Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

26% of violent crime convicts account for 63% of violent crime conviction (2014)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 244 posts

Re: 26% of violent crime convicts account for 63% of violent crime conviction (2014)

#231

Post by Yetanfou »

pron wrote: post #220
belorn wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The left, and in particular the radical left, has no issue having such constant discourse in regards to men. Even in this article the politics of our day shows that gender is acceptable to call out but not race. This article shows the issue of doing so. The subtext from much of left literature is to instill the idea that violence is innately male (factually false) or that men are somehow intrinsically drawn to violen…

> The left, and in particular the radical left, has no issue having such constant discourse in regards to men. Why would there be? The point of view is not one of describing some hypothetical world but our concrete world. If in our concrete world the position of, say, white men and that of blacks is different, why would you even assume that the two should be treated the same in discussions of society? No sociologist,…

   > The left, and in particular the radical left, has no issue having such constant discourse in regards to men.
   Why would there be? The point of view is not one of describing some hypothetical world but our concrete world.
...but in that case the 'radical left' should not have any problems with factual conclusions about the over-representation of people from certain ethnic groups in crime statistics. As this is definitely not the case - anyone even hinting at this is soon labelled racist, cast out of the ingroup, no longer invited to the television studios to discuss politics with the in-crowd and generally portrayed as an all-out bad person - this statement falls flat on its face. The 'radical left', and especially that contingent which labels themselves as 'radical feminist' do make an exception for two distinct categories: men in general (around 50% of the population) and - to use their own terminology - 'cis-gender heterosexual white men' (and 'whites' in general). These groups can be singled out by their group membership and accused of all sorts of things without risk.

Re: 26% of violent crime convicts account for 63% of violent crime conviction (2014)

#232

Post by alecco »

coleifer wrote: post #40
splitrocket wrote: post #12

Humans consistently make the same mistake about understand the motivations, the inhibiting and promoting pressures of other people. We assume that everyone else is exactly like us. Therefore, when we build systems and institutions that attempt to alter behavior, we encode our own motivations and desires as the impetus. I.E. why we have UX researchers, do user testing, A/B testing etc when we develop products. Our ins…

Prison is a deterrent, certainly, but it also exists to keep violent folks away from the rest of society so they can't do more harm.

Most criminal cases don't get to a conviction. Ask a police officer. Save for very few countries (e.g. Japan)

Re: 26% of violent crime convicts account for 63% of violent crime conviction (2014)

#233

Post by Yetanfou »

pron wrote: post #230
belorn wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point should be to look at the current power in society in the context of the distribution . The top 1% in power is men, but the bottom 1% in power is also men. By selectively only looking at the top 1% we disregard the context of the other 99%, harming them in the process just like when we focus on Muslim terrorists rather than the 99% of Muslims who aren't terrorists. Worse we are doing double damage to those a…

> By selectively only looking at the top 1% we disregard the context of the other 99% But that's not what we do. First, instead of looking at just 2% of the population as you seem to suggest we should do, we look at all of them, and on the whole, much more power is held by men than by women. Second, we feminists generally care much more about the bottom 1% (or 50%) of society -- be they men, women, black or white --…

Just to show that 'the left' really means it when they state that it is 'racist' to relate criminality with ethnicity and religion here's a quote from the latest congress of the Swedish 'Vänster' (communist in all but name) party, published today in the Swedish media [1]:

   Kritikerna menar att det finns de som vill ha brottsstatistik
   över etnicitet, det är en helt annan debatt. Det är rasism att
   koppla ihop brott med etnicitet eller religion. Den debatten
   är bortspelad för länge sedan, förutom hos vissa moderater som
   vill värva röster från Sverigedemokraterna, säger Daniel Riazat.
This translates to:

   Critics state there are those who want to collect statistics
   on ethnicity related to criminality but that is an entirely 
   different debate. ___It is racist to connect crime with ethnicity
   or religion___. This debate has played out a long time ago apart
   from some 'Moderates' (neo-liberals) who want to gather votes
   for the Sweden Democrats (nationalists) says Daniel Riazat.
This is a literal quote from a congress which finished today, "It is racist to connect crime with ethnicity or religion".

[1] https://www.svd.se/v-vill-samla-in-info-om-etnicitet-och-rel...

Re: 26% of violent crime convicts account for 63% of violent crime conviction (2014)

#234

Post by weberc2 »

dang wrote: post #173
weberc2 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically it's the accusers of racism who make these conflagrations. These are usually well-intentioned progressives who, in their zeal to protect minorities, pounce on anything that could possibly be warped into an attack on minorities. For example, that time James Damore was crucified for suggesting that population level gender differences might better explain Google's hiring pipeline than discrimination.

Please don't take HN into full blown ideological flamewar. The more generic such tangents get, the more unmoored they become from anything specific the thread is discussing, and the more of a black hole they turn into. Your comment here is emblematic of exactly what HN discussions need not to do. That requires the strength to resist temptation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'm taken aback that my comment was "emblematic" of bad behavior. I made my critique charitably ("progressives are well-intentioned..."), and perhaps it was more generic than it could have been, it's certainly not in the bottom half of HN's distribution. I'll try to make my points more substantial going forward.

Re: 26% of violent crime convicts account for 63% of violent crime conviction (2014)

#235

Post by pron »

Yetanfou wrote: post #233
pron wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By selectively only looking at the top 1% we disregard the context of the other 99% But that's not what we do. First, instead of looking at just 2% of the population as you seem to suggest we should do, we look at all of them, and on the whole, much more power is held by men than by women. Second, we feminists generally care much more about the bottom 1% (or 50%) of society -- be they men, women, black or white --…

Just to show that 'the left' really means it when they state that it is 'racist' to relate criminality with ethnicity and religion here's a quote from the latest congress of the Swedish 'Vänster' (communist in all but name) party, published today in the Swedish media [1]: Kritikerna menar att det finns de som vill ha brottsstatistik över etnicitet, det är en helt annan debatt. Det är rasism att koppla ihop brott med…

Again, it is unfortunate that you confuse this with the statements I was talking about. I identify with this assertion, while still maintaining all I said above. It is possible for fact/claim X to not be racist at all in itself, and for the discourse of claim X to be extremely racist. I thought the story about the madman -- due to Kierkegaard -- clarified this point. So, it is very racist to connect crime with ethnicity; the fact that blacks are overrepresented among violent criminals does not, however, do that (indeed, this fact only reflects the racism towards blacks in the US), and is not in itself racist, although bringing it up may well be, depending on context.

Re: 26% of violent crime convicts account for 63% of violent crime conviction (2014)

#236

Post by pron »

Yetanfou wrote: post #231
pron wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The left, and in particular the radical left, has no issue having such constant discourse in regards to men. Why would there be? The point of view is not one of describing some hypothetical world but our concrete world. If in our concrete world the position of, say, white men and that of blacks is different, why would you even assume that the two should be treated the same in discussions of society? No sociologist,…

> The left, and in particular the radical left, has no issue having such constant discourse in regards to men. Why would there be? The point of view is not one of describing some hypothetical world but our concrete world. ...but in that case the 'radical left' should not have any problems with factual conclusions about the over-representation of people from certain ethnic groups in crime statistics. As this is defini…

> but in that case the 'radical left' should not have any problems with factual conclusions about the over-representation of people from certain ethnic groups in crime statistics.

We don't. We have a problem with the context this is brought up with. Like the Kiergegaard story about the madman and the round Earth.

> this is definitely not the case - anyone even hinting at this is soon labelled racist

Totally made up BS. If you choose to misunderstand things, that's not our fault. OTOH, people who believe that blacks are somehow more innately inclined towards crime -- a scientific fallacy -- are racist, and so their "labeling" as such is not only justified but necessary. I don't know what word best describes racism other than "racism".

Re: 26% of violent crime convicts account for 63% of violent crime conviction (2014)

#237

Post by scythe »

trophycase wrote: post #13
scythe wrote: post #11

The ORs for various factors are all lower than the OR for Y chromosomes. I take this to mean we don't really have a good model of what causes persistent criminality, but we do have good evidence that it exists. A frustrating situation.

Testosterone

The OR for "male" is also low... Just higher than the others.

Re: 26% of violent crime convicts account for 63% of violent crime conviction (2014)

#238

Post by Yetanfou »

pron wrote: post #235
Yetanfou wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to show that 'the left' really means it when they state that it is 'racist' to relate criminality with ethnicity and religion here's a quote from the latest congress of the Swedish 'Vänster' (communist in all but name) party, published today in the Swedish media [1]: Kritikerna menar att det finns de som vill ha brottsstatistik över etnicitet, det är en helt annan debatt. Det är rasism att koppla ihop brott med…

Again, it is unfortunate that you confuse this with the statements I was talking about. I identify with this assertion, while still maintaining all I said above. It is possible for fact/claim X to not be racist at all in itself, and for the discourse of claim X to be extremely racist. I thought the story about the madman -- due to Kierkegaard -- clarified this point. So, it is very racist to connect crime with ethnic…

Again, just to get back to the statement which launched this thread:

   Studies like this are hard, because they're usually labeled 'racist',
   or it turns into an ad hominem attack on the authors, or struck down
   in the media for singling out some minority group.
You stated this was not true, upon which many reactions - mine amongst them - came with citations to prove that the original claim was, indeed, true. I presented a few examples to prove this point but you keep on talking around the issue - "studies are labelled racist, authors are attacked verbally" (and sometimes physically, see the actions of Antifa/AFA and several islamist groups). The result of this is yet again shown by a study published by the Swedish defence academy ("Försvarshögskolan") which was recently published. To quote from an article published today on SVT (Sweden's national broadcaster) about the fact that Sweden has become a recruiting ground for islamic terrorism due to the fact that this activity was close to risk-free in this country [1]:

   Vilken roll kan det ha spelat?

   – Jag tror att den aktivism som fanns mot både Säkerhetspolisen
   och de som försökte lyfta allvaret i de här frågorna. Det gjorde
   att tröskeln blev högre för både politiker och andra att ge sig
   in i det här området, säger han.

   – Man riskerade att bli utpekad som rasist på ett sätt som man
   inte såg i andra europeiska länder. Där var den här frågan lika
   okontroversiell som vikten av att bekämpa nazism och högerextremism.
   Men i Sverige tog det lång tid innan det gick att diskutera jihadismen
   på samma sätt som vi under lång tid diskuterat nazism, säger Hyllengren.
Translated:

   What role can this have played?

   – I think that the activism against both the security services and those
   who tried to point out the seriousness of the situation [played a role].
   This made that the bar was raised both for politicians and other who
   would dare to speak out on these subjects, he said.

   – You ran the risk of being pointed out as racist in a way which was not
   seen in other European countries. There this question was as uncontroversial
   as the importance of fighting nazism and right-wing extremism. In Sweden on
   the other hand it took a long time before it was possible to discuss jihadism
   in the same way we've been discussing nazism for a long time, says Hyllengren.
This is, yet again, a literal quote proving the point of the original statement which launched this thread. While it is possible to discuss the finer details of what and why and how the extreme-left wants to put a racist label on this but no that, the fact stands and the effects it has on society are chilling. Where freedom of expression was once a stalwart talking point for the traditional 'left' the current stance taken by many of those identifying themselves as 'left-wing' is an anathema to this foundation of the enlightened society.

[1] https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/sverige-16

Re: 26% of violent crime convicts account for 63% of violent crime conviction (2014)

#239

Post by pron »

Yetanfou wrote: post #238
pron wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, it is unfortunate that you confuse this with the statements I was talking about. I identify with this assertion, while still maintaining all I said above. It is possible for fact/claim X to not be racist at all in itself, and for the discourse of claim X to be extremely racist. I thought the story about the madman -- due to Kierkegaard -- clarified this point. So, it is very racist to connect crime with ethnic…

Again, just to get back to the statement which launched this thread: Studies like this are hard, because they're usually labeled 'racist', or it turns into an ad hominem attack on the authors, or struck down in the media for singling out some minority group. You stated this was not true, upon which many reactions - mine amongst them - came with citations to prove that the original claim was, indeed, true. I presented…

> I presented a few examples to prove this point but you keep on talking around the issue

No, you most certainly have not. Study A that mentions claim X may be not racist, while study B that claims X may be racist. I said that A is not racist, and your examples of B being labeled racist do not disprove it. My whole point about the unfortunate misunderstanding is that people think that since B is racist (due to context) then X is "unfairly labeled as racist" when, in fact, it is not X which is racist, but B.

> This is, yet again, a literal quote proving the point of the original statement which launched this thread.

I don't know about the situation in Sweden so I can't comment on it. It's possible that what I said is not the case in Sweden. On the other hand, it is also possible that the person quoted, like you, misunderstands what it is that is labeled racist. I do know that claims like yours about X being labeled racist when it is, in fact, B which is called racist because it is racist, are made in the US as well, despite being generally false. It's like someone complaining about being laughed at while talking about, say, bed bugs, then saying that bed bugs are ridiculed, but neglects to mention that he was wearing a bug-shaped hat while talking about bed-bugs, and it is the delivery that was ridiculed. Context matters.

Re: 26% of violent crime convicts account for 63% of violent crime conviction (2014)

#240

Post by f137 »

derekdahmer wrote: post #117
zarkov99 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, more simply, you could incarcerate repeat offenders for longer periods of time.

That would work but incarceration is an unscalable solution. Some CA stats: - $71k/person/year - 130,000 inmates - 135% of capacity - highest rate of incarceration in the world We're maxed out - and all this doesn't even solve the root issues of mental illness and poverty. We need alternative ideas with better ROI.

Well, Gulag was profitable AFAIK
Post reply on HN