>>9474941In this context, a trend is a correlation. It means a general direction, and we're associating it with variables here.
>So blacks today live in the same conditions as whites 3 centuries ago?I said "similar," not "identical." Law enforcement in places like Baltimore and Detroit is overburdened and poorly monitored, just like law enforcement back in the day. For a closer, more recent example, look at Eastern Europe in the 90s. Lots of decaying buildings and infrastructure, corruption, violent and understaffed law enforcement, illicit economic activity like drug trafficking, uncontrolled gang operation, stagnant growth, poor living conditions for average people, fair numbers of people trying to leave, widespread firearm ownership, and so on. Russia's homicide rate used to be almost as high as South Africa's today.
>That was in 2007 and he apparently apologized for that and got back his titlesThe recent sanctioning was because he repeated the comments, invalidating the apology. You can find actual research (not offhand comments) about the subject in mainstream science. There's entire journals devoted to it, and you can find them on almost any database. A guy who was at one point among the most-cited researchers in his field made controversial comments about race and psychology. People may be more on edge in the late 2010s and 2020s because of political unrest (including mass murder) in the US and elsewhere, but I digress.
>Why do you assume that people that disagree with you have an ideological motivation to do so?I didn't derive the guess that they have ideological motivations because they disagree. I derive that because of other positions they openly or implicitly hold, including those related to the results of relevant research. If someone (for example) makes statements about race and intelligence but opposes extending the protections or accommodations we have for actual retarded people to blacks and focuses on dehumanization, he's not to be trusted.
