Black violent crime rate 3 times that of whitess

[Cope]

Justice Department Secures Agreement with Patriot Bank to Resolve Lending Discrimination Claims

The Justice Department announced today that Patriot Bank (Patriot) has agreed to pay $1.9 million to resolve allegations that the bank engaged in a pattern or practice of lending discrimination by redlining majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Memphis, Tennessee. Redlining is an illegal...

www.justice.gov

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148751006/redlining-city-national-bank-doj-settlement

DOJ Fines Credit Union $6.5 Million in Redlining Settlement

First-ever credit union DOJ redlining settlement shows that fair lending is a credit union challenge too.

www.ncontracts.com

Justice Department Reaches Significant Milestone in Combating Redlining Initiative After Securing Over $107 Million in Relief for Communities of Color Nationwide

The Justice Department announced today that its Combating Redlining Initiative has secured over $107 million in relief for communities of color nationwide that have experienced lending discrimination by banks or other mortgage lending businesses. As a part of the $107 million, the Department...

www.justice.gov

Pennsylvania lender FNB settles US redlining case in North Carolina

First National Bank of Pennsylvania on Monday reached a $13.5 million settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice and North Carolina to resolve charges it engaged in lending discrimination known as redlining in the Charlotte and Winston-Salem, North Carolina markets.

www.reuters.com

Do you want more? 'Cause there are more.

One of them :

"

What caused the fair lending violation? ​

In 2009, the credit union told NCUA that it was going to open three branches in Philadelphia County and implement a community outreach plan for underserved residents. It never happened. Instead, it expanded into majority-White neighborhoods, the DOJ says.

In 2016, the credit union hired a third party to assess its fair lending risk and found out it had far fewer applications from minority borrowers than its peers. The DOJ says the credit union didn’t do anything to address the finding.

The DOJ says these actions created inequal access and discouraged potential applicants for home loans in these areas on the basis of race, color, or national origin and that there was no legitimate business reason or necessity for them. "

Why would you think a bank would want to lend money to white borrowers but not black? If a perception exists, is it true?

I'll read the other one. But if you are looking to get me to say that nothing untoward ever happens, you won't. I do think that isolated things like this can, and do happen. It would also seem that their are legal AND financial ramifications when it does. In other words: working as intended.

Edit: Both of those articles cover the same basic thing: More loans were taken and given out in majority white neighborhoods than they were black. No data driven reasons are explained. Ala credit score, ability to put money down/qualify for the loans etc

 

[j brown's body]

One of them :

"

What caused the fair lending violation? ​

In 2009, the credit union told NCUA that it was going to open three branches in Philadelphia County and implement a community outreach plan for underserved residents. It never happened. Instead, it expanded into majority-White neighborhoods, the DOJ says.

In 2016, the credit union hired a third party to assess its fair lending risk and found out it had far fewer applications from minority borrowers than its peers. The DOJ says the credit union didn’t do anything to address the finding.

The DOJ says these actions created inequal access and discouraged potential applicants for home loans in these areas on the basis of race, color, or national origin and that there was no legitimate business reason or necessity for them. "

I'll read the other one. But if you are looking to get me to say that nothing untoward ever happens, you won't. I do think that isolated things like this can, and do happen. It would also seem that their are legal AND financial ramifications when it does. In other words: working as intended.

You do realize that homes owned by whites have greater market values than homes owned by blacks even when the income is the same.

 

[Ahlevah]

Anyone here want to argue that Jews are superior to gentiles the way they're arguing that whites are superior to blacks?

I doubt it.

Sure. Why not? I think it’s valuable for all of us as Americans to critically examine why some groups in this country make the most of what it has to offer while others struggle. By doing so, we can hopefully make this a better place to live for everybody. Take what works and discard what doesn’t. We know, for example, that being raised in a household with two loving parents who take you to synagogue and insist you study for your geometry exam works. Being raised by a single mom zonked out on meth while dad’s chillin’ in prison doesn’t.

 

[Cope]

Sure. Why not? I think it’s valuable for all of us as Americans to critically examine why some groups in this country make the most of what it has to offer while others struggle. By doing so, we can hopefully make this a better place to live for everybody. Take what works and discard what doesn’t. We know, for example, that being raised in a household with two loving parents who take you to synagogue and insist you study for your geometry exam works. Being raised by a single mom zonked out on meth while dad’s chillin’ in prison doesn’t.

One of the answers put forth in this very thread to your last anecdote?
Promote single mothers raising children alone.

 

[ataraxia]

Sure. Why not? I think it’s valuable for all of us as Americans to critically examine why some groups in this country make the most of what it has to offer while others struggle. By doing so, we can hopefully make this a better place to live for everybody. Take what works and discard what doesn’t. We know, for example, that being raised in a household with two loving parents who take you to synagogue and insist you study for your geometry exam works. Being raised by a single mom zonked out on meth while dad’s chillin’ in prison doesn’t.

That's been discussed already on this thread. See Post #222.

 

[Ahlevah]

That's been discussed already on this thread. See Post #222.

So you took a vote already? Who won?

It came up again in Post #317, and this is the first time I’ve addressed it.

 

[Tettsuo]

Of course they are poor but you don't see a big push to do anything by race when it comes to them, do you? Why is that? It's their choices, in a LOT of cases. You don't see me stumping for them to be given MORE opportunities yet that is what Democrats and others attempt to do for the black population. Again, I ask, why is that?

I'm getting anecdotal stories in the face of data, in an attempt to understand. AKA, more excuses.

I assume you're talking about Affirmative Action. AA was not some kind of black bonus. Affirmative Action attempted to outlaw discrimination based on race, sex, and sexual preference. Nothing in the Executive Order states that blacks should get jobs over whites. That was and always has been little more than propaganda.

Your data lacks context, which people have been trying to explain to you.

 

[ataraxia]

Good summation. I'm not sure how you can address this on a large scale. In addition, the way our assistance programs currently work, it encourages the impoverished to stay in place, physically and financially.

Fortunately, we have a fair amount of experience and precedent in dealing with this- both domestically and abroad- so we don't have to experiment from scratch.

After the Great Depression, the U.S. implemented massive federal programs like the New Deal and the GI Bill that lifted millions of (mostly white) Americans out of poverty, and into homeownership, and into the middle class. Those programs were large in scale, and they worked—admittedly not perfectly, and not equitably—but they reshaped the economy and created the most prosperous generation in American history. What’s often left out of that story is that Black Americans were largely excluded from those gains. So we’ve seen what’s possible when we do invest in people—and we’ve also seen the long-term consequences of systematically leaving people out.

As for today’s assistance programs: you’re absolutely right that many of them are flawed, and in some cases they do create disincentives to earn more or move. But that’s a policy design issue—not an argument against helping people. For instance, many benefits sharply phase out when someone earns a bit more money, creating a "benefits cliff" that punishes upward mobility. We can fix that by making benefits gradually taper off, so people aren’t penalized for improving their situation. There are already models like this in places such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, which encourages work while still offering support. Similarly, housing vouchers and mobility programs can help low-income families move to areas with better schools and lower crime—but we have to fully fund and expand those opportunities if we want real results.

Also, while it’s a common belief that welfare programs create long-term dependency, research consistently shows that this is extremely rare. Most people who receive public assistance use it temporarily, often during periods of crisis like job loss, illness, or family disruption. For example, a study from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that over half of SNAP recipients stop receiving benefits within a year, and less than 10% remain on for more than five years—often due to disability or caregiving responsibilities. The narrative of multigenerational dependency is largely anecdotal and unsupported by large-scale data. These appear to be more political propaganda by politicians than based on reality- likely those supported by billionaire supporters.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/five-evictions-a-minute/

Social mobility is not just about motivation—it’s about infrastructure. Nations with better infrastructure for their people, like Scandinavian countries, have MORE, not less social mobility. If someone wants to improve their life but lives in a neighborhood with failing schools, no nearby jobs, poor public transit, and unstable housing, they’re not choosing poverty—they’re stuck in it. To get people moving, we need to fix the structural barriers: better schools, access to healthcare, job training, mental health services, and affordable housing near opportunity. That’s not coddling people—it’s removing the traps that keep them in place.

So yes, the scale of the problem is large. But it’s not unsolvable. What we need isn’t to punish people for being poor—it’s to design systems that make upward movement realistic, not rare or the exception. And extensive experience has shown that that does work. If we shift from a mindset of “how do we stop people from gaming the system” to “how do we build systems that actually help people move forward,” we’ll all benefit—from lower crime, stronger economies, and a more stable and sustainable society.

 

[ataraxia]

So you took a vote already? Who won?

It came up again in Post #317, and this is the first time I’ve addressed it.

There was no vote. But it would be nice to hear your thoughts on it.

Try to make it evidence-based and thoughtful. Personal insults and cussing usually don't add much to the discussion.

 

[Cope]

I assume you're talking about Affirmative Action. AA was not some kind of black bonus. Affirmative Action attempted to outlaw discrimination based on race, sex, and sexual preference. Nothing in the Executive Order states that blacks should get jobs over whites. That was and always has been little more than propaganda.

Not propaganda, because the only way it works in PRACTICE in discriminatory. There should be no racial, sexual, or sexual preference listed on any application anywhere. We KNOW that in some cases they were certainly disciminatory, and that flies in the face of your evidence that the EO doesn't 'specifically' say that.

Saying things like "We need to promote diversity" is a great ideal.

How you happen to do that, in practice, is discriminatory.

Your data lacks context, which people have been trying to explain to you.

The context is excusing the people's own choices that lead to detrimental things.

Why are they poor?
Why do they commit crimes?
Why are they over-represented in drop out rates?
Why are they this/that/other.

Context lets you know the why, it doesn't EXCUSE the choices that lead them there.

 

[hooligan]

One of them :

"

What caused the fair lending violation? ​

In 2009, the credit union told NCUA that it was going to open three branches in Philadelphia County and implement a community outreach plan for underserved residents. It never happened. Instead, it expanded into majority-White neighborhoods, the DOJ says.

In 2016, the credit union hired a third party to assess its fair lending risk and found out it had far fewer applications from minority borrowers than its peers. The DOJ says the credit union didn’t do anything to address the finding.

The DOJ says these actions created inequal access and discouraged potential applicants for home loans in these areas on the basis of race, color, or national origin and that there was no legitimate business reason or necessity for them. "

Why would you think a bank would want to lend money to white borrowers but not black? If a perception exists, is it true?

I'll read the other one. But if you are looking to get me to say that nothing untoward ever happens, you won't. I do think that isolated things like this can, and do happen. It would also seem that their are legal AND financial ramifications when it does. In other words: working as intended.

Edit: Both of those articles cover the same basic thing: More loans were taken and given out in majority white neighborhoods than they were black. No data driven reasons are explained. Ala credit score, ability to put money down/qualify for the loans etc

Isolated? I just gave you 5 examples from all across the country and there are more that I didn't list.

I'm not "looking to get you to say" anything. I'm refuting your assertion here:

I would welcome you to the 21st century but I think it might be lost in the whirlwind of excuses you'd attempt to put up.

Redlining absolutely still exists in the 21st century - I've just given you multiple examples of cases egregious enough to come to the DOJ's attention.

 

[Tettsuo]

Not propaganda, because the only way it works in PRACTICE in discriminatory. There should be no racial, sexual, or sexual preference listed on any application anywhere. We KNOW that in some cases they were certainly disciminatory, and that flies in the face of your evidence that the EO doesn't 'specifically' say that.

So, for employers not to consider race, sex, or sexual preference while hiring requires them to be discriminatory? Sorry, but you're not making sense. AA was never the problem. The issue was discriminatory hiring practices that preferred straight white men.

The context is excusing the people's own choices that lead to detrimental things.

Why are they poor?
Why do they commit crimes?
Why are they over-represented in drop out rates?
Why are they this/that/other.

Context lets you know the why, it doesn't EXCUSE the choices that lead them there.

No one in this thread excused individual choices. Instead, they explained why those choices may have been made and how they were influenced by society. You're so wedded to your opinion that you can't accept facts that provide context. If a person drops out of school it's their responsibility. But there are reasons for those choices, and explaining it away by claiming it's cultural is just flat out inaccurate. Black culture does not promote being poor or lazy or stupid or a criminal. There is a criminal culture that includes all races that promotes those negative traits. There's also a gang culture, which includes all races, that also promotes those traits.

For your questions, all of them can be asked of every race as well. Bad choices create bad circumstances for anyone. Poverty tends to generate people who make bad choices, race be damned.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Wanna know what is funny about this thread? That we are having this discussion on the same day that the guy who ran The Silk Road darkweb site, Ross Ulbricht, walked out of prison thanks to a pardon from Donald Trump earlier this year. The guy oversaw an entity that trafficked hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal drugs and allowed for people to anonymously seek hitmen out, allegedly having used that particular service 6 times himself, and somehow he is allowed to walk free with Donald's blessing on some bullshit about his arrest and conviction being government overreach.

So talk to me again about how having some money and power in the beginning of a situation doesn't help you out at the end of that same situation, and then figure out why blacks are in the situation they are in.

 

[vanceen]

With the exception of maybe the bolded - which I'm not convinced of, but would be willing to hear an argument - can you give an example of these pathologies manifesting in literally any other oppressed population? Even outside of the US, oppression and violence doesn't always seem to manifest in long term bad outcomes. In fact, we can observe the opposite in many cases, where it seems to emphasize solidarity and in-group preference.

Native Americans. Australian aboriginals. Modern day Mayans in Central America, who also have, on average, high poverty rates, high crime rates, and low education rates. I'm sure there are others.

There is no precise analogue. The modern ghetto evolved not only because of "differentness" (as it did for Jews, Poles, Italians, etc., who were all "oppressed" to one extent or another). The antipathy that many whites felt toward former slaves was encoded into law in a system which lasted well into my lifetime. Most minority groups did not face that challenge, or at least not for as long.

I can't think of another cultural context in which a poor and segregated minority was told for decades that their racial identity is central to who they are, and that their essential identity is as victims of the majority. I don't have proof, but my suspicion is that most black people don't believe that, but that in the poor and violent neighborhoods the idea is more widely held. For many people in these circumstances, there is a resulting hostility to the larger culture, which means throwing out Enlightenment liberalism (acting "white"), with lamentable results.

 

[Ahlevah]

What the hell I'm talking about is that Hispanic/Latino are counted.

They’re counted under the “ethnicity” category, but then placed under the appropriate racial category (generally “black” or “white” but never “brown”), where known, separately. Where ethnicity is reported as “Hispanic” but race is not, the default is “white.” This skews the stats and makes them unreliable for an apples to apples comparison.

It isn’t a “default” because there is no brown race.

Yeah, try telling that to Chicano activists, whose movement was a complete rejection of anything “white.”

Lumping mestizos—people with a high percentage of indigenous blood from countries in Latin America with some of the highest homicide rates on the planet—with people descended from Northern Europeans with lily-white skin is misleading to anyone who isn’t aware of how FBI crime statistics are complied and recorded. That includes most people.

 

[Cope]

Isolated? I just gave you 5 examples from all across the country and there are more that I didn't list.

I'm not "looking to get you to say" anything. I'm refuting your assertion here:




Redlining absolutely still exists in the 21st century - I've just given you multiple examples of cases egregious enough to come to the DOJ's attention.

Either read the articles, or read the excerpts I quoted for you. What you (and they ) are calling redlining, is a simple I don't want to do business their as it's riskier than elsewhere. In at least the three I read.

 

[Cope]

So, for employers not to consider race, sex, or sexual preference while hiring requires them to be discriminatory? Sorry, but you're not making sense. AA was never the problem. The issue was discriminatory hiring practices that preferred straight white men.

If it wasn't on the app, it couldn't be a consideration, right?

No one in this thread excused individual choices. Instead, they explained why those choices may have been made and how they were influenced by society. You're so wedded to your opinion that you can't accept facts that provide context. If a person drops out of school it's their responsibility. But there are reasons for those choices, and explaining it away by claiming it's cultural is just flat out inaccurate. Black culture does not promote being poor or lazy or stupid or a criminal. There is a criminal culture that includes all races that promotes those negative traits. There's also a gang culture, which includes all races, that also promotes those traits.

Yes, I keep saying this. Those reasons could be him caring for his thirteen sisters, mother, and grandmother. It still does not absolve him of the decisions to increase the likelihood that he will stay poverty stricken or go on to commit crimes that you'll excuse next.
You keep saying culture, as if I have used culture to explain things (HINT: I haven't) In these instances the culture they live in can help or hinder. I would put money on the hindrance. Gang culture. Poverty culture. Have kids out of wedlock culture.
Drop out of school culture.

None of those are inherent to 'black culture', black people just happen to be heavily over-represented in them all

For your questions, all of them can be asked of every race as well. Bad choices create bad circumstances for anyone. Poverty tends to generate people who make bad choices, race be damned.

YES THEY CAN. How often do you see promotions for "SPECIFICALLY' white folk to get help? How many times do you hear politicians pander to WHITE PEOPLE?

I'll answer for you. Never.

 

[Ahlevah]

One of the answers put forth in this very thread to your last anecdote?
Promote single mothers raising children alone.

Non doubt with “rich” taxpayers footing the bill for her to raise and “tutor” them.

 

[hooligan]

Either read the articles, or read the excerpts I quoted for you. What you (and they ) are calling redlining, is a simple I don't want to do business their as it's riskier than elsewhere. In at least the three I read.

The DOJ disagrees with your opinion.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

They’re counted under the “ethnicity” category, but then placed under the appropriate racial category (generally “black” or “white” but never “brown”), where known, separately.

Again, there is no “brown” race.

Where ethnicity is reported as “Hispanic” but race is not, the default is “white.” This skews the stats and makes them unreliable for an apples to apples comparison.

Clearly, you are poorly informed regarding the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) statistics.

The program is voluntary. Not every jurisdiction participates. Also, UCR’s only present numbers of arrests reported. Not convictions.

Citing FBI UCR’s as proof that certain groups commit more crimes than others doesn’t hold water.

Yeah, try telling that to Chicano activists, whose movement was a complete rejection of anything “white.”

You tell ‘em.

Lumping people with a high-percentage of indigenous blood from counties in Latin America with some of the highest homicide rates on the planet with people descended from Northern Europeans with lily-white skin is misleading to anyone who isn’t aware of how FBI crime statistics are complied and recorded. That includes most people.

Yourself included.

Still waiting for a response from your last post, and my follow up question;

—including the many people in this country of Mexican and Central American heritage (i.e., people who also have higher rates of criminality than whites)—in the “white” column.

Show proof that American citizens of “Mexican and Central American heritage” commit crimes at higher rates than white Americans.

 

[ataraxia]

Sure. Why not? I think it’s valuable for all of us as Americans to critically examine why some groups in this country make the most of what it has to offer while others struggle. By doing so, we can hopefully make this a better place to live for everybody. Take what works and discard what doesn’t. We know, for example, that being raised in a household with two loving parents who take you to synagogue and insist you study for your geometry exam works. Being raised by a single mom zonked out on meth while dad’s chillin’ in prison doesn’t.

See post #222 if interested in a critical examination of the subject.

 

[Cope]

The DOJ disagrees with your opinion.

Sure.

What you should be asking yourself is why any governmental agency would be pushing a lending agency into areas of high risk to begin with.

 

[dairyair]

The vast majority of poor people are not criminals. So low income obviously is not "causing" people to commit crimes.

That has nothing to do with my post or question.

What is the relationship between income level and crime. Will it differ between skin color?
I bet it doesn't.

There's also a higher % of black people of low income than white people.
But if there's a 100 black and 100 white people all with the same low income, is the crime rate between those people similar. I bet they are.

The amount of melanin one has does not have a bearing on crime. Unless as people get more tan, they also become more susceptible to crime. Which I don't think there's a link.

 

[hooligan]

Sure.

What you should be asking yourself is why any governmental agency would be pushing a lending agency into areas of high risk to begin with.

Uh, because they violated federal law.

 

[Ahlevah]

Show proof that American citizens of “Mexican and Central American heritage” commit crimes at higher rates than white Americans.

Your loaded question requires a nuanced answer, because I’m not claiming people who commit crimes at higher rates are doing it because it’s something inherent in their race, ethnicity, or national origin. One’s resources and environment play a role, but then so do his culture and value system, which influence the choices he makes. I can’t prove it, but a culture in which parents marry, stay married, and educate and nurture their kids while instilling in them a sense of morality is probably going to be more successful and have a lower crime rate than one that glorifies violence and criminality while letting the kids run amok:



Also, I already pointed out that the FBI, the main source for unified crime statistics in the United States, doesn’t separate people by ethnicity beyond “Hispanic” and “non-Hispanic,” but lumps most of the Hispanics in the white population. They also don’t compile statistics based on one’s national origin or heritage. But individual states organize their data differently, and we can take clues from that. For example, California, rather than placing many Hispanics in the “white” category, keeps them separate regardless of race and lists whites as “white, non-Hispanic.” Most Hispanics in California are “Latinos” who can trace their ancestry back to Mexico or Central America. When looked at in that context, we’re presented with a different picture;

• At 46%, Latinos are the most prevalent racial/ethnic group in California prisons. Black, white, and people of other races are 28%, 20%, and 6%, respectively.
• Black people and Latino men are overrepresented among prisoners. Black men and women are 28% and 23% of prisoners, while both make up just 6% of the state’s adults. Similarly, Latino men are 46% of prisoners, but just 38% of adult Californians. By contrast, Latino women account for about 37% of both populations.

California's Prison Population

After falling sharply in the first year of the pandemic, California’s prison population is now at a 30-year low. Meanwhile, the average annual cost of imprisoning a person has risen almost 50% since 2019. Most people in California prisons have been convicted of violent crimes; some racial groups...

www.ppic.org

The conclusion we should come to is racial and ethnic minorities are overly represented in prison populations. In progressive California, Hispanic males make up 46% of the prison population while comprising 38% of the state’s adult population. The only matter for disagreement that I see is why this is the case. Social justice advocates would say it’s because California, where only 34.7% of the population is white (non-Hispanic), is systemically racist. I think it’s due to there being a higher rate of criminal behavior among black and Hispanic populations, although not because they’re black or Hispanic.