someone has a theory they want to share that we can investigate further. The majority (nearly 60%) of respondents indicated "Dating" when asked about their relationship status. But another 12% were engaged to be married and nearly 19% were married already. There were another 10% that listed "other" on relationship status and those included answers like, FWB, cohabitating, split apart, sugar dating, "it's complicated", and many other descriptions. What's clear is that AGRs can be just as simple or just as complicated as non-AGR relationships! We also asked what their living arrangements were. 51% indicated they were living together and since we're in a LDR at the moment, we were *very* jealous! But actually 11% of respondents were, like us, in a long distance relationship, so that will definitely be something that we analyze in our next post on the happiness results. We asked respondents how they met and these data were fascinating. 19% met on regular dating website or apps. We were surprised at first at how low that figure was. At least 55% of the first connections were made in-person. That's very different (we think) from non-age gap dating these days (even for older demographics). There were some interesting findings like 7% of couples met via websites that specialize in sugar dating. Another 18% indicated "other" and reading through the comments there are so many different ways couples met including, online gaming, kink sites like Fetlife, randomly through sites like Omegle, Church, school, parents, jury duty, the list goes on. Some of these stories are amazing! We're going to talk more about the anecdotes in the 3rd post on the survey results and we assure you that you'll be excited...we were!
What is next?
So this pretty much wraps up "part 1" (the demographics). Next will be "part 2" which will focus on the overall happiness data. This includes happiness of the respondent, their partner, family members' approval, etc. We'll look at happiness and how that varies by all the different demographic data we described above. For example, does happiness vary by age gap? Or does it vary by how the couple met? Finally, in "part 3" we're going to dive deep into the "stories." We collected a bunch of stories asking questions like, "What do you worry about most?" or "What advice do you have for other AGR couples just getting started?" And our favorite, "What's your story?" Some of these are just heartwarming. Others sad so strap yourself in! Let us know what you think so far. Is this interesting? What are your hypotheses? The more we can hear, the more we'll be able to answer as we do the data analysis. And hopefully we can use these data to dispel some myths and make things easier for folks interested in age gap relationships. Thanks for reading! Nadia & Fynn PS. We've been toying with the idea of either creating a blog or launching a website (with a blog) so we can post more of these data and the surveys in a format that's more readable (e.g. including charts and graphics). What do you think? How interesting would you find that?
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Race/ethnicity
Mariah Carey - Butterfly - YouTube
Two Moon Junction (1988) FULL - YouTube
My Experience As A White Man Dating A Black Woman - YouTube
Mariah Carey - Through The Rain (Official Video) - YouTube
J20200405 メッセージ「人類の出エジプト」 - YouTube
Delta of Venus  - YouTube
What White Men are Saying About Dating & Marrying Black ...
Smug Nazi FAILS To Cherrypick Data And Prove Interracial ...
Dating And Race - Color Still Matters - YouTube
Chris Rock Interracial Relationships Legendado YouTube ...
︎ ︎ TO ENROLL IN THE BEST-SELLING PINK PILL COURSE: https://www.beyondblackwhite.com/pink-pill/ ︎ ︎ Subscribe to Beyond Black & White Elites here: https://w... 'Butterfly' by Mariah Carey Listen to Mariah Carey: https://MariahCarey.lnk.to/listenYD Subscribe to the official Mariah Carey YouTube channel: https://Maria... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. 第26回京都賞 高校生特別授業「人間万事塞翁が馬」京都大学iPS細胞研究所所長 山中 伸弥 教授 2010年11月16日 - Duration: 1:20:47. Kyoto-U OCW 437,008 views 'A person's race is still a major factor when picking a partner, according to a study of dating app users. Research examining the preferences of Facebook dat... *Perhaps due to its sexual nature, the syndication settings were automatically switched during the upload to prevent mobile viewing. This is something I have... A struggling American writer (England) and a fellow American expatriate (Mandylor) begin a sordid affair among the chaos and discord of 1940 Paris, France on... This was such a fun video to do! John and I sat down, and I asked him all about his experience as a white man dating a black woman! We have conversations lik... #Breadtube #Politics #Response Be sure to join the NEW fan discord and follow my Twitch and Twitter through the link down below! Also Be sure to Check out my... Music video by Mariah Carey performing Through The Rain. YouTube view counts pre-VEVO: 3,004,454. (C) 2002 The Island Def Jam Music Group #MariahCarey #Throu...