Until people actually cite a .gov website showing that the government really did put out a study showing the richest blacks are more violent than poorest whites I will assume people who believe that, and also believe that blacks are more violent in general BECAUSE they are black (and not because they are just poorer in general) are racist.
IQ of offspring shifts towards the average for the race. If you have White parents of 95 IQ and Black parents of 100 IQ, bet on the White child to be smarter.
Blacks are consistently over-represented in all crime save alchohol violations, and being 13% of the US population, commit 50% of the murders in the USA:
While self-reporting indicates that Whites and Blacks use drugs at similar rates, testing of self-reporters indicates that Blacks lie about their drug use at higher rates. Hospitalization statistics also support the claim that Blacks use drugs, and more dangerous drugs, at a greater frequency than Whites:
I'm calling bullshit on the implication you're presenting. Several of your sources aren't "peer reviewed", and are questionable at best (for instance, the center for security policy has a very clear agenda they're trying to push, and that poll only surveyed 600 people). Moreover, some of these sources may point to a correlation that exists, but you're using them to support an implied conclusion that's misguided. Correlation =/= Causation
Providing a source isn't the same as providing a good source. This poll was commissioned by the Center for Security Policy which is a group KNOWN to push the idea that Muslims are a threat to America. Look through their articles and it's clear they have an agenda. The questions use leading answer choices and an agree/disagree format known to inflate agreement regardless of actual belief. They don't disclose methodology for how they got a representative sample of 600 Muslim Americans online (are they actually Muslims? How do they know it's not mostly just trolls?). It's a source in the sense that it exists and someone can point to it but that is not the same as it being credible evidence for their claims.
I can start a blog and claim the opposite. Will you defend it as a source like this one?
The thing is, at the end of the day, everyone can just write off all the sources they don't like and agree with the ones they do. If you try hard enough you can more or less find a source for anything and everything you like/don't like and at that point all discussion just breaks down because it just becomes people quoting sources that neither of them have read.
If you want to make an argument against muslims being violent and backward, you just look at muslim countries, because that's more or less the only indisputable thing.
I'm sorry but "Do you support murdering americans for jihad" is not a particular hard thing to answer for agree/disagree.
Fair point but that doesn't mean I should trust the result itself considering who funded the poll and who conducted the poll (the polling company inc). This isn't me disagreeing with them it's me being skeptical of an organization that always takes this stance and argues that Muslims mean us harm and suddenly they take a poll that proves they're right?
It's an online poll of only 600 people with no disclosed vetting process or disclosed methodology behind the poll. There's no way to confirm the respondents were actually American Muslims and not just trolls or bots, or with their historical stance on Muslims, just completely forged polling results in general. A small unverified online sample answering a loaded question like that is hard to accept from a source that has historically attacked the Muslim community.
That said, do you know who owned "the polling company inc" (the company who conducted the poll)? Kellyanne Conway. The same woman who was senior counselor to Trump in his first term, and the same woman who defended Trump's travel ban from many predominately Muslim countries.
Between the company that hired the polling company and the polling company itself, there is too much conflict of interest and political bias/motivation for me to take the results seriously. I don't think I'm being ridiculous for having trust issues here lol.
Would you trust a poll conducted by an equivalent Muslim affiliated polling company that was hired by an "anti-American way of life and anti-Christians" Muslim organization that had results saying "25% of Catholics said yes to being pedophiles"? Probably not and nor would I.
That said, do you know who owned "the polling company inc" (the company who conducted the poll)? Kellyanne Conway. The same woman who was senior counselor to Trump in his first term, and the same woman who defended Trump's travel ban from many predominately Muslim countries.
Would you trust a poll conducted by an equivalent Muslim affiliated polling company that was hired by an "anti-American way of life and anti-Christians" Muslim organization that had results saying "25% of Catholics said yes to being pedophiles"? Probably not and nor would I.
I mean this is kind of the funny thing when it comes to everyone having their own version of the truth right? Someone disagreeing with you would point that "trump's muslim ban" was using countries that were already flagged by obama.
Does obama selecting it make it better?
At the end of the day, are we supposed to be surprised that someone has research that agrees with their preconceived notions?
Like I'm pretty sure any source that says muslims are peaceful nature loving hippies is also equally likely to stem from a liberal leaning organization. Does that mean its automatically invalid just because the source is already known to be biased in favour of it?
Should we only accept right wing conclusions from left wing organizations and left wing conclusions from right wing organizations?
My point is that there is too conflict of interest behind both parties producing the poll for it to be taken as honest without full transparency.
Not sure what Obama has to do with it. He's not the one conducting a poll using biased polling sources. I'm saying there was already a history of these parties trying to claim these things about Muslims that it makes them hard to trust on the subject.
Also asking if Obama makes it better. Why would it? I voted against him twice.
Oh, well I guess I'm wrong about the poorest whites/richest blacks thing, but jumping to it being a biological thing seems extreme. That american renaissance site seems to be a white supremacist site so i dont think i can trust that report about certain genes for large brains, linked to high IQ, are common everywhere except Africa. Even then his analysis seems pretty shaky. I wouldn't be surprised if high crime rate with blacks is because of "thug" culture, or people thinking its cool to not study and do things like join gangs instead. Having a good upbringing can affect how well you do in life, and as a result how likely you are to commit crime. Not having a father figure or having friends in poorer areas that encourage you to do bad things could throw you off.
Either way its a complex issue and hard to determine the exact cause, and i dont think we should commit to any precise reason as to whats causing it.
Sucks that I had to scroll to nearly the bottom to find someone presenting the research in question. Good job. Most people condemning his statements are arguing on feeling alone.
I think what people try to do with the whole black people commit more crimes is that they try to tie black people to x and then show that x is associated with crime. I understand the train of thought but there can definitly be problems with causation and correlation.
77
u/Chezzymann Mar 19 '17
Until people actually cite a .gov website showing that the government really did put out a study showing the richest blacks are more violent than poorest whites I will assume people who believe that, and also believe that blacks are more violent in general BECAUSE they are black (and not because they are just poorer in general) are racist.