Time to get on the TRUMP train

[DirtyB]

From a purely scientific viewpoint, without getting into politics at all, most studies indicate blacks have the highest testosterone levels (there are different metrics that can be tested, i.e. free testosterone, total testosterone, DHT:testosterone ratio, but all of them come to the same basic conclusion). You could also just look at people with their shirts off or watch the fast-twitch events (sprinting, jumping) in a track and field meet and notice black people on average are much more mesomorphic and explosive, and come to the exact same conclusion with zero science.

Given what we know about the link between testosterone levels and aggression in every single mammalian species, from a purely scientific perspective blacks having higher genetic propensity towards aggression/criminality it is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis to make. That being said the sociological implications are such that I would tend to agree it is probably best we don't go down that rabbit hole.

That being said, I tend to think it would be much more productive to acknowledge how certain value systems lead to poor outcomes, and address those value systems, and I don't think focusing mainly on white privilege and police brutality is productive or helpful for anyone (except of course rich people who get to continue fleecing all the poor people while they are fighting/arguing amongst each other).

An impressively scientic post. Now you just need supporting data and citations, and we'll stop thinking you're a massive idiot.

[gimmick]

Is there study that proves it as a scientific fact? I was under the impression that no reputable study has ever been done as the topic is far too controversial.

i believe a scientist at rockefeller university in nyc (where dna was discovered btw) came up with some fairly disturbing data when he started unraveling race based dna analysis but he was absolutely crushed during peer review.

whether or not that response was emotionally based or based on valid flaws in the study is one of those questions that i genuinely dont think the world is in any rush to answer.

There are some studies about genes and gene pairings they keep finding from violent criminals that are more common to some races/ethnicities. Sometimes referred to as the warrior gene. I don't know too much about it. Some studies also how that interacts with alcohol/drug use.

Finns often do great in those and there might be some validity why select drinking establishment refused to serve to finns or indians in parts of America in the 19th and early 20th century.

[Mintjewlips]

I have supporting data and citations to prove that Barry's wife is very aggressive

[MumblesBadly]

From a purely scientific viewpoint, without getting into politics at all, most studies indicate blacks have the highest testosterone levels (there are different metrics that can be tested, i.e. free testosterone, total testosterone, DHT:testosterone ratio, but all of them come to the same basic conclusion). You could also just look at people with their shirts off or watch the fast-twitch events (sprinting, jumping) in a track and field meet and notice black people on average are much more mesomorphic and explosive, and come to the exact same conclusion with zero science.

Given what we know about the link between testosterone levels and aggression in every single mammalian species, from a purely scientific perspective blacks having higher genetic propensity towards aggression/criminality it is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis to make. That being said the sociological implications are such that I would tend to agree it is probably best we don't go down that rabbit hole.

That being said, I tend to think it would be much more productive to acknowledge how certain value systems lead to poor outcomes, and address those value systems, and I don't think focusing mainly on white privilege and police brutality is productive or helpful for anyone (except of course rich people who get to continue fleecing all the poor people while they are fighting/arguing amongst each other).

This blogger, self-titled "Race_Realist" on Twitter, presents a cogent argument against the connection between race-based differences in testosterone and crime.

https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/201...t-cause-crime/

[El Gallo]

The issue is not race, it’s poverty. It’s really hard to get out of poverty and to not pass it on to your children. Whites are just as unlawful when they are poor as any other race, they are simply given lighter sentences or the benifet of the doubt much more often.

[ErickAA]

From a purely scientific viewpoint, without getting into politics at all, most studies indicate blacks have the highest testosterone levels (there are different metrics that can be tested, i.e. free testosterone, total testosterone, DHT:testosterone ratio, but all of them come to the same basic conclusion). You could also just look at people with their shirts off or watch the fast-twitch events (sprinting, jumping) in a track and field meet and notice black people on average are much more mesomorphic and explosive, and come to the exact same conclusion with zero science.

Given what we know about the link between testosterone levels and aggression in every single mammalian species, from a purely scientific perspective blacks having higher genetic propensity towards aggression/criminality it is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis to make. That being said the sociological implications are such that I would tend to agree it is probably best we don't go down that rabbit hole.

That being said, I tend to think it would be much more productive to acknowledge how certain value systems lead to poor outcomes, and address those value systems, and I don't think focusing mainly on white privilege and police brutality is productive or helpful for anyone (except of course rich people who get to continue fleecing all the poor people while they are fighting/arguing amongst each other).

This blogger, self-titled "Race_Realist" on Twitter, presents a cogent argument against the connection between race-based differences in testosterone and crime.

https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/201...t-cause-crime/

I skimmed the article. The author seems to think evidence suggests what he terms "Culture of Honor" is a better explanation of aggression/criminality in certain social groups than testosterone levels, or other genetic factors. Which is basically what I said.

[Mintjewlips]

The issue is not race, it’s poverty. It’s really hard to get out of poverty and to not pass it on to your children. Whites are just as unlawful when they are poor as any other race, they are simply given lighter sentences or the benifet of the doubt much more often.

I won't accept this from you, Mexican immigrants who have only the clothes on their back come to this country and get out of poverty within a matter of a couple decades or so, I'm very sure you know some, just stop it with the self victimization bullshit..

[El Gallo]

The issue is not race, it’s poverty. It’s really hard to get out of poverty and to not pass it on to your children. Whites are just as unlawful when they are poor as any other race, they are simply given lighter sentences or the benifet of the doubt much more often.

I won't accept this from you, Mexican immigrants who have only the clothes on their back come to this country and get out of poverty within a matter of a couple decades or so, I'm very sure you know some, just stop it with the self victimization bullshit..

It’s much much harder when you are poor. That’s a fact

[El Gallo]

[vegas1369]

Whites are just as unlawful when they are poor as any other race.

Druff in that long post said this is not the case. That stood out as false to me, but I didn't bother looking into it. What's the data on this?

[peter mcneil]

Whites are just as unlawful when they are poor as any other race.

Druff in that long post said this is not the case. That stood out as false to me, but I didn't bother looking into it. What's the data on this?

Data is challenging to find. Nobody will attach themselves to data that suggests race is a larger indicator of crime than socio economics and with good reason, even if it's fact you will be accused a racist and they will come for your job or funding.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sourc...b8fGOD4oEkzuX3

When it comes strictly to homicide, race in the USA is a stronger indicator than socio economics. The more important question is why do people look for such simplistic answers to these difficult questions. Surely the race disparity problem in the USA is part racism and part cultural.

[vegas1369]

Big league interview with a WHOLE lot of new things to talk about. Apparantly the unedited version is the ramblings of a man that can not stay focused.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/2...ction=Politics

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/2...QECAEYAQ%3D%3D

[ErickAA]

Whites are just as unlawful when they are poor as any other race.

Druff in that long post said this is not the case. That stood out as false to me, but I didn't bother looking into it. What's the data on this?

It really doesn't matter. Because if the data doesn't support your feelings, you just hand waive it away anyways. For example, any data indicating race is an positive correlate in crime rate is just hand waived away by saying it is solely because the police and justice system are biased.

[DJ_Chaps]

why was richard born with grey hair?

[OSA]

Sudhir Venkatesh pretty much said that the reason crime rates went down in major cities is because black women were able to easily get abortions. He made this a chapter in his NYT Best Seller book.

[El Gallo]

Sudhir Venkatesh pretty much said that the reason crime rates went down in major cities is because black women were able to easily get abortions. He made this a chapter in his NYT Best Seller book.

Again, it’s not that it was black women it’s that it was poor women. Poor neighborhoods have higher crime rates no matter the race... it is true that crime went down years after abortions became easier to get. Republicans want to stop that

[gimmick]

Druff in that long post said this is not the case. That stood out as false to me, but I didn't bother looking into it. What's the data on this?

Data is challenging to find. Nobody will attach themselves to data that suggests race is a larger indicator of crime than socio economics and with good reason, even if it's fact you will be accused a racist and they will come for your job or funding.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sourc...b8fGOD4oEkzuX3

When it comes strictly to homicide, race in the USA is a stronger indicator than socio economics. The more important question is why do people look for such simplistic answers to these difficult questions. Surely the race disparity problem in the USA is part racism and part cultural.

Conclusion of that study...

"Multivariate regression results for ninety-one cities showed that while total inequality and intraracial inequality had no significant association with offending rates, interracial inequality was a strong predictor of the overall violent crime rate and the Black-on-Black crime rate"

...i don't really disagree with it. It's a single study and it only covers violent crime. Delightful conclusion you can make from it, is that if you want to lower violent crime rate, one way to do it is either improve minorities economic situation or worsen the majority's economic situation. In other words it's for affirmative action.

[vegas1369]

This fuckin' guy...

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/946531657229701120

[vegas1369]

Big league interview with a WHOLE lot of new things to talk about. Apparantly the unedited version is the ramblings of a man that can not stay focused.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/2...ction=Politics

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/2...QECAEYAQ%3D%3D

This is going to blow up over the next several days...

On China: Trump said he'd "been soft" on China in terms of trade so far, but "Oil is going into North Korea. That wasn't my deal! If they don't help us with North Korea, then I can do what I've always said I want to do."

On his policy chops: "I know the details of taxes better than anybody. Better than the greatest C.P.A. I know the details of health care better than most, better than most." He said he knows more about the "big bills… than any president that's ever been in office."

On Roy Moore: He said he only made the endorsement because "I feel that I have to endorse Republicans as the head of the party."

Will he order DOJ to investigate Clinton? "I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department. But for purposes of hopefully thinking I'm going to be treated fairly, I've stayed uninvolved with this particular matter."

On Jeff Sessions: "I don't want to get into loyalty, but I will tell you that, I will say this: Holder protected President Obama. Totally protected him. When you look at the things that they did, and Holder protected the president. And I have great respect for that, I'll be honest."

On Paul Manafort: "Paul only worked for me for a few months. Paul worked for Ronald Reagan. His firm worked for John McCain, worked for Bob Dole, worked for many Republicans for far longer than he worked for me. And you're talking about what Paul was many years ago before I ever heard of him. He worked for me for — what was it, three and a half months?"

On the media: "Another reason that we're going to win another four years is because newspapers, television, all forms of media will tank if I'm not there because without me, their ratings are going down the tubes. Without me, The New York Times will indeed be, not the failing New York Times, but the failed New York Times.... So they basically have to let me win. And eventually, probably six months before the election, they'll be loving me because they're saying, 'Please, please, don't lose Donald Trump.' O.K."

On bipartisanship: Trump said of centrist Democrats like Joe Manchin, "He talks. But he doesn't do anything…. 'Hey, let's get together, let's do bipartisan.' I say, 'Good, let's go.' Then you don't hear from him again." Trump did say he thought there was a chance of bipartisanship on health care, infrastructure and DACA

Shades of delusion and Nixon.

https://www.axios.com/trump-talks-mu...520584187.html

[MumblesBadly]

This blogger, self-titled "Race_Realist" on Twitter, presents a cogent argument against the connection between race-based differences in testosterone and crime.

https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/201...t-cause-crime/

I skimmed the article. The author seems to think evidence suggests what he terms "Culture of Honor" is a better explanation of aggression/criminality in certain social groups than testosterone levels, or other genetic factors. Which is basically what I said.

Not quite. You first said that it was scientifically reasonable to believe that blacks commit more crimes because they tend to have higher testosterone levels.

Given what we know about the link between testosterone levels and aggression in every single mammalian species, from a purely scientific perspective blacks having higher genetic propensity towards aggression/criminality it is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis to make.

Then you made an appeal of sorts to political correctness to not actually scientifically examine that notion.

That being said the sociological implications are such that I would tend to agree it is probably best we don't go down that rabbit hole.

Which, in summary, allows one to continue to believe in that "perfectly reasonable hypothesis" without having to actually test it.