Globe: Gun Crime Down This Year

[syn]

Discrimnation is a direct connection.

It's a direct connection to race...that doesn't mean race has a direct connection to socio-economic factors.

Race does not automatically make one subject to a differing set of socio-economic factors.

 

[syn]

I never said that. What I said is that the post-war immigrant boom from England has not created many (or any I can recall) gangs defined by their English-heritage.I already said in the posts above that in Britain gangs of all backgrounds are troublesome. I 100% agree. I've never said any one race produces more criminals.

Actually, what you said is:

And it's my belief that people of my background, i.e. English, do not, especially in reference to any sort of closed or solo enthic gangs.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

It's a direct connection to race...that doesn't mean race has a direct connection to socio-economic factors.

Race does not automatically make one subject to a differing set of socio-economic factors.

In theory, maybe not. In reality, however...

 

[syn]

In theory, maybe not. In reality, however...

The "reality" is the discrimination part.

 

[Degnaw]

I oppose discrimination except when used in "racial profiling"; It is clear (at least in Cincinnati) that the vast majority of shooting victims and suspects are black. I'll agree that criminals come from all races and backgrounds, but if most of them come from one race, the race should be emphasized by police without exclusively targeting them or discriminating against them. It doesn't make sense to dilute police force to cover each background equally when backgrounds don't create criminals equally. Racial profiling like this will never happen, of course, because people (especially in 43% black Cincinnati) will call it racism.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

We're perfectly accepting of gender profiling, class profiling, age profiling, etc., but as soon as race is mentioned (whether on its own or as part of a nebulous ethnicity and culture debate), everyone's like "OMG, you can't say that! Race has nothing to do with it!" and they automatically take the position that you're practically implying crime is genetically programmed by race.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Actually, what you said is:

And it's my belief that people of my background, i.e. English, do not, especially in reference to any sort of closed or solo enthic gangs.

Read Post #18 again, or perhaps for the first time. Honestly, I sometimes think this quote function is ill-used. I've clearly said that in England they have problems with youth criminals and gangs, but that in Canada I can't recall any ethnically-English gangs sprouting up from the English immigrants of the post-war period. That doesn't mean that there weren't any, just that I didn't see or hear of them.

 

[syn]

Read Post #18 again, or perhaps for the first time. Honestly, I sometimes think this quote function is ill-used. I've clearly said that in England they have problems with youth criminals and gangs, but that in Canada I can't recall any ethnically-English gangs sprouting up from the English immigrants of the post-war period. That doesn't mean that there weren't any, just that I didn't see or hear of them.

I said:

"And let's be realistic here - it's kind of naive to think that today's Italian, Jewish, etc. communities don't produce their own share of criminals. Every single group does.."

You said:

"And it's my belief that people of my background, i.e. English, do not, especially in reference to any sort of closed or solo enthic gangs."

So, this clearly contradicts your other statement, assuming you meant the same thing. I took it to mean you meant the English do have problems in England, but as far as immigration is concerned there is no criminal element.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Which is why you must read the entire thread and posts, and avoid trolling along and clipping out single sentences here and there in isolation. Read the thread from the beginning and it's clear that I have said from the onset that: one, the post-war immigrant boom from England has not generated any ethnically-English gangs that I can recall, and two, England certainly has a problem in their own country with youth crimminals and gangs. Even in the quote you've provided I've clarified by statement by adding "especially in reference to any sort of closed or solo enthic gangs."

Honestly, I can't see how I could make this any clearer.

 

[syn]

Which is why you must read the entire thread and posts, and avoid trolling along and clipping out single sentences here and there in isolation. Read the thread from the beginning and it's clear that I have said from the onset that: one, the post-war immigrant boom from England has not generated any ethnically-English gangs that I can recall, and two, England certainly has a problem in their own country with youth crimminals and gangs. Even in the quote you've provided I've clarified by statement by adding "especially in reference to any sort of closed or solo enthic gangs."

Honestly, I can't see how I could make this any clearer.

Trolling? Give me a break. I've read the thread in it's entirety and it's pretty clear you're contradicting yourself.

As for picking at statements, you chose a statement I made and responded directly to it, and are now trying to claim that's not what you meant. It doesn't matter if you added "especially in reference to any sort of closed or solo enthic gangs."...you're still saying that you don't believe the English produce any criminals in that statement.

If that's not what you really meant, that's fine. Perhaps you should try being more clear with your statements in the future, instead of contradicting yourself in what seems to be a lame attempt to mask some sketchy attitudes towards immigrants and minorities you've displayed quite often as a member of this board.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I've read the thread in it's entirety

Excellent, I hope now you see my point. Of course people of all types become criminals, including plenty of nasty Englishmen.

If I've seemed to contradict myself, then I apologise, as that wasn't my intention. Usually I have only a few minutes between work tasks to dash off a quick reply, which can admittedly get one into trouble since it's only after a day when you go back and realise that you've buggered your post and contributed poorly to the discussion. I'm certainly guilty of that with regards to immigration and cultural matters, since as an immigrant myself with friends and family from all over the planet I'm guilty of treating the subject rather loosely. I'm working on that, as I don't want to needlessly offend. When my mates all get together we're a mix of Brit, Chinese, Italian, Caribbean, Ukranian, Guyanese, Polish and Indian (south asian), and our group chats on matter of race and culture can be both hillarious and heated - but we never take race or background all that seriously, but neither is it a forbidden subject.

On this post, I'll grant you that I could have been clearer, as the reader, not the writer is IMO the true judge of clarity. My error was putting in that comma before "especially in reference to any sort of closed or solo enthic gangs." It was gangs that I was trying to speak of, and how in my experience I can't recall any English-only gangs. That doesn't mean that there weren't any of course.

I'll also grant that you're 100% correct, in that all backgrounds generate criminals.

This is still a great discussion thread, IMO.

 

[syn]

Excellent, I hope now you see my point. Of course people of all types become criminals, including plenty of nasty Englishmen.

If I've seemed to contradict myself, then I apologise, as that wasn't my intention. Usually I have only a few minutes between work tasks to dash off a quick reply, which can admittedly get one into trouble since it's only after a day when you go back and realise that you've buggered your post and contributed poorly to the discussion. I'm certainly guilty of that with regards to immigration and cultural matters, since as an immigrant myself with friends and family from all over the planet I'm guilty of treating the subject rather loosely. I'm working on that, as I don't want to needlessly offend. When my mates all get together we're a mix of Brit, Chinese, Italian, Caribbean, Ukranian, Guyanese, Polish and Indian (south asian), and our group chats on matter of race and culture can be both hillarious and heated - but we never take race or background all that seriously, but neither is it a forbidden subject.

On this post, I'll grant you that I could have been clearer, as the reader, not the writer is IMO the true judge of clarity. My error was putting in that comma before "especially in reference to any sort of closed or solo enthic gangs." It was gangs that I was trying to speak of, and how in my experience I can't recall any English-only gangs. That doesn't mean that there weren't any of course.

I'll also grant that you're 100% correct, in that all backgrounds generate criminals.

This is still a great discussion thread, IMO.

Agreed. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[adma]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXM_mn8uKno