On recent protests, and general criminology: " While there are some rich criminals, rich people commit crimes at a much lower rate than most of the population. This is because criminality is strongly correlated with things like low IQ, poor conscientiousness, inability to work with other people ect"
(https://www.reddit.com/r/MemeThatNews/comments/gsz9gs/weve_already_had_it_but/fsa1tas/?context=3)
posted on May 31, 2020 02:29 AM by
u/Katamariguy
52
u/Katamariguy33 pointsat 1590892656.000000
When actually presented with scientific papers cited, it is notable
that this user’s political positions turn out to be based on a
remarkably small slice of the literature.
It's almost as though the political position was used to *select* that slice, but that can't possibly be! What kind of person would do that? Just look for confirmation of their biases?
You need to understand that your motives and general trustworthiness are deeply suspect here, and until that basis of reasonable trust can be established a discussion of studies and facts and statistics probably isn't valuable. Do you understand why that is? You brought up anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers, so you should be familiar with the futility of discussing evidence with people who have a strong bias that they are embracing rather than resisting. You're just accusing *me* of it. But what about yourself first?
*Why* do you care so much about promoting the claim that criminality is genetic? What is your purpose in prioritizing this over so many other things? Do you even realize that you are?
Like here, this might illustrate what I mean:
>The reality is that the police almost always do their job correctly. That doesn't mean they don't fuck it up sometimes.
From what you know of what he's done, what do you believe is the just outcome for Derek Chauvin?
Do you even consider Derek Chauvin a criminal?
No, it's just a reference to a Lewis Carroll poem with an extra letter to find an available name. Thanks for the interesting coincidence to look up though.
Well it’s just “Boojum” so maybe not that interesting. Very popular place for students to get fast food in Belfast. Not exactly what you’d call “authentic” but it’s reasonably affordable and tasty as shit if you’re in the mood to completely stuff yourself.
Great marketers too. They used to give out free t-shirts to anyone who’d eaten there enough times, that you’d noticeably see around town a lot more often approaching deadline day.
Of course given the amount of food you could get there for only £5 it was pretty rare to see anybody in good shape wearing one.
Maybe they were making the same reference! The poem is "The Hunting of the Snark". All the uses of the word I'm familiar with come from there originally.
I know it well, in fact I can still remember the exact look and dimensions of the classroom at high school over a decade ago where it hung on the wall, but I don’t remember the specific word or where it is in the poem (then again with that poem who’s going to remember all the nonsense words?)
Hilarious that there is no attempt to grapple with the fact RICH PEOPLE DO NOT GO DOWN FOR CRIMES. How many of Jeffrey Epstein's friends are in prison? Is Putin in your rich people aren't criminal stats? How about those responsible for the 2008 financial crisis? What about when the Paradise Papers dropped and we found out that basically every wealthy person on the planet has enough wealth to end poverty and climate change stolen away from the rest of the world? Henry Kissinger is objectively a war criminal responsible for mass slaughters around the world and he's a beloved 'elder statesman'. Does your serious inquiry into how the justice system operates explain why all that is poor people's fault?
Like, holy hell, you're a one person argument against the idea that stupidity and criminality are powerfully correlated because you're dense as a neutron star but aren't in gaol.
Go talk to people on a golf course, everybody knows who the people with criminal money are, but there are good reasons to not rat out your golf buddies.
Hi, criminologist. You’re embarrassing yourself.
To start with, go away and think about what “crime” actually is, and how some behaviours are deemed criminal and others aren’t. You should see pretty quickly how dumb this entire line of argument is.
I suppose that’s me told, then?
I guess there must also be a great “because iq” explanation for why precisely the same behaviour that would get you a jail sentence in one context will get you a citation or medal in another.
The thing is that a serious study of “crime” reveals a huge amount about how contemporary society works, where power lies and how it is exercised, including the targeting and suppression of certain populations.
The fact that “marginal” populations, the poor and people of colour are incarcerated at far higher rates than wealthier and “whiter” sections of societies is an important fact, but when you address this phenomenon seriously and honestly rather than trying to repurpose it as a “race realist” talking point, it turns out that it reveals a strikingly different picture to that which dum-dums such as yourself are so anxious to present.
You did notice the goalpost was moved from crime to violent crime right? Which was what you mentioned in your 'think about what crime is' thing.
Weirdly, the angry post was an admission you were right, and now it is all about violent crime.
Why are you focused only on violent crimes here? The original discussion was about crime in general, and you were challenged in particular when it comes to nonviolent crimes like financial crimes or corruption. That you immediately fall back to violent crimes only seems like a pretty serious failure to address the criticism you've received. Care to give it a go? Do you think that financial crimes also correlate negatively with income? How does your model account for the fact that people with a higher income have access to better legal representation, are less likely to be targeted by law enforcement, and factors such as that? It seems like you're just ignoring a lot of potentially confounding factors and falling back to irrelevant arguments about violent crime when pushed.
You're not actually able to answer the very obvious flaws I've pointed out in your framework and it's telling you can't address them. Like, if your logic is unable to explain why the richest and most powerful of the world are nakedly corrupt and 'criminal' then there is a pretty gaping hole in your methodology.
You're talking about criminality as whole, but only looking at violent crime, and yeah, rich people probably don't commit as much violent crime because, why would they? That is not the kind of crime rich people really benefit from often, things like I've already mentioned are. The fact that our society is less capable of punishing the crimes of those who are powerful within it is not an accident. The aforementioned corruption has more significantly contributed to violence around the world by impoverishing or otherwise immiserating most of the world than any individual act of violent crime could possibly hope to, and yet you have no accounting for it when you sweepingly declare low income people to be innately criminal.
Also, adorable of you to somehow classify recognising that powerful people are corrupt as a kind of bigotry. I'm so sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities, do you have a preferred method of reference now? People of means? Bootpolish enthusiasts?
I mean sure, whatever, I'm not a specialist. I just don't think extending your case for ingrained evil to the case of Nazi Germany is a very sensitive thing to do without delicately acknowledging the controversial nature of the Sonderweg thesis and Daniel Goldhagen's book.
Just the opening part of that post is so stupid and uncritical of
statistics and the law… you would expect rationalists to know better but
nope.
‘According to the cops 99% of their shootings are justified’ … (I
gave up reading after this btw, this alone was to much for me).
E: There is also this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity it isn’t even some sort
of conspiracy theory, it just is law that cops get special killing
powers which shields them from responsibility.
Best to mention in the title that this is one of the LessWrong alumni
in the title so you don’t get me annoyed until I double-check the
username next time, because at first glance this was nothing to do with
that lot
I don't really know why you'd think I'm associated with LessWrong. I've posted there a few times, but I'm not really a part of the rationality community, as I think a lot of them fall into the trap of believing they're rational because they call themselves rationalists, and a lot of them have very... weird beliefs that are pretty irrational.
I got it in hearsay and I don’t care enough about somebody clearly struggling to keep the lid on their own irrational impulses to make too fine a distinction on this sub
Actually, it's the people who disagree with him who are racists - just look at how they ignore black-on-black crime and attack the most important protectors of minority communities, the police!
When actually presented with scientific papers cited, it is notable that this user’s political positions turn out to be based on a remarkably small slice of the literature.
Just the opening part of that post is so stupid and uncritical of statistics and the law… you would expect rationalists to know better but nope.
‘According to the cops 99% of their shootings are justified’ … (I gave up reading after this btw, this alone was to much for me).
E: There is also this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity it isn’t even some sort of conspiracy theory, it just is law that cops get special killing powers which shields them from responsibility.
e2: this is not an invitation to a debate.
Best to mention in the title that this is one of the LessWrong alumni in the title so you don’t get me annoyed until I double-check the username next time, because at first glance this was nothing to do with that lot
Wouldn’t be easier for these scumbags to just admit that they’re racist
we are talking about the same place where smoking pot is a crime and using tax havens isn’t?
Pretty roundabout. At a distance based on the premise, poverty, not the things mentioned, would be the more likely correlative.
It’s because when rich people steal someone’s shit they have the cops helping them instead of busting them.