Has anyone else noticed... | LeftWingMaleAdvocates

Melthengylf · 2020-02-14T17:46:47+00:00

That when Bloomberg said that in order to stop-and-frisk he knew the criminals were "young men of colour", leftists cried out against the...

[–]Tmomp 33 points34 points35 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf[S] 21 points22 points23 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf[S] 14 points15 points16 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BannanasAreEvil 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This is where your original question and the subject of race intersect to the same answer/problem. The real question is why are a lot/most crimes committed by men? What causes the intersection of men and men of color to be more susceptible to committing crimes, thereby increasing the likelihood that members that fit this criteria should be stopped and frisked more than others.

What bloomberg has stated is a result of the problem, not the problem itself. What I mean is instead of looking into why men of color are targeted more for stop and frisks we should be asking what causes men of color (in this subset) to have higher crime rates and thereby needing to be stopped and frisked.

When you look at what crimes are typically committed by men most frequently (and also by the population itself) in the US the rankings are such:

Larceny / Theft
Burglary
Motor Vehicle Theft
Aggravated Assault
Robbery

What do 4 of those 5 have in common? You could suggest that those crimes are committed as a means to gain wealth/money. In essence the top 4 crimes in the united states are performed by people who are trying to earn money. In fact number 4 could be argued as many times "assault" could be carried out due to money as well (rival gang members, robberies etc)

What we have here is a perfect example of the disenfranchised and how many go about trying to correct it themselves. Think about it, who is typically poorer, a white man or a man of color? You can't really rely on statistics to show actual poverty because a single mother raising a child but earning more than a man will be considered poorer then that same man. We also know that the vast majority of the homeless population is men, therefore how can men make up the poorest population when it comes to homelessness but not when it comes to statistics? It can't, its because the statistics are not showing the full scope of the problem.

The problem is men on average are poorer then women and some of that is contributed to social programs aimed at women while nearly none are their to support men. So now you throw race into it and find that black men and women are typically poorer then white men and women and you have a double whammy. Black men are the poorest group and therefore tend to commit the most crime because that's what poor people do. No harsh judgement by that statement, some people are doing what they can to survive and that's just that.

So to answer your question, why did nobody freak out about the fact that it was "men" not just them being of color that were stopped and frisked? Well, because that is the most disenfranchised group and the one most likely to commit crimes because of it. It's unfortunate that the time and effort to "Stop and Frisk" wasn't put into programs that would actually reduce crimes in the long run. If society decided to stop shitting on most men who are not "successful" and give them the support we give women then the amount of crimes being committed by MEN would drop and crimes committed by black men would drop even further.

[–]Cyb3rd31ic_Citiz3n 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BannanasAreEvil 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you look at statistics they try to use the "wage gap" myth, but when you read further they talk about women choosing careers or working less hours to care for their children. So, if they are accounting for women with children then that means single mothers are counted as well. If poverty is based on a persons income along with defendants then a woman and man making the same amount of money will show the woman making less due to the structure of her having a dependent and pushing her income into the poverty level.

This also counts women who are stay at home moms as they are counting the entire family and since the woman does not work her income is listed as 0.

This site lists poverty statistics and they give some very basic poverty guidelines to what the data means. They even say a family of 3 making x or less is in poverty, so if they are taking a census asking about how much each person in a household makes as well as children present.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/adult-poverty-rate-by-gender/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

[–]Dorkfarces 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lady_Coraline2 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tmomp 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lady_Coraline2 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Tmomp 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 6 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

It's a common theme.

If you look at statistics on police shootings in america two patterns emerge, that black men are shot out of any one group and that men are shot vastly more than women.

In fact black women are barely shot more than white women. Clearly the sex is a greater factor than anything else, yet you don't see leftist going around calling the police sexist against men even while it is to a much greater extend that it is racist towards blacks.

Of course it's not as simple as merely seeing who gets shot more and declaring them oppressed, I think we all know certain demographics and demographics within that demographic commits more violent crime than other groups.

The point, however, is that by the measuring stick leftist usually use they should point to it as sexist because the point to it and call it racist for far less of a disparity.

[–]C0dey -6 points-5 points-4 points 6 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheLonelyBull 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeftNatTay-1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

I love how even the "Left Wing" Men's group becomes bootlickers when it comes to cops

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely[M] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeftNatTay -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely[M] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeftNatTay -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely[M] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]C0dey2 points 6 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

I love how morons respond to someone citing statistics with a mindless insult. Really illustrates how brain-dead and pathetically immature they are for refusing to look up said statistics when it goes against their incorrect narrative.

[–]Strikester101 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dorkfarces 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeftNatTay 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dorkfarces 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeftNatTay 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I hate to be pedantic here, but you didn't cite statistics... you alluded to the existence of statistics. I wouldn't say calling you a bootlicker is a mindless insult. It is an insult, but it is based on this tendency of Americans to consistently try and justify the State abusing them. There is absolutely no reason why the so called "land of the free" should have 25% of the world's prison population at only 5% of the world's population. We have more prisoners than fucking CHINA and it's not even close (2.1 Million in the US and 1.7 Million in China)

https://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/prison-population-total?field_region_taxonomy_tid=All

Despite the clear problems surrounding police brutality and over all state violence by the US, so many people will go out of their way to justify it and it's fucking strange coming from Americans.

"A new study finds that fatal police violence is a leading cause of death for young men in America."

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/8/14/20803872/police-violence-mortality-public-health-black-men-rutgers

https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2019-08-05/police-violence-a-leading-cause-of-death-for-young-men

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/08/police-shootings-are-leading-cause-death-young-american-men-new-research-shows/

A rate of brutality this bad cannot simply be answered with "uwu They commit more crimes" or "uwu They're resisting arrest". This mindset is that of Male Disposability.

[–]C0dey 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So when talking about those killed by resisting arrest, I get a little confused as to why you would cite prison statistics. That has nothing to do with anything I said, of course the prison system is disgusting, it's not much better in Canada either and alone is likely responsible for a lot of the crime that occurs by re-offenders.

When the statistics of those who resist arrest are comparable to those who are killed by resisting arrest, you cannot assume it is just a coincidence.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ard0309st.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjQjNb1kdLnAhVKHc0KHZo2BjAQFjAMegQIJhAB&usg=AOvVaw1bQVqbyJKQdtCf3NK1I3oQ

I should mention that this is happening not because of race, but mostly due to the living conditions, lack of education, unemployment, etc of these people that drive them to resist arrest and commit crimes. As detailed here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5509345/#__ffn_sectitle

There is more to it than to say it is simply racism or sexism. It is more nuanced than that.

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely[M] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeftNatTay 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Strikester101 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LeftNatTay 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Strikester101 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LeftNatTay 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dorkfarces 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

To be fair, I've seen rank and file feminists make this point. Some genuinely believe this is the kind of evidence that shows what patriarchy does to men within the context of capitalism. A sexist class society pushes working class men to be driven, aggressive, and bread winners, but then denies them gainful labor and/or social welfare whenever convenient. The resulting crime then justifies state violence

There's still prejudice among a lot of people all across the ideological spectrum, especially against black men and Latinos, but I've also heard it against American Indians and poor white men, that (especially young) men are dangerous. It's a fact that, as far as recorded statistics go, men commit a lot of the recorded violent crimes.

But that's literally #notallmen, and to generalize from that is the definition of prejudice.

[–]J-Unleashed 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dorkfarces 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

No capitalism is exactly the problem. Feminism originated as a wealthy woman's movement to gain access to the professions, and for legal equality. Wealthy women didn't work, unlike poor women who did. Woman now have access to professions, even if sexism still discourages them, and the same bourgeois rights as men--this is not insignificant, but it is insufficient.

The labor and socialist movement, despite sexism, was the primary vehicle for helping women workers. In fact, socialists were some of the first arguing for legal equality for women, workplace health and safety, etc., in addition to an abolition of capitalism, which exploits and oppresses the majority of people, men and women.

Feminism has become retroactively defined as the whole of the movement of women for equality, and bourgeois feminists believed what was good for them was good enough for everyone, same as bourgeois men. So many socialist women also call themselves feminists, which wasn't necessarily common 100 years ago. But bourgeois women still benefit from the exploitation of working class men and women, alike, so they have no interest in the abolition of capitalism, and they control the narrative by virtue of their positions of wealth and power being in line with the dominant capitalist ideology. There's a class divide within this attempt at a general women's movement that cannot be resolved within capitalism.

So the majority of women are still suffering, and to explain this, bourgeois feminism has to double down on patriarchy as the primary cause of suffering for women. This is why they still advocate for more women in positions of exploitative and oppressive power in politics and economics, in enlistment into the imperialist military, and blame men, as a whole, for everything. Neoliberal wokeness is a self defense measure of capitalism. Capitalism only really needs sexism (or racism) to eek out a relative amount of extra profits from subjecting women (and minorities) to more intense levels of exploitation (paying them less for the same work, and rationalizing it all kinds of ways). It doesn't really cost capitalism much to have a female run company or female president.

But paid parental leave and paid childcare hurt bourgeois women as much as men, and help both working class men and women.

So, the reality is, working class men and women are natural allies, which exposes the main reason for sexism (and racism). It's not male (or white) privilege, that's just the means to the end. The real end goal is to divide the majority of people any way possible to prevent a diverse mass movement arising from a diverse society that is capable of realistically challenging capitalism as a whole

[–]J-Unleashed 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iaboveall 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]J-Unleashed 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iaboveall 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]J-Unleashed 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]serpentineeyelash[M] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]J-Unleashed 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I honestly don't give two shits about that. I don't need to get my criticism of 45 fron T_D, or even Reddit for that matter.

I can't understand why Reddit insists that everyone be spoon fed second-hand information about people, places, scientific fact, or whatever. Even if they delete criticisms of 45, why should they be held to a higher standard when Obama supporters turn the other cheek in the face of criticism? Even if they delete the criticism, who gives a shit? I've never found a group of politician supporters willing to discuss the nuances of their candidate's shitty behavior.

But let's pretend that T_D deletes all criticism of Trump that's nowhere near as disturbing spez going into the group sub and edit comments. It's no where near as troubling as a tech company trying to interfere in an election. It's nowhere near as disturbing as the silencing of political dissent. Even if you hate T_D, it's been established by spez that what he did to them, he can do to any subreddit.

So spare me the criticism of T_D. There are worse subreddits to be concerned about.

[–]Dorkfarces 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[+]J-Unleashed1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (30 children) | Copy Link

Lol. It takes a great deal of delusion to believe that capitalism got better because of socialism. You need to read some economics books.

[–]plitox_is_a_bitch 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]J-Unleashed 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Alright.

1.) Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy

2.) Economic Facts and Fallacies

3.) Economics in One Lesson. I found out a few days ago about another book that was published this past year that expands on the works written by Henry Hazlett.

Openstax has free textbooks that cover economics, and you find them on the website. Good textbooks too. I've also read Freakanomics & Think Like a Freak; I recommend checking out How Not to be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking to check out some of the thought exercises he presents. These thought exercises will help you ask the right questions about information you may not have.The Drunkard's Walk is another recommendation, and it actually referenced another book: Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. However, much more importantly, I always recommend people read the Communist Manifesto. There's others recommended in these readings, so this will serve as a great start. Enjoy. :)

[–]C0dey 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+]J-Unleashed1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

Lol. Right. Well, when you actually read the books, you can contribute. Until then, kindly fuck off.

[–]C0dey1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]J-Unleashed0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]C0dey1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Dorkfarces1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

I did, but they were propped on the top of your mom's head while she was laboriously slobbering my gross hog

[–]J-Unleashed 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+]Dorkfarces1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

I'd have the time to come up with a better one if your horny mom and your gay, even hornier dad weren't driven to suck 24/7 but c'est la suck

[–]J-Unleashed 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dorkfarces2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]J-Unleashed2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dorkfarces3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]J-Unleashed2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dorkfarces3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Under Chávez, poverty in Venezuela was cut by more than a third, and extreme poverty by 57 percent (CEPR, 3/7/13). (These declines were even steeper if measured from the depths of the opposition-led oil strike, designed to force Chávez out by wrecking the economy.)

In June 2013, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) included Venezuela in a group of 18 nations that that had cut their number of hungry people by half in the preceding 20 years, 14 of which were governed by Chavismo: The FAO said that Venezuela reduced the number of people suffering from malnutrition from 13.5 percent of the population in 1990–92 to less than 5 percent of the population in 2010–12; the FAO credited government-run supermarket networks and nutrition programs created by Chávez.

US Media Erase Years of Chavismo’s Gains

Russian Demography

Attention was paid to the industrialization of agriculture. Due to the emergence of domestic tractor construction, in 1932, the Soviet Union refused to import tractors from abroad, and in 1934 the Kirov Plant in Leningrad began to produce a tilled tractor "Universal", which became the first domestic tractor exported abroad. In the ten years before the war, about 700 thousand tractors were produced, which accounted for 40% of their world production.

Since capital investments in heavy industry almost immediately exceeded the previously planned amount and continued to grow, money emission was sharply increased (that is, printing of paper money), and during the entire first five-year period money supplygrowth in circulation more than doubled than production of consumer goods, which led to higher prices and a shortage of consumer goods.

At the end of 1932, the successful and early implementation of the first five-year plan for four years and three months was announced. Summarizing its results, Stalin announced that heavy industry had fulfilled the plan by 108%. During the period between October 1, 1928 and January 1, 1933, the production fixed assets of heavy industry increased by 2.7 times.

The result of the first five-year plans was the development of heavy industry, thanks to which the increase in gross domestic productduring 1928–40, according to Vitaly Melyantsev, was about 4.6% per year (according to other, earlier estimates, from 3% to 6,3%).[29][30] Industrial production in the period 1928–1937 increased 2.5–3.5 times, that is, 10.5–16% per year.[31] In particular, the release of machinery in the period 1928–1937 grew on average 27.4% per year.[32] From 1930 to 1940, the number of higher and secondary technical educational institutions in the Soviet Union increased 4 times and exceeded 150.[18][33]

Industrialization in the Soviet Union

Of the 66 percent who said they regret the Soviet Union’s fall, more than half said that they regret losing the Communist union’s “single economic system.” More than a third said they miss living under a great world superpower. Levada sociologist Karina Pipiya said, “Now the nostalgia is more determined by economic factors and regret that there used to be more social justice and that the government worked for the people and that it was better in terms of care for citizens and paternalistic expectations.”

Poll: Two Thirds of Russians Miss the Soviet Union

Results.— Age-adjusted mortality in Russia rose by almost 33% between 1990 and 1994. During that period, life expectancy for Russian men and women declined dramatically from 63.8 and 74.4 years to 57.7 and 71.2 years, respectively, while in the United States, life expectancy increased for both men and women from 71.8 and 78.8 years to 72.4 and 79.0 years, respectively. More than 75% of the decline in life expectancy was due to increased mortality rates for ages 25 to 64 years. Overall, cardiovascular diseases (heart disease and stroke) and injuries accounted for 65% of the decline in life expectancy while infectious diseases, including pneumonia and influenza, accounted for 5.8%, chronic liver diseases and cirrhosis for 2.4%, other alcohol-related causes for 9.6%, and cancer for 0.7%. Increases in cardiovascular mortality accounted for 41.6% of the decline in life expectancy for women and 33.4% for men, while increases in mortality from injuries (eg, falls, occupational injuries, motor vehicle crashes, suicides, and homicides) accounted for 32.8% of the decline in life expectancy for men and 21.8% for women.

Causes of Declining Life Expectancy in Russia

[–]C0dey3 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dorkfarces2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]C0dey2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]J-Unleashed2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WikiTextBot1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Demographics of Russia

The demographics of Russia are the demographic features of the population of the Russian Federation including population growth, population density, ethnic composition, education level, health, economic status and other aspects.

As of 1 January 2019, the population of Russia is 146,804,372 including Crimea and Sevastopol, whose annexation is not recognised by most UN members. Around 77% of its population lives in European Russia, while the 23% lives in its Asian part.According to the 2010 census, ethnic Russians make up 81% of the total population. This share remained steady over the last few decades.

Title	Has anyone else noticed...
Author	Melthengylf
Upvotes	66
Comments	69
Date	February 14, 2020 5:46 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/f3vriy/has_anyone_else_noticed/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/has-anyone-else-noticed.1064006 https://theredarchive.com/post/1064006

Comments