• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Split Thread Racism and Mass shootings

When we have found one correlation, do we assume that that is the cause, or do we look for possible alternatives?

We surely consider any and all reasonable alternative explanations, and should. But ones with reasonable explanatory power get first dibs. For instance, worldwide and historically, males commit drastically, overwhelmingly more rapes, murders, assaults, and mass shootings than females Our provisional explanation is that men are more inclined to physical violence than women. Is that fair? Do we need to consider diets?
 
Last edited:
We surely consider any and all reasonable alternative explanations, and should. But ones with reasonable explanatory power get first dibs. For instance, worldwide and historically, males commit drastically, overwhelmingly more rapes, murders, assaults, and mass shootings than females Our provisional explanation is that men are more inclined to physical violence than women. Is that fair? Do we need to consider diets?
If there is prior plausibility for diet causing changes in violent behaviour, then absolutely. What other correlations for mass shootings might there be?

Seems to me that certain people are seeing "black" as sufficient explanation.
 
Why does the race of the shooter even matter? Reduce the number of shootings, and you will reduce the number of black people shooting. I'd be more interested in other correlations, like socioeconomic status.

What is your motivation for using this incredibly strange methodology?

You want to look for other correlations, while disregarding the extraordinarily obvious one.

As mentioned before, a racist would be eager to point out that black men are responsible for a disproportionate number of shooting in the US. Does that fact intimidate you into trying to wish it away?
 
worldwide and historically, males commit drastically, overwhelmingly more rapes, murders, assaults, and mass shootings than females Our provisional explanation is that men are more inclined to physical violence than women. Is that fair?

Sure, it's fair. But it's really just more or less a restatement of the original observation:

males commit drastically, overwhelmingly more rapes, murders, assaults, and mass shootings than females > men are more inclined to physical violence than women

Instead we want to know why is it that men are more inclined towards physical violence (rapes, murders, assaults, and mass shootings) than females.

I can spitball some possible answers having to do with culture, gender roles, and genetics. There's probably a multifactorial answer something like that.
 
If there is prior plausibility for diet causing changes in violent behaviour, then absolutely.

Not to that degree, worldwide and historically, methinks. Inadequate explanation.

What other correlations for mass shootings might there be?

Oodles. How many committed doing a full moon. Or when wearing last years fashion. But we are talking about explaining one overpowering correlation, not exploring others

Seems to me that certain people are seeing "black" as sufficient explanation.
That's true, certain do see it that way. I personally find that to be an insufficient explanation. Kind of a stupid one too, not to mention hateful at it's core.

But the correlation itself is powerful, and indisputable. So I'd suggest looking for an element that would account for motivating a large demographic. Like, cultural identifications, maybe?
 
Last edited:
Oodles. How many committed doing a full moon. Or when wearing last years fashion. But we are talking about explaining one overpowering correlation, not exploring others
Exactly my point. Thank you. This one particular correlation is getting all the attention, despite there being potentially oodles of others. Why do you think that might be? Why do you suppose certain people are focusing on blackness as the sole explanation for mass shootings?
 
Exactly my point. Thank you. This one particular correlation is getting all the attention, despite there being potentially oodles of others. Why do you think that might be? Why do you suppose certain people are focusing on blackness as the sole explanation for mass shootings?

It's the consistency. Doesn't matter the state or city, black males are disproprtionately the highest offenders. This is also true for Canada and the UK.
 
Why do you think that might be?

Black males - some but clearly not the majority - have a higher tendency to anti-social behavior.

Exploring the association between the 2-repeat allele of the MAOA gene promoter polymorphism and psychopathic personality traits, arrests, incarceration, and lifetime antisocial behavior

Analyses revealed that African-American males who carried the 2-repeat allele were, in comparison with other African-American male genotypes, significantly more likely to be arrested and incarcerated. Additional analyses revealed that African-American male carriers of the 2-repeat allele scored significantly higher on an antisocial phenotype index and on measures assessing involvement in violent behaviors over the life course.
 
Exactly my point. Thank you. This one particular correlation is getting all the attention, despite there being potentially oodles of others. Why do you think that might be? Why do you suppose certain people are focusing on blackness as the sole explanation for mass shootings?

And in getting down the terrible murder rate by firearms in the USA it makes not one iota of a difference, it is the number of guns and lack of gun control that causes that problem. If you really wanted to look at the group that has the highest correlation then it is males, yet for some reason the racists don't consider that correlation as important.
 
And in getting down the terrible murder rate by firearms in the USA it makes not one iota of a difference, it is the number of guns and lack of gun control that causes that problem. If you really wanted to look at the group that has the highest correlation then it is males, yet for some reason the racists don't consider that correlation as important.
Men is perhaps 2nd highest. I don't think many people have killed with firearms unless the have been in possession of a firearm.
 
And in getting down the terrible murder rate by firearms in the USA it makes not one iota of a difference, it is the number of guns and lack of gun control that causes that problem. If you really wanted to look at the group that has the highest correlation then it is males, yet for some reason the racists don't consider that correlation as important.

Really? If the black shooter numbers are so much higher than those of any other ethnicity, surely concentrating on those with a view to reducing them to , at worst, no more than the same frequency as the rest would make a significant difference?
 
Trausti said:
Why do you think that might be?

Black males - some but clearly not the majority - have a higher tendency to anti-social behavior.

Exploring the association between the 2-repeat allele of the MAOA gene promoter polymorphism and psychopathic personality traits, arrests, incarceration, and lifetime antisocial behavior

Analyses revealed that African-American males who carried the 2-repeat allele were, in comparison with other African-American male genotypes, significantly more likely to be arrested and incarcerated. Additional analyses revealed that African-American male carriers of the 2-repeat allele scored significantly higher on an antisocial phenotype index and on measures assessing involvement in violent behaviors over the life course.
This silly genetic nonsense was debunked in the 1970's.
 
Really? If the black shooter numbers are so much higher than those of any other ethnicity, surely concentrating on those with a view to reducing them to , at worst, no more than the same frequency as the rest would make a significant difference?

"Black" is now an ethnicity....

Whoops.
 
Exactly my point. Thank you. This one particular correlation is getting all the attention, despite there being potentially oodles of others. Why do you think that might be? Why do you suppose certain people are focusing on blackness as the sole explanation for mass shootings?

Because it's the only staggering statistical animality we have identified, except for the maleness thingy that we seem pretty casual about.

I mean, I agree that focusing exclusively on black perpetrators is entirely counterproductive. But by the same token, it shouldn't be shunned like the freaking plague when we are poking around with root problems and proposed solutions. We should be able to be, you know, skeptical adults and be able to talk about this monstrous problem, I all its facets, warts and all.
 
Really? If the black shooter numbers are so much higher than those of any other ethnicity, surely concentrating on those with a view to reducing them to , at worst, no more than the same frequency as the rest would make a significant difference?
Certainly that would be the racist approach.

The sexists would say the male shooter numbers are so much higher than those of any other sex, surely concentrating on those with a view to reducing them to , at worst, no more than the same frequency as the rest would make a significant difference.
The agists would say the young shooter numbers are so much higher than those of any other demographic, surely concentrating on those with a view to reducing them to , at worst, no more than the same frequency as the rest would make a significant difference.
The social justice campaigners would say the poor shooter numbers are so much higher than those of any other demographic, surely concentrating on those with a view to reducing them to , at worst, no more than the same frequency as the rest would make a significant difference.

I would say all are flawed by thinking that being black, being male or being poor, or being young is the only cause. That is patently not true as there are lots of people in those categories who don't kill with guns. We need to understand the causes much better and then look to address those causes wherever in the population they appear not simply concentrating on poor young black men.

That said. I would be interested with an experimental program which takes all young black Americans men out of poverty. Addressing several possible factors has to be be better than just one surely?
 
Certainly that would be the racist approach.

Only a racist?
The sexists would say the male shooter numbers are so much higher than those of any other sex, surely concentrating on those with a view to reducing them to , at worst, no more than the same frequency as the rest would make a significant difference.
The agists would say the young shooter numbers are so much higher than those of any other demographic, surely concentrating on those with a view to reducing them to , at worst, no more than the same frequency as the rest would make a significant difference.
The social justice campaigners would say the poor shooter numbers are so much higher than those of any other demographic, surely concentrating on those with a view to reducing them to , at worst, no more than the same frequency as the rest would make a significant difference.

I would say all are flawed by thinking that being black, being male or being poor, or being young is the only cause. That is patently not true as there are lots of people in those categories who don't kill with guns. We need to understand the causes much better and then look to address those causes wherever in the population they appear not simply concentrating on poor young black men.

A bizarre argument. I don't think even the most rabid racist, sexist, ageist or SJW really believes that.

That said. I would be interested with an experimental program which takes all young black Americans men out of poverty. Addressing several possible factors has to be be better than just one surely?

Or even all getting all young men out of poverty - it has to be better than addressing just one factor, doesn't it? Otherwise it could be considered racist.
 
.
Or even all getting all young men out of poverty - it has to be better than addressing just one factor, doesn't it? Otherwise it could be considered racist.

If the assumption is that the majority demographics of gun killers is the cause then you only need to address the potential cure at those demographics.

If you agree skin colour is irrelevant as a cause then yes you wouldn't restrict 'a cure' on that basis.

Personally I think taking all Americans out of poverty wouldn't just give a reduction (not an elimination) in Gun Crime but it would bring many other benefits to US society.
.
 
Because it's the only staggering statistical animality we have identified, except for the maleness thingy that we seem pretty casual about.

It's interesting how people react so very differently to those two simple facts from the data.


The fact that the shooters are disproportionately male: no one questions, denies, or struggles with this or insults or questions the motivations of those who mention it. Everyone just sort of ignores it and takes it as a given.

The fact that the shooters are disproportionately black: many will ask why we're not looking at other correlations, like poverty or diet, question the statistics, and insult or question the motivations of those who mention it.

I chalk it up to ideological hijacking of the critical thinking apparatus.
 
It's interesting how people react so very differently to those two simple facts from the data.


The fact that the shooters are disproportionately male: no one questions, denies, or struggles with this or insults or questions the motivations of those who mention it. Everyone just sort of ignores it and takes it as a given.

The fact that the shooters are disproportionately black: many will ask why we're not looking at other correlations, like poverty or diet, question the statistics, and insult or question the motivations of those who mention it.

I chalk it up to ideological hijacking of the critical thinking apparatus.

Perhaps thats because we all accept that there are mental/psychological differences between males and females that explain the difference in murder rate but many of us* don't accept mental/psychological differences between people of the same sex, but different skin color.

*myself included
 
Or even all getting all young men out of poverty - it has to be better than addressing just one factor, doesn't it?

1. Graduate high school
2. Get a job
3. Don't have children until you are married
 
Black males - some but clearly not the majority - have a higher tendency to anti-social behavior.
Even if I grant this as true, you're still not saying why this might be the case.

...I mean, I agree that focusing exclusively on black perpetrators is entirely counterproductive. But by the same token, it shouldn't be shunned like the freaking plague when we are poking around with root problems and proposed solutions. We should be able to be, you know, skeptical adults and be able to talk about this monstrous problem, I all its facets, warts and all.
I'm engaging and discussing, and you're using language like "shunned like the freaking plague"?

Note that at this time I have not accused anybody of racism. All I'm asking is why black people are the focus.
 
Even if I grant this as true, you're still not saying why this might be the case.

I did. Black males have a much higher 2-repeat MAOA activity. Add to that absent fathers, and the disproportionately high rate of black homicide offenders is not that suprising.
 
Even if I grant this as true, you're still not saying why this might be the case.

I'm engaging and discussing, and you're using language like "shunned like the freaking plague"?

Note that at this time I have not accused anybody of racism. All I'm asking is why black people are the focus.

49% of all murders are done by black people.

Yet black people make up only 13% of the USA.

Its a worthwhile discussion to have.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43
 
Last edited:
Why?

Why is the rate disproportionately high?

Discrimination, badly organized/structured welfare and other benefits, poor opportunities, legacy of single-parent homes, poor education, there are a lot of reasons.
 
Discrimination, badly organized/structured welfare and other benefits, poor opportunities, legacy of single-parent homes, poor education, there are a lot of reasons.
Those are not reasons, they are proximate causes. Why is there discrimination? Why are welfare and other benefits badly organised/structured? Why are there poor opportunities, poor education, and why do these factors affect black people more than they affect white people?
 
Those are not reasons, they are proximate causes. Why is there discrimination? Why are welfare and other benefits badly organised/structured? Why are there poor opportunities, poor education, and why do these factors affect black people more than they affect white people?

Structural racism and a legacy of racism, govt incompetence, an unfair economic system, corporate greed, list goes on.
 
I'm engaging and discussing, and you're using language like "shunned like the freaking plague"?

Not you personally mate. It's a meta complaint about these discussions.

Note that at this time I have not accused anybody of racism. All I'm asking is why black people are the focus.

And I've given my gut vibe on that. But you seem to be trying to lead the discussion in a different direction?
 
I'm wondering if people find this appropriate or harsh? I believe I heard she is facing 60 years.

I believe the charge and the verdict are appropriate. I think it's highly unlikely she will be sentenced to 60 years, however. But even if she were to get the maximum, I'm not sure it would be overly harsh. Four kids were brutally killed, and another 6 kids and a teacher were wounded as a result of her actions - an indirect result, to be sure, but only one step removed. And in court, on the witness stand, she explicitly stated that she felt no remorse for her decisions, despite the consequences.
 

Back
Top Bottom