I think jcp54 is just mad because he will always be stuck working at JCPenney. To be fair though, he is right about Muslim men being ultra macho and all that nonsense. How do I know? Because I grew up in a Muslim household. However, this is more true when you speak in the context of race, not religion.

Of course not. There have been people insta-banned on post #1.

I believe the all time record has to be the time Nightgaunt saw a username in the "the newest registered user is x" thing at the bottom of the forum and decided that the username was so incredibly fucking stupid that there was no way they'd ever contribute anything useful/other than complete and utter bullshit so he just nuked him instantly. Funnily enough, the user never complained about it so he must've been right. Lovecraftian intuition, that.

Good to know I'm doing 1,556 times better than some people, then.

Perhaps a better way to think of it is as a pervasive element within certain cultures. If you consider that culture embodies the shared values and beliefs held by a community or society's members, then it's perfectly reasonable to presume that machismo - as a value and a belief - is pervasive in certain cultures. I don't think it's a wrong question to ask what impact that it has in shaping the attitudes and behavior of individuals and groups within that community or society. Where it goes too far, and was jcp54's downfall, is to suggest that the targets of those attitudes and behavior are ultimately responsible for producing them. That's not only classic victim blaming, but it's a typical technique to deflect responsibility and dismiss individuals and societies as the constructive agents of their own cultures.

InnesI:
Page 22 of the Brå document mentions an interesting thing to keep in mind. The statistics are only regarding identified reported reasonably suspects and prosecuted ones. Meaning that not only are the obvious case of non-reported once not included, but neither people who commit a crime, gets reported, but cannot be identified as a suspect, doesn't show in the statistics. This is important, as the document states, since there are studies showing that the risk of a person being detected, suspected and prosecuted are different between people of different backgrounds.

This is easy to imagine as well. In places where there are very few of for example black guys, and a black guy commits a crime, he's at a way higher risk of being detected, suspected and prosecuted than if a guy who looks and talks like the majority of guys in that area commits the same crime. Not to mention the victims motivation for reporting and going through with the legal process are often depended on them feeling that it may be worth the effort, a feeling which obviously would be weaker the lesser the percieved chance of convicting the criminal is. And if the criminal is simmilar to alot of people in that area, it's easy to see how some victims would not even try or give up early in trying to reach that stage in the legal process when facing real difficulties merely identifying the guy.

I haven't gone through the entire document, but it's also worth thinking about people with immigrant backgrounds having a stronger tendency to be in the lower income groups and income-groups are very much established as the most clear difference between criminals and non-criminals.

Dembo

I think there is truth to what you're saying even though I haven't really seen statistics on it (i.e. that it is easier to identify someone who sticks out). And I know for certain that economic status is a determining factor. But not if you're criminal or not criminal but what type of crime you commit. Perhaps there is a ratio difference as well but mostly it is about different types of crime being committed by different groups, based on economy, in a society.

And it is the same for culture. People from certain cultures are more prone to commit certain crimes. I'm not sure any particular culture is more inclined to crime in general but there are differences in the crimes committed depending on ethnic origin. There has been a pretty nice documentary made by the BBC including this aspect of the difference between people who live in the same environment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb2iFikOwYU

It's the Brå document stating, on the same page as mentioned, that there are studies showing that different backgrund makes a different chance of idenifying a criminal. I'll try to fill in on my hypothetical example above whiwh was meant to illustrate how that's very reasonable: the black criminal in the very non-black area when leaving the crime scene and passes other people along the way, they are more likely to remember passing him if he sticks out. That's simply how memory works, we remember things that stick out more than things that don't. So it's very easy to imagine that if the news reports about a black guy commiting a crime at place P and time T, the people who passed the guy when leaving the crime scene are more likely ro remember having seen a black guy around that place and time than if the characteristics of the criminal had just been another guy who's in the majority of how people look in that area. The heightened chance of remembering the guy is a heightened chance of them reporting to the police about where and when they saw him, and in what direction he was going. And the police getting more and more info from people remember seeing him, is of great help to them tracking him down and eventually identifying him and having him go through the legal process.

Disappointed to find that this thread is not about the band.

Well, in my defense I will say that it was a rapid lecture and I that have listened to the same opinion from some Swedes.

But..........no excuses, sorry because I understand perfectly what the paragraph says I dont know why I missed the little but very important aspect that it was refering to the Italian site.