It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Does the USA have a cultural propensity towards violence? - Hitchbot destroyed in Philly
If you're unfamiliar with the story, a group of Canadian researchers developed a robot whose goal it was to document a hitchhike across Canada, parts of Euroland, and across the USA. It would survive the trip solely relying on the benevolence of the people wanting to further its journey. More here
Hitchbot made it completely across Canada and Germany unharmed, but after only 2 weeks into its trip across the USA, he was destroyed in Philadelphia:
So America, what's the deal?
Are people here just so far gone that the only way they can express themselves is through violence?
I go to school in Philly, and let me tell you. You could get jumped, robbed, stabbed, meet the nicest person in the world, get a solid cheesesteak, become a dad, jumped, and watch Meek Mill ride his dirt bike down the street all in one day.
Depending where you are stuff gets real.
(I say jumped twice because my room mate got jumped for textbooks on campus and I know some other guy who got jumped the same day at an ATM)
((Textbooks!!! These people doing the jumping are smart, didn't even take his iPhone, went straight for the money bags of college books.))
Moral of the post, don't leave robots in Philly or they will get jumped.
Lets be real...many parts of Philly are an absolute dump...much worse than Boston, NYC (the robot wouldnt venture to those parts as easily). The US doesn't have a propensity towards violence anymore or less than any other country in the world.
I guarantee you whoever destroyed the robot was after its internals. Probably some copper of some sort inside (lot of $$$$) and other things potentially worth some money.
Well, don't blame America. It's a Philly problem. Why do you think they had to build a tunnel from the hotel to the stadium for the Phillies' opposing team in town? They had to keep the fans from beating the team down somehow
You can't just compare Europe and America based off of fucking Philly. You have to remember how much bigger America is than Europe and Canada. Maybe not land mass with Canada, but California has more people than Canada so yeah.
The robot didn't go through Eastern Europe or something of the sort, so saying America is so much more violent than Europe is not really a fair comparison. If the robot would've stuck to West of the Mississippi it would've been fine.
Kooky_LukeyYou can't just compare Europe and America based off of fucking Philly. You have to remember how much bigger America is than Europe and Canada. Maybe not land mass with Canada, but California has more people than Canada so yeah.
The robot didn't go through Eastern Europe or something of the sort, so saying America is so much more violent than Europe is not really a fair comparison. If the robot would've stuck to West of the Mississippi it would've been fine.
Now I'm not saying this specific case alone draws the absolute conclusion that America has a propensity towards violence (as I said there are many examples that do/could), just that this case is interesting in that it survived many cities of the same size (or double) as Philadelphia but ran into trouble in Philadelphia. Granted that yes this is mostly a case of bad luck, wrong place/wrong time but it is interesting that he made it much farther in other parts of the world with similarly sized cities that have lots of drunk people running around too.
I also never said that America is more violent than all of Europe, so don't put words in my mouth. And it's probably not accurate to think that the robot would have fared better in Los Angeles, that's a bit of a stretch.
I saw the security footage, that robot got stomped down, it was rough. I honestly think it has less to do with an obsession with violence and more to do with the simple fact that there's way more people in the states than in canada, and I don't think everybody would've heard about hitchbot. It's kinda funny though that the bro who killed him saw a fucking 5 gallon pale with pool noodle arms and legs sitting on a park bench and decided that it needed to be destroyed.
cobra_commanderThis thread largely appears to be evidence in the case that millenials have a tendency to draw sweeping conclusions from studies of n=1.
Now this is something I could go on for ages about. This is NOT a millenial thing. This has NOTHING to do with any age group. This is actually an American thing (by consequence Canadian too).
There are so so many examples of this. Think of pretty much every policy change ever having to do with firearms. In Canada Ecole Polytechnique --> assume 1 person going crazy with a gun means everyone with a gun might go crazy --> long gun registry. Sandy Hook --> law makers assume 1 person represents everyone --> laws in NY and other places.
Or a common one in the States with the less educated crowd: 9/11 --> all Muslims are terrorists.
How often does it happen that 1 person is an idiot and kills themselves jumping into a quarry so local officials assume everyone jumping into the quarry are idiots so close the quarry to swimming.
One year the ice is a bit thin to hold snow sculptures and crowds on Dow's Lake in Ottawa. Now they just don't let snow sculptures on Dow's Lake after them being there for decades.
It happens all the time to so many degrees and it has absolutely nothing to do with millenials. In fact I think millenials are less likely to draw sweeping conclusions from 1 incident.
How many laws have been made simply due to 1 single incident assuming this one incident means that it's going to happen all the time so we need to protect ourselves from this?
Kooky_LukeyYou can't just compare Europe and America based off of fucking Philly. You have to remember how much bigger America is than Europe and Canada. Maybe not land mass with Canada, but California has more people than Canada so yeah.
The robot didn't go through Eastern Europe or something of the sort, so saying America is so much more violent than Europe is not really a fair comparison. If the robot would've stuck to West of the Mississippi it would've been fine.
You realize that Europe has more than double the population of the USA, right? I mean the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain alone basically make up the population of the US.
KravtZLets be real...many parts of Philly are an absolute dump...much worse than Boston, NYC (the robot wouldnt venture to those parts as easily). The US doesn't have a propensity towards violence anymore or less than any other country in the world.
I guarantee you whoever destroyed the robot was after its internals. Probably some copper of some sort inside (lot of $$$$) and other things potentially worth some money.
This just reminds me so much of dumb jocks in high school and college that think they can get away with smashing shit when they are drunk. Whenever the opportunity presents itself where idiots can break something and get away with it, they do it. Very typical retarded college behavior. This isn't specific to America but when I think about retarded jocks smashing shit, America does come to the top of the list.
FWIW, the US has less cultural violence than most other countries with a history of exploitative policy towards large segments of the population (think Slavery and early 20th Century Civil Rights). If you look at other countries that have seen similar, or worse histories (Haiti, Peru, Columbia, Brazil, India, South Africa, equatorial Africa, Indonesia, Philippians) they all have a culture of violence.
Since the end of feudalism, western Europe and Canada have not seen policies that were designed to exploit large segments of the population for multiple generations.
FWIW, I see Western Europe getting much more violent in the next 10-15 years, for a variety of reasons, but a large influx of unemployed migrants who fundamentally disagree with many Europeans is at the top of the list. Guns will appear, despite stupid European policy, and people gonna die.
cobra_commanderSince the end of feudalism, western Europe and Canada have not seen policies that were designed to exploit large segments of the population for multiple generations.
Exploit maybe not, but violently persecute definitely yes. The Spanish Inquisition alone lasted for almost 400 years.
onenerdykidExploit maybe not, but violently persecute definitely yes. The Spanish Inquisition alone lasted for almost 400 years.
Yes, but was different for a few reasons:
1. Jews, Protestants, and Moors were a relatively small and shrinking part of the Spanish population.
2. It ended over a hundred years before the end of the shit I was talking about
3. They just killed people rather than enslave their entire family for multiple generations, and those they didn't generally left the country.
The Spanish are also pretty fucking lazy, and violence isn't easy, its hard work killing folks. Only partial sarcasm.
On topic of the subject line. I don't think it's a cultural thing. Violence is much more directly related to race. With asians literally never killing each other. African americans are 7x more likely to kill than white americans.
The Caribbean is the best place to get killed. however when you look at countries in the Caribbean that are predominately black vs. white Caribbean countries, blacks are also killing 6.2x more.
The counter argument is poverty. but that argument doesn't hold, because there are lots of poor asian and european countries that aren't killing.
It's also important to note that approx. 90% of murder is intrarace. (black on black , white on white) So don't be racist. Black people don't kill whites, no need to worry.
I'm sure some one will try and give me shit for this. but thinking we all are equal is pretty delusional. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Doesn't mean anyone is more deserving or should have less rights. We are all human and we are all different. Embrace that.
SurfaceHoarOn topic of the subject line. I don't think it's a cultural thing. Violence is much more directly related to race. With asians literally never killing each other. African americans are 7x more likely to kill than white americans.
The Caribbean is the best place to get killed. however when you look at countries in the Caribbean that are predominately black vs. white Caribbean countries, blacks are also killing 6.2x more.
The counter argument is poverty. but that argument doesn't hold, because there are lots of poor asian and european countries that aren't killing.
It's also important to note that approx. 90% of murder is intrarace. (black on black , white on white) So don't be racist. Black people don't kill whites, no need to worry.
I'm sure some one will try and give me shit for this. but thinking we all are equal is pretty delusional. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Doesn't mean anyone is more deserving or should have less rights. We are all human and we are all different. Embrace that.
No, being black doesn't make you more likely to beat someone up. It's all cultural factors. And there's more blacks in poor ghetto communities so they skew statistics.
You also can't compare a poor asian country to a poor black community. Because again cultural values.
SurfaceHoarOn topic of the subject line. I don't think it's a cultural thing. Violence is much more directly related to race. With asians literally never killing each other. African americans are 7x more likely to kill than white americans.
The Caribbean is the best place to get killed. however when you look at countries in the Caribbean that are predominately black vs. white Caribbean countries, blacks are also killing 6.2x more.
The counter argument is poverty. but that argument doesn't hold, because there are lots of poor asian and european countries that aren't killing.
It's also important to note that approx. 90% of murder is intrarace. (black on black , white on white) So don't be racist. Black people don't kill whites, no need to worry.
I'm sure some one will try and give me shit for this. but thinking we all are equal is pretty delusional. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Doesn't mean anyone is more deserving or should have less rights. We are all human and we are all different. Embrace that.
You believing that a certain skin colour is biologically more prone to violence is about as rascist as it gets.
No we are not all equal, but to ignore the strong environmental factors that have encouraged violence in certain humans and areas is quite ignorant.
You may want to open your eyes to the reality that we are all humans and we are all capable of the same things good or bad. The way you look doesn't change that.
S.J.WNo, being black doesn't make you more likely to beat someone up.
Statistically, it does. Now what the underlying causes of that are, are up to debate. It is true however, that both domestically (limited to the USA) and internationally, you are more likely to commit a violent crime if you are black.
Countries that are predominantly black are also more likely to be 'shitty.'
SurfaceHoarI'm sure some one will try and give me shit for this. but thinking we all are equal is pretty delusional. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Doesn't mean anyone is more deserving or should have less rights. We are all human and we are all different. Embrace that.
The statement "we are all morally equal" is not the same thing as "we are all physically equal". You saying that we should not have an inequality of rights, is judgment for moral equality. To also say that we "are all equal is pretty delusional" should only then refer to physical equality, which would be accurate.
If we all have the potential for both good and bad, then those people who are raised in bad areas will most likely form bad habits concerning life regardless of their race. That black Africans in Africa or oriental Asians in Asia are bad people has scientifically nothing to do their race, but with what they have learned/not learned in life.
saskskierYou realize that Europe has more than double the population of the USA, right? I mean the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain alone basically make up the population of the US.
I was talking about land mass with Europe, population with Canada. You can't compare all three of them because they are all so different. But thank you for the super educational info-graphic.
cobra_commanderYes, but was different for a few reasons:
1. Jews, Protestants, and Moors were a relatively small and shrinking part of the Spanish population.
2. It ended over a hundred years before the end of the shit I was talking about
3. They just killed people rather than enslave their entire family for multiple generations, and those they didn't generally left the country.
1. Estimates are generally about 350,000 people were processed during the Inquisition- vast majority were Jews and not many Muslims/Moors and even fewer Protestants. Not a small number overall.
2. No - feudalism disappeared from most of Europe by the 16th century. For sure it lingered on in some areas, but it was mostly out by then. The Spanish Inquisition was officially dissolved in the 19th century.
3. The Church only killed about 5,000 people over the course of the entire thing. They forced about 200,000 out of the country and for the ones who stayed made their lives a living hell for just about all of it.
I have no doubt that there are environmental factors. however race is more than just physical differences. Emotional/Mental/Sexual for example.
Dogs are the easy example. Different breeds not only look different they also have different intelligence and temperament. This is truth across the board for all subspecies.
I also don't know what's more offensive. Saying violent behaviour is a genetic disposition or saying it's a product from your upbringing. You're more violent because your family raised you to be. Is pretty offensive. Like everything else, genetics and environment are both factors. And the numbers speak for themselves.
SurfaceHoarI have no doubt that there are environmental factors. however race is more than just physical differences. Emotional/Mental/Sexual for example.
Dogs are the easy example. Different breeds not only look different they also have different intelligence and temperament. This is truth across the board for all subspecies.
I also don't know what's more offensive. Saying violent behaviour is a genetic disposition or saying it's a product from your upbringing. You're more violent because your family raised you to be. Is pretty offensive. Like everything else, genetics and environment are both factors. And the numbers speak for themselves.
Dogs are actually not a good example, because dogs have different species and subspecies distinctions. Modern humans do not have true subspecies distinctions. We are all considered Homo sapiens sapiens, no matter what country you are from.
Moreover, on the subject of moral equality we normally speak of it applying to "humans" only. But many moral philosophers (even Kant) thought that if there were any other truly rational being, then moral equality would extend to them too (meaning more applicable than to just humans). For most of the philosophic world (arguably the main think-tanks behind ethics/morality) reason (and subsequently autonomy) is what unites beings on an equal moral plane. For other, pure sentience unites us, which means even more animals are on the same equal moral plane. It isn't the "human" which makes things equal, it is the quality of reason (or for others sentience) that causes us to be morally equal.
Subspecies and race are synonymous. Humans do have different subspecies. It's literally black and white. zing! Modern Science has removed the terms Caucasoid/Negroid/Mongoloid. Due to the pressure of society and the stigma of racism associated to those titles.
The whole, we are all the same and everybody is equal BS that modern society dictates.
Although the taxonomy never did rank one group over the other. Just recognized that there are different people on this planet.
I'm not a racist at all, i'm also not naive. I do feel a step towards acceptance of other races is acceptance of differences, and an openness to embrace those differences. The genetics of a Negroid is superior to Caucasoid in many ways. No doubt they are better athletes.
Of course morality is subjective. They say that Cecil the lions pride will be succeeded by a new alpha male lion who will then kill and eat Cecils cubs, and then breed with the mothers.
To us, murdered and cannibalizing Cecils cubs seems immoral. However, that's the way society in the lion kingdom works. The new alpha is moral and living up to their societies standards.
Coming from Philadelphia I can honestly say that something like this doesn't surprise me. It's obviously not completely full of bad people but there's always that one person that thinks it will be funny/ they want to get attention by ruining cool stuff for everyone else. I'm getting worried about what's going to happen when the pope comes.
cobra_commanderStatistically, it does. Now what the underlying causes of that are, are up to debate. It is true however, that both domestically (limited to the USA) and internationally, you are more likely to commit a violent crime if you are black.
Countries that are predominantly black are also more likely to be 'shitty.'
Oh you mean like Africa? Those countries were fine up until the scramble for Africa. Ukraine, Lativa, Russia, Lithuania, Belarus, Argentinia, etc,etc which are all white countries but all have high rates of crime, but those countries don't make all white people bad. Niger, Mali, Senegal are all black countries with low crime rates. Also don't try and act that having dark sin makes you more likely to commit crime. Being in a low socio economic area makes you more likely to commit crime.
S.J.WOh you mean like Africa? Those countries were fine up until the scramble for Africa. Ukraine, Lativa, Russia, Lithuania, Belarus, Argentinia, etc,etc which are all white countries but all have high rates of crime, but those countries don't make all white people bad. Niger, Mali, Senegal are all black countries with low crime rates. Also don't try and act that having dark sin makes you more likely to commit crime. Being in a low socio economic area makes you more likely to commit crime.
Sub Saharian Aftica has been fucked for long before European explorers landed. Especially equatorial areas. Mali has low crime? are you fucking kidding me?
cobra_commanderSub Saharian Aftica has been fucked for long before European explorers landed. Especially equatorial areas. Mali has low crime? are you fucking kidding me?
But if low income black families are allowed to represent and dictate the majority of blacks. Does that mean Russia is allowed to dictate and represent the majority of whites? Man, those fucking white people!!! Always committing crime!
SurfaceHoarSubspecies and race are synonymous. Humans do have different subspecies. It's literally black and white. zing! Modern Science has removed the terms Caucasoid/Negroid/Mongoloid. Due to the pressure of society and the stigma of racism associated to those titles.
The whole, we are all the same and everybody is equal BS that modern society dictates.
Although the taxonomy never did rank one group over the other. Just recognized that there are different people on this planet.
I'm not a racist at all, i'm also not naive. I do feel a step towards acceptance of other races is acceptance of differences, and an openness to embrace those differences. The genetics of a Negroid is superior to Caucasoid in many ways. No doubt they are better athletes.
No - science has not said there are subspecies to the modern Human race. Look it up.
You definitely seem to be saying that "same" and "equal" are the same thing, when they are not. That people are morally equal is not the same thing as saying we are all the same. We are without question different from one another, but we have one common faculty that unites us and that is we are rational/self-conscious/autonomous (free). That is the basis for our equality and it transcends what we look like, how good we are at sports, the shape of our eyes, and the color of our skin.
SurfaceHoarOf course morality is subjective. They say that Cecil the lions pride will be succeeded by a new alpha male lion who will then kill and eat Cecils cubs, and then breed with the mothers.
To us, murdered and cannibalizing Cecils cubs seems immoral. However, that's the way society in the lion kingdom works. The new alpha is moral and living up to their societies standards.
If you maintain that we are rational/self-conscious/autonomous then there are some objective morals that follow from that. The main one is since I am an autonomous being and we all are autonomous beings, we cannot act in such a way towards each other that infringes on our natural autonomy. This therefore concludes that such things as rape are immoral no matter what culture you are in or what norms are in that country concerning rape because this would violate a fundamental tenet of what it means to be an autonomous being. To disagree with this is fine, but you ultimately have to state that we are not autonomous at all, which would lead to a lot of non-pragmatic consequences for society.
Next, Cecil is/was not a rational/self-conscious/autonomous being and as such cannot act in any other way than that which he is naturally predisposed to do. His actions are then neither moral or immoral since he is simply not capable of acting any differently. There is no "morality" when it comes to the animal kingdom where beings lack autonomy.
Subspecies - a category in biological classification that designates a population genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully.
Race -breed, an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group
They mean the same thing. The dictionary even uses the word subspecies to define race.
In the 20th century science removed the traditional human subspecies taxonomy. Not because it doesn't exist. But because we are over sensitive to our differences. Replacing the nomenclature.
It's completely irrational to believe there are different races and not believe there are different subspecies. It's really just semantics.
Nerdykid, sorry for the confusion. When i say equality, I'm talking about rights, freedoms, and laws. Things that we govern society with that should be equal for everyone. My quote "We are the same and everybody is equal. " was used as satire.
I want to say believing animals aren't rational/self-conscious/autonomous is a fair opinion. But it's not. Animals more specifically mammals/aves, absolutely understand life and death, and have a self governing society(autonomous). They are also fully capable of being rational and using logic. Primates are the best example. Crows and dolphins are pretty smart too.
Late philosophers took the stance that humans are above the animal kingdom. That's just being self-righteous. Humans like to think that we are above our environment, remember we use to think that the Earth was the centre of the Universe.
On topic, glad to hear the robot didn't get beat up.
SurfaceHoarI want to say believing animals aren't rational/self-conscious/autonomous is a fair opinion. But it's not. Animals more specifically mammals/aves, absolutely understand life and death, and have a self governing society(autonomous). They are also fully capable of being rational and using logic. Primates are the best example. Crows and dolphins are pretty smart too.
Late philosophers took the stance that humans are above the animal kingdom. That's just being self-righteous. Humans like to think that we are above our environment, remember we use to think that the Earth was the centre of the Universe.
I fully leave the possibility open that other animals (or beings elsewhere in this universe) might be capable of autonomy, as some apes possess the capacity for basic rational thought and to some degree language skills. IF there are beings that actually possess autonomy, then morally they would be treated as equals regardless of their race or species. So honestly, the whole human subspecies debate (from a morality standpoint) is moot since it is more fundamental than racial differences. Again, I don't think our equality stems from us all being the same species but rather that we are autonomous beings capable of rational thought, which is a faculty found in all humans.
It's very very hard to find examples in the animals kingdom of this, which is not to say that such beings are therefore unintelligent. There are many smart animals on this planet, but only 1 species is believed to truly be autonomous (humans) and even then some philosophers & neurologists claim that freedom is something we tricked ourselves into. Taken on their own, forming social networks and packs and communication is not indicative of autonomy because they can still be fully formed without autonomy, especially to those who believe that even humans aren't actually free.
And we are the only animals that have broken out of "the state of nature" and formed complex societies founded on rules besides might makes right. Other animals simply can't do that and for that reason they are seen as beneath us. Once animals demonstrate their ability to think rationally about a subject (not simply feel benevolent or kind, which they do show) and rationally act contrary to what they want to do, then they could be considered autonomous.
onenerdykid1. Estimates are generally about 350,000 people were processed during the Inquisition- vast majority were Jews and not many Muslims/Moors and even fewer Protestants. Not a small number overall.
2. No - feudalism disappeared from most of Europe by the 16th century. For sure it lingered on in some areas, but it was mostly out by then. The Spanish Inquisition was officially dissolved in the 19th century.
3. The Church only killed about 5,000 people over the course of the entire thing. They forced about 200,000 out of the country and for the ones who stayed made their lives a living hell for just about all of it.
1. 350,000 people over several centuries in a country who's population ranged from 7-10 million in that time is still a relatively small percentage. Compare to the percentage of people who were slaves in the Southern US in 1800, or Brazil in 1850. Or the black population of South Africa in 1990.
2. One of the places that feudalism stayed on was Russia, one of the more violent countries out there.
3. Most effected left - they were not forced to stay in slavery or similar. Killed - yes. tortured - yes, harassed - yes, exploited - no.
Man, what a troll! I'm telling you, this is the greatest troll on this site right now! Such high levels of inteligence and thought out troll to rile people up. This isn't your average troll. This is some next level shit! Who would of thought of using gay as a form to rile people up on the internet. You must be so smart SFB. Props to you!
cobra_commanderThere are very few written accounts of Equatorial Africa prior to European involvement. However, the book Why Nations Fail does explore it a little. It is a pretty dull book, but worth reading. Also your website is 14 years out of date.
I'm not going to form an opinon on a book that explores sub colonised africa "a little". But lets look at Botswana. Up until its independence in 1966, it was one of the poorest countries in Africa. It had 12 kilometres of paved road, 22 citizins had graduated university and only 100 from high school. After it gained its independence and the 45 years following, it has become a stable democracy, achieved one of the fastest growth rates in the world and reach the highest income level in sub saharan Africa.
And I know my source is 14 years out of date, that was before Mali was fucked over by terrorism, which had Al Quada links. But that's irrelevent.
The point I'm making is you got offended when this thread was created attacking the whole of the USA and it's "propensity towards violence", but you said it was just a bad apple and N doesn't equal one. But you love to draw sweeping conclusion about black communities and people and you love making sure N=1 if the colour of the person you're making that assumption about is black. Got it!
And before you say "oh well the statistics say that blacks commit crimes at x amount of times greater than whites". Yeah but like the study I linked you a poor white person from the same area as a poor black person has the same amount of chance as committing crime. And the chances decrease as wealth in said family goes up. So instead of looking at crime as white crime or black crime, we should look at crime as what socio economic they belong to. That way we as a society could better prevent crime and implement ways to help our less fornuate so they don't have to commit crime.
S.J.WMan, what a troll! I'm telling you, this is the greatest troll on this site right now! Such high levels of inteligence and thought out troll to rile people up. This isn't your average troll. This is some next level shit! Who would of thought of using gay as a form to rile people up on the internet. You must be so smart SFB. Props to you!
