Already got it. Let's see...
"I occasionally wander into leddit to see what shit I can stir up, but often forget the rules of shitposting, and get sucked into a legit argument. I don't know why I waste my life like this.
>Lefty claims systemic racism in policing
I point out that unarmed whites are killed by police significantly more often than unarmed blacks
"Hurr durr only 13%, so still disproportionately killed"
I point out that blacks commit 50% of murders and robberies, 29% of rapes, 34% of aggravated assaults, etc. etc. and this have more interactions with police
Lefty says that that's only reported crimes. Black neighbourhoods are overpoliced due to racism, so white offenders aren't counted as often
>I point out that murder doesn't simply fo unreported, which is part of why it's such a good metric for this argument
I point out Bunea?? (Beauro?) of Justice Statistics National Victimization Survey, which interviews a massive, representative sample. Asks whether they've suffered a violent crime, and what the race of the offender was. This is a good way to include unreported crimes in the data.
Yes, total estimate of crimes goes up, but racial proportions in violent crime stays the same as FBI data (roughly) it lumps all violent crime together, so you can't seperate out the heinous ones that blacks very much stand out in, such as murder and robbery. ~25% of offenders are black, a couple points lower on certain years.
Still, almost x2 for their population)
Lefty says cherrypicked racist data. Systemic racism explains it. Even if true, it's systemic racism which has put blacks in this position. Systemic racism in policing, courts, education, healthcare, employment, etc. Don't forget slavery!
They non sequitur, they straw man, they ad hominem ("racist!")
What is it this week? We just had another one of these the other day. I already talked about the statistics in the last one (no, it isn’t hinges on “under reporting” or arguments about proportionality of crimes.) You have to be daft to argue proportionality because we KNOW that black inmates make up a disproportionate number of inmates- whatever the reasons for this- that means that by default any crime data based on arrests and convictions will paint the same picture. The problems lie in a couple places- one being much official data can be shown to be inherently flawed- which doesn’t change the fact that more Black people are represented in crime data- but it changes the numbers and gives us perspective when people start taking the data and making assumptions and conclusions extrapolated from the data.
What IS very important is to ask for a point. What is the persons point who says “well black people make up most of criminals...” And what? The fact that a large number of criminals are blacks doesn’t mean that most Black people are criminals does it? So that doesn’t really give us a conclusion about any single black person we may be talking about does it? The question with any individual would be if THEY are a criminal right?
But more importantly- on a systemic level- what would the armchair analysts of Black crime suggest be done about this? If black people make up a significant number of criminals- what is the next thing that person would say?
See- “racial bigotry” “racism” and such- those words get thrown around a lot- but sometimes they are apt. No credible study to date has suggested that “Black” people poses a gene other races do not, or that such a gene exists in much larger numbers in the Black community than others. Behavioral genetics DOES suggest that regardless of ones genes, experiences in life are a driving factor in how we develop, the current understanding is that genes that influence behavior are only PART of who we are.
The same traits that make a person skilled at sports are the traits you’ll find in someone skilled at brutal violence. The same skills that make a good CEO make a good serial killer. An accomplished terrorist and a decorated special forces operative tend to have similar skills, drives, and even resumes.
So HOW we frame the data tells us more about the person speaking than the data. The question is- WHY does this particular person feel it is relevant to need to mention that black people are over represented in these statistics? What is their POINT? What do they propose is the cause? What do they propose as a solution?
If you are brining these statistics up to support the idea that black people are inherently more prone to criminal behavior because of their race- that is literally the definition of racism. If you are brining these up because your conclusion is the United States would be better without Black people- also racism. If you are brining these up to justify some idea that it’s ok to perceive or treat blacks like they are more dangerous because these statistics can be extrapolated to indicate that any random black person has a higher chance of committing a crime- that’s ignorant, shows a lack of understanding for data, and COULD be racist but at the least shows racial bias in your thinking.
Here is an example of “bad data understanding.” A majority of crimes committed by black criminals are agains other black people- “black on black crime.” I’m not saying those don’t count because no white people are harmed in those- I’m saying that a white person looking to label blacks as more dangerous can’t use those- because white people are by their nature- not going to be the direct victim of black on black crime.
So we can pretty much invalidate the narrative of the “dangerous black man” from the non black perspective with that alone. But let’s dig deeper. WHY is so much crime “black on black”? Well.... traditionally and even in 2020 we have a large number of largely or mostly concentrated populations of race by area they live. Many crimes are more likely to be committed where or near where a person loves or is most familiar right? Often “black” neighborhoods are poorer areas, and tend to be underdeveloped- not a lot of people traditionally took vacations to the ghettos and projects of America, or would drive from the suburbs to urban ghettos to hit the mall and such.
These communities tend to be more isolated- look at the water situation in Flint or any number of other examples. So since you have less people coming in from outside the neighborhood, and less people leaving the area if the neighborhood- crimes that occur in the neighborhood will tend to be those from the area as victims and perpetrators right?
So if we break things down (very hard to do as statistics are few, far between, and inaccurate) we can see that our myth about race based crime starts to become an issue where people of certain socioeconomic conditions are statistically over represented in crime- and certain groups like black Americans tend to be over represented by population in groups with low socioeconomic currency.
Now- if we flip things around and look at the highest income strata- in America amongst the wealthiest- WHITE people are more likely to commit felony crimes than Blacks of the same socioeconomic status. Of course- whites are over represented in this income bracket as well.
I can’t put my finger on it- but it’s almost as if some combination of social and institutionalized doctrine conspired over a long period of time to specifically place blacks into a lower socioeconomic position- and as a natural consequence of that we are seeing some sort of logical phenomenon based on a large number of people being marginalized and excluded from society.... but in America, what like that could have happened in history I wonder....?
Tl:dr and in conclusion- the point is that if your mind immediately goes to race as the leading factor in such statistics and not the myriad of other documented circumstances that would cause a specific race to be over represented in the statistics- it’s ignorance. You either don’t understand data, or the world, or all... or you are ignorant in race and genetics... or your racially biased and racist... or all of the above. You cannot make a scientific case that race defines criminality. Race CORRELATES to criminality because of the circumstances of race in society. We see similar trends in crime statistics where people are of low socioeconomic footing. It’s a logical fallacy- a step a person only makes when their perceptions about the world do not line up with reality.
Comments
"I occasionally wander into leddit to see what shit I can stir up, but often forget the rules of shitposting, and get sucked into a legit argument. I don't know why I waste my life like this.
>Lefty claims systemic racism in policing
I point out that unarmed whites are killed by police significantly more often than unarmed blacks
"Hurr durr only 13%, so still disproportionately killed"
I point out that blacks commit 50% of murders and robberies, 29% of rapes, 34% of aggravated assaults, etc. etc. and this have more interactions with police
Lefty says that that's only reported crimes. Black neighbourhoods are overpoliced due to racism, so white offenders aren't counted as often
I point out Bunea?? (Beauro?) of Justice Statistics National Victimization Survey, which interviews a massive, representative sample. Asks whether they've suffered a violent crime, and what the race of the offender was. This is a good way to include unreported crimes in the data.
Yes, total estimate of crimes goes up, but racial proportions in violent crime stays the same as FBI data (roughly) it lumps all violent crime together, so you can't seperate out the heinous ones that blacks very much stand out in, such as murder and robbery. ~25% of offenders are black, a couple points lower on certain years.
Lefty says cherrypicked racist data. Systemic racism explains it. Even if true, it's systemic racism which has put blacks in this position. Systemic racism in policing, courts, education, healthcare, employment, etc. Don't forget slavery!
They non sequitur, they straw man, they ad hominem ("racist!")