When we find something "negative" out about ethnic minorities, why..

[mrmitchell]

Does anyone have any data for crime rates across income groups, and then income groups across race? That would be helpful to know.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

No. That's the point.

There are figures around conviction rates for certain crimes, but that's another matter.

[Dauphin]

Don't start getting into crime data, if its anything like the other thread you'll get into a quagmire of how the stats are skewed by a myriad of different causes.

[ErikM]

It was done to death. After controlling for income, schooling, average income in the neighborhood and all other explanatory variables one can think of blacks still do have higher crime rate. Of course one cannot rule out that this is due to racial profiling or so such.

Methinks nobody can deny that different countries/ cultures/ ethnic groups have a different set of social traits. It is also fairly obvious that African-Americans have their own culture which is in some ways similar to and in some ways different from the overall American culture (if there is such a thing ). So correspondingly I see nothing obviously wrong in suggesting that certain cultural traits of AA make them more likely to commit crimes (which may or may not be true). It's just a theory in the same league as the "protestant work ethics" or suchlike.

It is just so happens that a cultural divide between AA and other Americans coincides with the racial division. So a statement like above automatically gets labelled as rasist, although it really isn't.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Technically it does.

Not if it's true

(I'm not saying it is, just point out )

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


There are no significant differences between races, as we are all about 99.99999% genetically identical. And the .0000001 is the information which determines your skin color and other various family and/or ethnic features. But these do translate into racial differences, so Cali is correct.

Though keep in mind you're also 95% identical to a chimp, and 50% gentically indentical to a banana.

Irrelevant. Genes don't measure how similar your traits are. There is some correlation, but having a 95% match doesn't mean I'm 95% like them.

[Japher]

Genes don't measure how similar your traits are

Teach us young skywalker.

Have you stepped into the Nedaverse?!!

[RGBVideo]

When we find something "negative" out about ethnic minorities, why are people so quick to shout "racism"?

I don't understand what you mean with that, actually. An example would be helpful.

EDIT: Oh, he ment things like this:

PA, IMO, has a point. "White Men Can't Jump", we have no rhythmn, we can't rap, we like NASCAR, etc... These are awful prejudisms. Yet, no white man is pointing a finger and yelling "racism"... Yet, if you say "Black Neighborhoods see more crime" (a bad stat.) you get called a racist just as quickly as if you say "Black people are better a certain sports" (a good stat)...

Never heard stuff like this in Finland. You Americans are weird.

[RGBVideo]

EDIT: Checked the word from an English dictionary which is written for English-speaking people. It was a translational error. You Americans have a weird language, too.

[Verto]

That isn't a difference between two races.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Japher
Teach us young skywalker.

Have you stepped into the Nedaverse?!!

No, it's simple biology.

If my genome has a 95% match with a monkey's, that really doesn't tell me anything about how similar I am phenotypically (that is, in terms of traits that are expressed) to a monkey. It just shows probable evolutionary relationship, and it is likely that we share some characteristics. This is for two reasons - first, a heck of a lot of the genome codes for relatively basic things universal to ALL eukaryotic cells, from fungi to dinosaurs to protozoans, and have nothing to do with the multicellular level. Second, relatively small changes in the genome can have HUGE consequences at the level of the entire organism.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Verto
That isn't a difference between two races.

Besides skin color and certain genetic tendencies, and the fact that many people of a particular race happen to share similar circumstances.

[Space05us]

Irrelevant. Genes don't measure how similar your traits are. There is some correlation, but having a 95% match doesn't mean I'm 95% like them.

please, please, please, explain why I look like my relatives. I had thought it was because of genes, but you say otherwise.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Space05us

Irrelevant. Genes don't measure how similar your traits are. There is some correlation, but having a 95% match doesn't mean I'm 95% like them.

please, please, please, explain why I look like my relatives. I had thought it was because of genes, but you say otherwise.

/me gives skywalker a RK-62 *
Punish the ignorant prole scum with thine knowledge, shall you?

If I'll try, I'll most probably **** something up with this unpractical, anomalous, strange language again.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Space05us

Irrelevant. Genes don't measure how similar your traits are. There is some correlation, but having a 95% match doesn't mean I'm 95% like them.

please, please, please, explain why I look like my relatives. I had thought it was because of genes, but you say otherwise.

You share a smaller percent of your genome with your mom than you do with a male chimp, say, but you are more phenotypically similar to her than to the male chimp (correct me if I'm wrong ). % correlation of genotype cannot be directly translated to % correlation of phenotype.