Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Well that didn't take long (Score 1) 251

You're still not getting it. Let's try with a simple example.

There are 5 green people in the country. There is one act of violence committed by green people.

That does not mean that 5 green people committed the violence. One did, so 20% of green people are violent criminals.

Likewise, with the black population, it's a small percentage of them that commit violent crimes. It's just that it's a) a significantly higher percentage than is present in whites, and b) that they tend to commit more violent crimes.

If blacks are 14% of the population, and their rate is equal to the general population, they would be expected to commit 14% of the violent crime. If their offender rate is 2x the average, then they would be committing 28% of crimes. At 4x, it would be a hair over 50%, which is where we are.

That 4x includes both percentage of people that are offenders, and the higher likelihood of reoffending.

This is about rates - if the offense rate is 1% of the population size, that does not mean that 100 people commit every crime. It means that closer to 1% of the population are offenders.

Comment Re: idiotic (Score 1) 251

"they're making false reports by misidentifying race"

Well, yes, but part of that is because they didn't have any races other than white and black for some time in the crime reports. As such, a lot of the crimes were lumped in with white that shouldn't be.

They have gotten better about reporting, and that's part of why the white rate has gone down, and the minority rate has gone up. It's still an issue, though, because departments are still pressured to make it look like they are less racist, and not all departments have changed. That's why if you look at most wanted posters, they have large number of "white" criminals that clearly aren't. They cook the numbers to look like it's white people committing those crimes instead.

Comment Re: idiotic (Score 1) 251

The example I was replying to (eye color) was legal to discriminate against. It's actually illegal to discriminate on the basis of immigration status.

In the US, the I-9 form specifically states that even discrimination on the basis of a future date may be illegal discrimination, and employers are required to post posters saying "if you have the right to work, don't let them take it away".

It shouldn't be illegal, but it is.

Comment Re:idiotic (Score 1) 251

"Imagine people with your colour eyes statistically committed more crimes."

Ok. That's easy. I'm Mexican, so we do statistically commit more crimes. I'm relatively light skinned, though, so in the winter I'm generally seen as white.

"But doors keep slamming in your face"

Ok. I support the right of voluntary association and don't want anyone forced into doing business with me.

"You apply for jobs you are well qualified for, but don't even get an interview."

Oh, so like when I was qualified and able to legally work, but nobody wanted to hire me due to limitations on my permit, and no desire to sponsor me as an immigrant?

Yeah, been there, done that.

"Eventually you find somewhere but they want to pay you less than your graduate friends."

Like my employer who demanded full time hours, but would illegally pay me part time, on top of paying a official salary a fraction of what citizens earned?

Sounds familiar.

"And you can't take it anyway, because no one will rent to you."

Oh, you can find rentals. They just aren't always good ones, and they can be a ways from the job. Fortunately, we had decent mass transit. In another place we lived, we found a landlord who did month-to-month rentals, so he could kick out the problem tenants quickly. It avoided the issue of no credit and no rental history.

"Would you accept that as fair"

Yes, I would.

"would you want the law changed to stop it? "

Not at all. If anything, having gone through immigration, I want the restrictions tightened. I have seen so much fraud, crime, and abuse - those who would abuse the system and exploit it give us a bad name.

I understand when people blame Mexicans for higher rates of crime, because we commit higher rates of crime. Trying to legislate away reality is stupid.

"What would you do at that moment?"

Work hard enough and develop my skills enough to ensure that I'm a member of the professional class, where there is a lot less discrimination. Develop enough of a history that I can be judged on my own merit, move out of the big city, and build enough credit that I can buy a home. The banks only care about the colour of your money, and when you don't have a landlord, they can't very well judge you.

I also changed my name to something that didn't sound Mexican. It simplified things.

It's not reality's job to conform to my expectations - it's my job to conform to reality. I can't legislate tolerance, even if I wanted to.

Comment Re:idiotic (Score 1) 251

"Yet, black people still get pulled over more"

Evidence-based policing. Profiling works, and there are certain traits that tend to get one pulled over, because they have an excuse (or make one) and are looking for other crimes.

I used to drive a large tinted van with limo tint and plates from a southern state. I'd get pulled over all the time because they thought I was running drugs. I wasn't, but I fit the profile. I'd be told that my license plate light was out, then go to replace it and it wasn't broken at all. Or, I was "weaving".

As a result of profiling, however, if you're black, you're more likely to get caught. So, even though blacks commit a crime at a higher rate (hence the profiling), they end up arrested at an even higher rate.

For "bonus" points, blacks tend to have bad attitudes towards the police and courts (some of it justified), and the police react rather badly to bad attitudes, leading to an even higher arrest rate. Judges tend to be lenient towards first time offenders, and people who show remorse.

Culturally, white individuals are taught to show (or at least fake) remorse more often than blacks ("apoligize, say you're sorry"), and are less likely to hold the system in visible contempt. Due to the lower criminality, and lower likelihood of getting caught, they are also less likely to be seen as repeat offenders.

So, the system screws over black people, and it's part their fault, and part the system's fault.

Comment Re:idiotic (Score 1) 251

It does, as long as the individual in question has a significant history with the site, and the site takes reasonable measures to protect the integrity of their rating system.

"If a black guy has lots of good Airbnb reputation, you're still not going to rent to him?"

Generalizations serve a useful role when someone doesn't have history. We often don't have experience with which to judge a person, so we have to generalize based on what we are able to judge of a person.

Once we have good enough data on a person, then we can start treating them individually.

Comment Re:idiotic (Score 0) 251

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe criminality is more closely correlated to socio-economic forces than race."

Ok, you're wrong. The hispanic population isn't significantly wealthier than blacks, but the crime rate is significantly lower, even at the same level of income.

Furthermore, poor white people commit crimes (especially violent crimes) at a lower rate than their black counterparts at the same income.

Most of the crime involving blacks is black-on-black.


This has been going on for some time. For decades, researches have wanted to blame it on poverty, but the evidence is not there.

"When you adjust for income your argument completely falls apart"

No, it doesn't. When you adjust for IQ it does, but that's where the problem ultimately lies. A black person with an IQ of 100, and a white person with an IQ of 100 will tend to be rather similar, but there are significant differences in population distribution. There's quite a few reasons for disparity in income, but it's a symptom, not a cause.


"Despite repeated claims to the contrary, there has been no narrowing of the 15- to
18-point average IQ difference between Blacks and Whites (1.1 standard deviations);
the differences are as large today as they were when first measured nearly
100 years ago. They, and the concomitant difference in standard of living, level of
education, and related phenomena, lie in factors that are largely heritable, not
cultural. The IQ differences are attributable to differences in brain size more than to
racism, stereotype threat, item selection on tests, and all the other suggestions given
by the commentators. It is time to meet reality. It is time to stop committing the
“moralistic fallacy” that good science must conform to approved outcomes."

Comment Re: It's my house though (Score 1) 251

A few more nightclub dress codes:


No athletic wear, baggy clothing, and chains.


No athletic wear, du rags, bandanas, baggy clothing, or ball caps.


No athletic wear, sideways backwards baseball caps, baggy clothing, doo rags.


Baggy clothing, flat bill hats, chains, athletic apparrel.

Many of the dress codes prohibit "work boots", which is because a lot of black people like wearing Timberlands.

Comment Re: Well that didn't take long (Score 1) 251

"Notice how you're alleging 46 million people are responsible for around half of 1.5 million violent crimes, or say 750,000.
That means you'd have to be asserting that each of those violent crimes involves an average of around 60 people."

That's not how math works. If we say that 46,000,000 people are responsible for 750,000 violent crimes, and we assume that each crime is committed by a different person, it would mean that one in 60 black people is a violent criminal, not that each act is committed by 60 people. That's 1.6%.

Given that 4.7% of black males are incarcerated, and that individuals can commit more than a violent crime (meaning that the percentage of violent criminals would be even lower), that's not unreasonable at all. It also jives with the FBI crime numbers.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I just want to be a good engineer." -- Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer, concluding his keynote speech at the 1988 AppleFest