3 ms·
Why is it wrong? Well for one thing, it skates too close to implying direct causation between skin colour and a propensity to engage in violence, when there's a
by simondotau 5y ago
Why is it wrong? Well for one thing, it skates too close to implying direct causation between skin colour and a propensity to engage in violence, when there's a far more obvious line of indirect causation: skin colour –> poverty –> propensity to engage in violence.
The link between skin colour and poverty is undeniable—it's right there in the aftermath of slavery and Government-sanctioned racism in the decades hence. The link between poverty and a propensity to engage in violence is also clear.
So if poverty is the critical link, if poverty is the underlying cause, why would it ever be useful to talk about levels of violent crime associated with a tangential correlate?
- rafale 5y agoIt's not poverty or skin color that's the issue. It's the culture that encourages violence, promiscuity (attack on the nuclear family) and unaccountability. Other groups, especially first generation immigrants, manage to rise above the challenges of poverty and skin color. I am not only talking about Asians, but black Africans who immigrated in the US recently. Totally different culture, a much better outcome.
- simondotau 5y agoSorry, but all of that is media narrative. You’ve been spending too much time consuming other people’s opinions.