They didn’t say white men under 50, they said maga white men under 50, which is an even smaller group. And they commit 80% of violent crime? You’ve got to back that claim up with sources because I don’t believe the stat you said either. I have heard other data points that go strongly against this.
Actually upon further parsing, the statement cannot be true as it a end result reduction.
So while removing them also removes their ability to be victims which does help quite a bit, to get to 80% white men alone would need to commit 90% of violent crimes. Its easier to hit 70%, since only about 60% would need to be from white men but then we still need to account for maga’s percentage. The raw numbers including white men of any political affiliation max out at around 60%
And statistics makes this all really hard just to describing, showing the math around it is a mess.
The statement can be made true by more carefully wording it. For example if it was demostic terrorism instead of violent crime. Which I’m going to pretend is where my confusion comes from because I’ve done the numbers on that one before and I recall it being around that range. I think there is something on ourworldindata for that one.
The part about children is impossible because a lot of women commit crimes against their own children.
Obviously not, even setting aside the claim that immigration would reduce violence against women, which is definitely not the case depending on which ethnoreligious group we’re talking about.
My thoughts exactly. Political affiliation is not a statistical crime category collected by law enforcement, so I’d like to see the source behind these numbers as well.
Political affiliation may not be a statistical category collected by law enforcement (though I do question the veracity of that statement, but I don’t have the means or the time to dig into it), but we absolutely do have enough info on things like the political leanings of offenders and other similar data points to make confident claims about such data when talking about specific types of crime.
Not saying that I don’t absolutely want to see a source behind the claim as well, though. I don’t take any of these kinds of claims without some kind of data backing it up. Just that I do know that we can make some confident claims on the political leanings of those guilty of things like mass shootings, as mere seconds before Charlie Kirk was shot he was in the middle of arguing with a woman who was citing statistics on the number of people shot by trans people over the past decade in mass shootings compared to the number of people shot by conservative white men in mass shootings over the past decade (something like 5 to 437 if I remember correctly).
By looking at voter registration and data broker information you can connect that information, sure. On an individual basis it’s easy. But it’s a different matter to collect that data on all convicted criminals in the country within a given time period. The larger the time period the harder that gets, especially considering that people with older offenses and no recurring offense can petition the court to have their records sealed, making an accurate count harder.
And, speaking as someone who’s been on the wrong side of law enforcement a few times in my youth, political affiliation or leanings would not be part of the record unless it was relevant (e.g. politically motivated crime). At least, if it wasn’t part of my arrest or court records, then it can’t be true in all localities.
Is making an assumption that since most white males in that age range are maga and most white males have a higher rate of violent crime than the general population, those who are violent criminals are more lllelt to be maga. That is correlation and it is used all over in statistics.
This is what separates the magas from everyone else.
They see a chart like this (unverified claims that confirm their prejudices), it’s fact because it’s on the internet.
We see a chart like this and we are instantly skeptical. Even though we know it’s hyperbole, we at least know what hyperbole is, and many of us even know how to say it out loud.
I assume (or at least, I hope) that they’re basing this on some kind of violent crime rate statistics, hence the cut-off.
It would be nice to include a source for posts like this, to help prevent it being labeled as propaganda if the numbers are legit.
There’s no way those numbers are legit.
No, they are. It’s involves overlaying a few different data sets but most violent crime is committed by white men under 50.
Immigrants of any flavor have lower crime rates than natural born citizens. If you feel this is wrong, that’s yoir xenophobia and racism.
They didn’t say white men under 50, they said maga white men under 50, which is an even smaller group. And they commit 80% of violent crime? You’ve got to back that claim up with sources because I don’t believe the stat you said either. I have heard other data points that go strongly against this.
Actually upon further parsing, the statement cannot be true as it a end result reduction.
So while removing them also removes their ability to be victims which does help quite a bit, to get to 80% white men alone would need to commit 90% of violent crimes. Its easier to hit 70%, since only about 60% would need to be from white men but then we still need to account for maga’s percentage. The raw numbers including white men of any political affiliation max out at around 60%
And statistics makes this all really hard just to describing, showing the math around it is a mess.
The statement can be made true by more carefully wording it. For example if it was demostic terrorism instead of violent crime. Which I’m going to pretend is where my confusion comes from because I’ve done the numbers on that one before and I recall it being around that range. I think there is something on ourworldindata for that one.
The part about children is impossible because a lot of women commit crimes against their own children.
Obviously not, even setting aside the claim that immigration would reduce violence against women, which is definitely not the case depending on which ethnoreligious group we’re talking about.
My thoughts exactly. Political affiliation is not a statistical crime category collected by law enforcement, so I’d like to see the source behind these numbers as well.
Political affiliation may not be a statistical category collected by law enforcement (though I do question the veracity of that statement, but I don’t have the means or the time to dig into it), but we absolutely do have enough info on things like the political leanings of offenders and other similar data points to make confident claims about such data when talking about specific types of crime.
Not saying that I don’t absolutely want to see a source behind the claim as well, though. I don’t take any of these kinds of claims without some kind of data backing it up. Just that I do know that we can make some confident claims on the political leanings of those guilty of things like mass shootings, as mere seconds before Charlie Kirk was shot he was in the middle of arguing with a woman who was citing statistics on the number of people shot by trans people over the past decade in mass shootings compared to the number of people shot by conservative white men in mass shootings over the past decade (something like 5 to 437 if I remember correctly).
By looking at voter registration and data broker information you can connect that information, sure. On an individual basis it’s easy. But it’s a different matter to collect that data on all convicted criminals in the country within a given time period. The larger the time period the harder that gets, especially considering that people with older offenses and no recurring offense can petition the court to have their records sealed, making an accurate count harder.
And, speaking as someone who’s been on the wrong side of law enforcement a few times in my youth, political affiliation or leanings would not be part of the record unless it was relevant (e.g. politically motivated crime). At least, if it wasn’t part of my arrest or court records, then it can’t be true in all localities.
Is making an assumption that since most white males in that age range are maga and most white males have a higher rate of violent crime than the general population, those who are violent criminals are more lllelt to be maga. That is correlation and it is used all over in statistics.
This is what separates the magas from everyone else.
They see a chart like this (unverified claims that confirm their prejudices), it’s fact because it’s on the internet.
We see a chart like this and we are instantly skeptical. Even though we know it’s hyperbole, we at least know what hyperbole is, and many of us even know how to say it out loud.
The stats are way off, so I’m curious where they got those numbers.
My gut tells me “it was revealed to them in a dream”