4 ms·

> If blacks commit so much crime, why, and if they don't, why are the numbers inaccurate? We don't know this because the figures cited are biased towards succe

> If blacks commit so much crime, why, and if they don't, why are the numbers inaccurate? We don't know this because the figures cited are biased towards successful convictions. If white folks are able to afford better, more competent lawyers, you can expect them to mount successful defenses. I've never, ever, seen anyone post the 13/50 stat without acknowledging this fact in their comments or replies. And I've seen it a lot.

avazhi 5y ago
Obviously my use of this stat was to make a point apropos of the commenter I was replying to - but your response is exactly what I meant in the sense that, assuming we are both interested in talking/learning about the subject, there's a dialogue to be had. Calling me a racist would obviously do nothing except convince me that I must be right because namecalling in isolation is the ultimate white flag in internet discourse (well, so I say). At any rate - my response is that not only are blacks exponentially more likely to be convicted, but they are exponentially more likely to be arrested in the first place (talking about per capita population here). This obviously has nothing to do with lawyers, because it's data from the stage preceding the lawyers showing up. You'll probably respond by saying that in fact the system is rigged against blacks (cops are racists, you'll say), and maybe you'll point out how NYC's stop and frisk policy disproportionately targeted young black males (the same ones who are exponentially more likely to be both arrested and convicted in the first place). You'll point out correctly that my reasoning on this point is circular, and then I might bring up the stats from both before stop and frisk, during it, and then after it was no longer city policy, to suggest some causality. I might also draw the link between IQs and crime rates (the causality of which has been demonstrated across racial groups), and I'd point out how black adults are basically a full standard deviation below the average white or Asian American. I'd also probably point out that IQ isn't something that can be changed very quickly, whether by lawyers, or nutritionists, or water filters, and that there's nothing to suggest that the IQ gap is likely to improve very quickly (and that's assuming that it's the result of environmental and not genetic factors in the first place, which isn't clear). On that note I'd also probably bring up how intelligence and personality seem to be 70-90% genetic, and the problems that fact alone ostensibly presents. You might, again (and not incorrectly), point out how 'the system' has basically been fucking blacks for the past 200 years, and that it's therefore impossible to say with certainty what they would look like in an environment without such horrendous baggage, and I'd respond that notwithstanding it being true that they've been mistreated, enslaved, and in some US states subjected to what we'd today call genocide, it doesn't change the fact that they are (apparently) both dumber than non-blacks (on average) and, as the plausible result of being significantly less intelligent, much more likely to commit violent crimes. Where would we go from there?

avazhi 5y ago

Obviously my use of this stat was to make a point apropos of the commenter I was replying to - but your response is exactly what I meant in the sense that, assuming we are both interested in talking/learning about the subject, there's a dialogue to be had. Calling me a racist would obviously do nothing except convince me that I must be right because namecalling in isolation is the ultimate white flag in internet discourse (well, so I say). At any rate - my response is that not only are blacks exponentially more likely to be convicted, but they are exponentially more likely to be arrested in the first place (talking about per capita population here). This obviously has nothing to do with lawyers, because it's data from the stage preceding the lawyers showing up. You'll probably respond by saying that in fact the system is rigged against blacks (cops are racists, you'll say), and maybe you'll point out how NYC's stop and frisk policy disproportionately targeted young black males (the same ones who are exponentially more likely to be both arrested and convicted in the first place). You'll point out correctly that my reasoning on this point is circular, and then I might bring up the stats from both before stop and frisk, during it, and then after it was no longer city policy, to suggest some causality. I might also draw the link between IQs and crime rates (the causality of which has been demonstrated across racial groups), and I'd point out how black adults are basically a full standard deviation below the average white or Asian American. I'd also probably point out that IQ isn't something that can be changed very quickly, whether by lawyers, or nutritionists, or water filters, and that there's nothing to suggest that the IQ gap is likely to improve very quickly (and that's assuming that it's the result of environmental and not genetic factors in the first place, which isn't clear). On that note I'd also probably bring up how intelligence and personality seem to be 70-90% genetic, and the problems that fact alone ostensibly presents. You might, again (and not incorrectly), point out how 'the system' has basically been fucking blacks for the past 200 years, and that it's therefore impossible to say with certainty what they would look like in an environment without such horrendous baggage, and I'd respond that notwithstanding it being true that they've been mistreated, enslaved, and in some US states subjected to what we'd today call genocide, it doesn't change the fact that they are (apparently) both dumber than non-blacks (on average) and, as the plausible result of being significantly less intelligent, much more likely to commit violent crimes. Where would we go from there?