🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

@alexa@fedi.absturztau.be
Well depends, in the city where blacks can outnumber whites then whites are more the victim. In rural areas blacks are even more than 6x disadvantaged really, depending on where. So its not as simple as that.

@yuduki @nerthos

@alexa@fedi.absturztau.be
That level of comparison is not valid. First we have to talk about how people act NOW not in the past. So slavery and shit going on a generation or more ago are not acts of racism anyone currently experienced.

So that said the comparison is not as drastic as you suggest. We havent any time recently mass murdered.

@yuduki @nerthos

@alexa@fedi.absturztau.be
The reason you need to see them as equivelant is far more psychological than statistical. Step back and think about it objectively. I like many people who look white (I'm actually partly native american) I am treated with racism from both minorities and liberals for this, which is ironic since I'm not technically white. I have a visceral reaction to not like people of other color simply because of the fact that anytime I have experienced cruelty at the hands of racism it was from these races. So naturally I am going to react poorly on an instinctual level, this is just as true for how blacks respond to whites for the same reasons.

You will not solve the problem by pointing at one group when both people in both groups have been both victims and abusers most likely. The people who are racist and white will not stop hating blacks if they have a bad past with blacks if the finger is pointed just at them. It will never work.

It is a bit like a war. Both parties have had loved ones killed, both sides have lobbed bombs over the year. One side just happens to be winning. But neither side will make peace unless both sides make compromise. Its just how humans are.

@yuduki @nerthos

@alexa@fedi.absturztau.be
Ok so my fundamental hypothesis ill prove is this. Black people, white people, or any other shade/race of people all have about the same prevalence of tending towards racist thought. In other words ALL races are equally guilty of racism. BUT there is a catch to what that means...

In the USA Africans are 11% - 13% of the population whites are around 60% - 70% as I recall. What that means is as a black person in america you are usually out numbered by about 6x by the white people in any one room. So even if 10% of white people are racist and 10% of black people are racist in such a scenario the black person is getting dicked over by a larger percentage of the overall crowd than the white people are.

So this creates a situation where you can say there is a sort of "white privilage" what we are really describing though is that the majority in any situation when it comes to prejudice will always have the advantage. That is true.

BUT it also means that we need to realize EVERYONE is equally guilty of racism, a black person to white and a white to black. As such it isnt a white problem to eliminate racism its something we ALL need to strive to do within our own races. We cant yell and scream at whites telling them not to be racist meanwhile blacks are equally as racist just less effective at executing it for aforementioned reasons.

@yuduki @nerthos

@alexa@fedi.absturztau.be
Fair, I suspected as much... my answer oddly is neiter but sorta the first but it actually requires a little simple math to explain.

Care to hear my answer?

@yuduki @nerthos

@alexa@fedi.absturztau.be
Yes but im asking if that white privilage is because of the fact that white people just started out with more (due to anctient dead racism), or is it due to the fact that active racism explicitly towards blacks still exist and therefore the imbalance continues to increase?

These two things are almost polar opposite of themselves despite both of them falling under the definition you just gave.

@yuduki @nerthos

@Saederup92 Thats my thinking. In my mind both sides on most issues have some valid points, and the rest is melodrama. Of the valid points I ususally find both sides can be addressed fairly well. In this case I see no exception.

Licensing being a good example in that. By being non-reverse searchable I am satisfying the valid concerns the right has with gun licensing. Also by requirin it and being forward-searchable I am similarly satisfying an argument made by those who are for better controls. I think there are loads of examples like that. Its just no one ever wants to implement a middle ground even if it makes sense.

@alexa@fedi.absturztau.be
Take all the time you need of course.

@moonman

@alexa@fedi.absturztau.be

Alexa, while your replies on anything I post are always most welcome, even if you dont tag me. Please do me the favor and if you arent going to respond to my direct questions of you in a thread then please do not tag me in that thread. I do not wish to be a spectator to other peoples opinions.

@moonman

@honigdachse Well there is literally no society on earth that has never had guns. So we cant say what it would be like with no guns of any kind ever. But I thinkw hat you are really asking is "what about in 50 years or 100 years after the immediate effects settle down". So I will answer the second one assuming thats what you mean.

The answer to that is actually more complex and I'd have to teach you a. bit of Data Science to teach you how we can analyze that accurate. I'll try to explain here a little as best I can.

I left out an important part when talking about the tests we do earlier for simplicity sake. Basically we look at the background rate over time and compare. We basically go through a process of first finding the baseline rate of change in violence, then compare to ensure the gun laws are the most significant difference. Long story short, it isnt easy and the process is susceptible to bias since you need to select your sampling in a non-random way.

The best approach we have that is not subject to bias however would be to do what we call regression analysis. It is actually easy enough to do you can sort of eye ball it sometimes and get an idea for what the result would be if you ran the numbers proper. Basically you take all the. graphs I. showed you earlier and. overlay them on top of each other such that the x-axis all line up at the same point, which will be the date the restriction in gun laws passed. Then you look to see if all the graphs have the same shape to them and how far out the graphs go till they diverge. If your doing the actual math you'd average out all the graphs into one plot to get your regression.

Once you get a regression for your graph the shape you get indicates long term trends as well as short term. You can carry out the graph indefinitely.

The next step is you then do the same regression analysis and get an averaged graph for all the countries which passed laws that **reduced** restrictions on guns. Then you would take the two regressions and compare their long term trend. Which is more likely to go up vs down.

Again you can do what i described yourself by eyeballing the graphs I posted. What you notice in all the graphs is you have an initial huge spike, which then later, over the course of a decade so does actually plummet as you suggest. However you notice the graphs never really get down to the levels as low as. they were before the ban, in some cases they get close but in most they stop falling after 5 years or so and flatline pretty high above where they were pre-pan. If you take the long-term trend out ont hese graphs you will, in fact, see that it flat lines after that.

@alexa@fedi.absturztau.be
Before we continue can you define white privilage as you are using it. I find it usually takes two forms (one i. agree with one I dont)

1) White people currently have more power than minorities overall.

2) White people inherently have a significantly easier time aquiring power than minorities do because people are biased against minorities and give them less opportunities.

@yuduki @nerthos

@nerthos

Man you and those Jews you keep referencing. I'm starting to think you own the patent to Godwin's law and get paid a nickel every time it comes true.

@alexa@fedi.absturztau.be @yuduki

@alexa@fedi.absturztau.be
I agree its a bad term. Whether its to describe a "real problem" or not depends on what that problem is exactly. I think we both agree racism exists in the world but I suspect the "problem" here is more specific than that?

@yuduki @nerthos

@nerthos

I mean I cant disagree. I did feel dirty posting it. But the wording is close enough just replace "white privilage" with "the privilaged" and it makes sense. So I'll take it.

@cereal

@alexa@fedi.absturztau.be That isnt an argument against gun rights, its an argument against cops and the current system of regulation.

@cereal
The argument to me is just that the people pushing for gun control in DC are mostly the same people who have armed body guards they can afford.

@nerthos

@nerthos lol. I dont like the term white privilege personally. But i think it works for the audience its intended for. I would replace "white privilege" with just "the privileged" to include pretty much anyone rich enough to have body guards.

@honigdachse Also to answer your other question. I never said "more guns" solve the problem. The data only shows that when guns are freely available and legal we have less violent crimes. That doesnt imply that people actually need to OWN the guns for it to be effective or necessarily that more guns mean a solution. Simply that laws that allow people to buy guns means less violence. It is possible that simply the possibility of someone having a gun in a crowd is enough to deter a person regardless of how many guns are actually present.

@honigdachse Glad you asked.

In the field of Data Science we use various tests to determine if something is causality. Simple correlation alone does NOT suggest causality, which we refer to with the logical fallacy of "Post hoc ergo propter hoc". In order to test for causality we have various tests but the simplest and most effective is called the Granger Causality test. I'll explain.

When testing for causality it is very important to not look at absolute numbers. Comparing simply america's rate of violence to germany, for exampe, means nothing with regards to causality. We would have no way of knowing if the guns cause the violence or if the violence cause people to buy guns. Which is the cause and which is the action? Well thats why we never use the sort of data you just suggested, it tells us nothing about causality.

What we do is we look at how rates of violence CHANGE in the years immediately following a CHANGE in law. If we see a a restriction of gun law, as we see here, consistently produces a rise in violence rates in the decade immediately following it then we know the change in law is the causative factor, particularly when this pattern is repeated consistently in multiple cases.

Its for this reason the data and approach I provided is valid where the one you suggest is easily debunked by those educated in Data Science. The problem is most people dont understand Data Science so they fall into the same trap you just did.