At my university we're going to have a discussion about the demographic situation of the US prison system...

You can
A. Hide your power level and not be retarded
B. Risk your future all because you want to ''redpill'' people who do not have any intention of changing their minds.

I'm not going all out to be honest, I'll just give some counterpoints.

Attached: 1536835681780s.jpg (250x166, 4K)

Wasn't there some chart that showed the lowest income whites commit about the same crime as the highest income blacks? I guess that could counter the muh income shit, if its a reliable source.

Heather Macdonald did a talk at the Hoover institution on this today. Get it on YouTube. Beyond redpilled

>newfags already forgetting the concept of hiding your power level so that you do not look like a total neckbeard retard irl
As to ve expected, I suppose.

Take your tricks elsewhere, Satan.

Attached: 1538139823603.jpg (1000x989, 124K)

Steven Pinker (a leftist) covers this largely in his book "The Better Angels of Our Nature"

What actually happened (it isn't due to IQ primarily) is blacks were segregated into communities and left to fend for themselves with little policing and business. They had to resort often to illegal means of business (drugs, prostitution) and these trades need to be self-regulated via violence. Do you know why the cartel will brutalize you with a blunt machete if you cross them? Because they cannot rely on the government to enforce fair transactions for them. It's the same in these black communities. As a result, gangs pop up, and very basic predatory/retaliatory/preemptive warfare cycles sprout up. This leads to a culture of violence as a viable utile means to certain ends.

This would happen to any race if put in similar circumstances, so it really is not wholly relevant that it is black people.

That's just a detailed version of the "muh oppression" argument.

Whatever you go with, make sure that you really know your stuff and be able to back up anything you say with solid evidence. They'll exploit any flaw in your logic or tiny misstep and use that as an excuse to dismiss you entirely.

Not really, his argument is just that segregation, forced or voluntary, leads to more crime.

Instead of talking about race and IQ, talk about how slavery never ended in america, and instead it was perfected after the civil war, because now it is not constrained by racial boundaries, and anyone who can be convicted of a crime can be legally enslaved.

Remind everyone that american slavery reached its zenith a few years ago, when a full 1% of the american population was enslaved in the prison system, and very diverse and politically correct operation.

Go on to demonstrate that the demography of the prison system is ill understood because the data comes from the very criminal justice system which perpetrates the modern american industrial slavery system, as well as government and corporate sponsored academics, who are only concerned with analyzing intractable and ill defined problems about societal racism, rather than confronting the reality of the prison industrial complex.

Oh and whites actually get shot more by cops in the US than blacks
washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/

There's some other study by a black professor that shows this as well.

>when white people leave black neighborhoods to self-segregate, it leads to more crime

Along these same lines, to really upset your teachers, point out that the primary determinant of the felony conviction rate in the US is actually the amount of available space in the prisons. Its pretty much totally unrelated to the crime rate or anything else.

No one will be able to explain this in terms of economics or "societal racism" or anything like that, only you will be able to account for it, because you know that its just about filling the prisons with more slaves.

It's a liberal paradox. Liberals will tell you that there are more % blacks and hispanics in prison because muh oppression (not violence) BUT there are more % men in prison because they are more violent. Liberals will apply factual reasoning to one but not the other. You will point this out to them and their heads will explode. Then they will call you a bigot.

Yeah they won't care if you point this out, you will just label yourself as a bad guy in their eyes and they will shut down and ostracize you, you should take my approach instead.

This guy enslaves

Oh I'm certainly not advocating to be as direct as this. I think saying what the other Aussie said (OP to my reply) would be just subtle enough and also based and thought provoking.

Why does the US government fall for this though, if it's only profitable for the privately owned prisons? Is it just lobbying and bribing?

Look into MAO-A. It's evidence that the crime gap is at least partially genetic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A
What's more, if you ever need sources when arguing race, Alt-Hype is a treasure trove. They have everything you could ever need, from race and IQ to race and crime. All their articles are very well sourced.
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/race-and-crime/

Attached: 1468241774372.jpg (1709x1913, 615K)

That's retarded. Segregation creates exclusive legal business opportunities for the people being discriminated against. If all the supermarkets say no niggers, all that does is force the nigger community to open its own supermarkets, not gangbang and sell drugs.

Segregation just means that blacks will have to live among themselves. It's not inherently bad, unless you concede that black people are shit

Many inmates were raised by single mothers or in an abusive household. There would be an interesting point to make if a certain racial demographic was also raised in broken homes.

They aren't falling for anything, the system was purpose built this way. Its in black and white in the constitution that slavery legal and acceptable practice.

The people who wield power in the private sector, in all manner of fields, and the politicians who wield power in the public government positions, are all on the same side, and they all know it. Most of the disputes that TV talks about between politicians of different parties, and disputes between business and government, are just theater to delude the population into thinking there isn't a conspiracy against them.

Based and checked.

I agree though. Point out the correlation between incarceration and single motherhood and let them figure out the rest. This plan relies on liberal students applying logic though so we will also need a backup plan.

Make sure you bring up the National Crime Victimisation survey. It proves that the incarceration rates are proportional.

Attached: 0002.jpg (1280x1812, 255K)

>muh basic conservative talking points
The place to start this analysis is with the question “do people from broken homes, or children born out of wed lock, have higher than average crime rates?”. The answer is “yes, but barely”. Well and Rankin 1991 meta-analyzed 44 studies on the correlation between being from a broken home and juvenile delinquency. The mean N-weighted correlation was a mere .11. For violent delinquency the mean effect size across 6 studies was only .04. Similarly, Price and Kunz 2003 analyzed the relationship between family structure and juvenile delinquency across 72 studies and found a mean effect size of -.16. Moreover, this relationship decreased with age and was only -.10 among subject aged 16-19. More comprehensively, Petrosine et al 2009 reviewed 5 previously meta-analyses which looked at the relationship between family structure and crime. The 5 correlations these meta-analyses produced between someone’s home breaking up and them later becoming a criminal were .07, .09, .09, .10, and .10. In other words, the effect is extremely weak and explains something like 1% of the population’s variance in criminality.
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/family-structure-race-and-crime/

Attached: Since-Mothers-and-Violent-Crime-1960-2009.jpg (479x457, 37K)

Attack from a per capita basis if possible. If they are really giving you shit tell them that a definitive answer can not be obtained from observatory data (essentially btfos any social “science”). Might be interesting to include a state breakdown by say Alaska (presumably Indiana’s top the crime here) California (I’d assume Hispanics) , and a place with a large black population (not sure which place?). Also watch out for inclusion of Hispanic in the white category.

Blah blah dismantling the patriarchy will free men from their toxic masculinity and they will commit crime equally with women. Or something.

By that picture I take it you're into necrophilia.
Don't worry, the diversity brigade will sanitise this for the public. Just give them time.

Doesn't explain why their crime rates are comparable to those of niggers in African countries, or first world countries where segregation was not enforced. What a load of deflecting bullshit.

I meant Indians not Indiana

>In other words, the effect is extremely weak
>.07, .09, .09, .10, and .10
These all meet the threshold for significance of 0.05

He did say it explained 1% of the variance. It's still a weak correlation.

Crime rate data is complete trash, just like incarceration data. Even worse, its often totally decoupled from demographic information. You pretty much can't do anything with it, the economists who do this kind of stuff only do so because they have nothing else to publish on. This goes for your ideological opponents as well, before you jump down my throat.

OP is fucked if he goes with the scientific racism route because its easily dismissed by anyone with basic science education, since all the data and methodology is so shitty. He should take my approach instead.

>"societal racism"
Bullshit, kill your sociology professor, then kys.

Attached: inferiorability1(1).png (977x539, 66K)

>warrior gene (look it up) served important evolutionary purpose in tribal society
>warrior gene is ten times more frequent in blacks than whites. Virtually non-existant in Asians
Sorta fits with incarceration statistics, no?
>Higher incarceration of those with warrior gene is both to be expected and serves the long term societal purpose of culling this gene out of the pool. Can’t make babies if behind bars...
Bring this up in class and I can guarantee your SJW teach will fail you but not before writing your ass up for being a racist.

Plan B: Point out that since women are incarcerated far less than men, there obviously is a systemic bias against men. Justice demands equality in incarceration between the sexes - all thirteen of them. Men should no longer be victimized by a sexist judicial system that assume men will do bad things more so than women. Believe men when they say “I dindu nuthin”

You might not like hearing this, but as your attorney I advise you to [not] try to debate those people in any way, shape or form. Higher education is now very much against critical thought, and you will be severely punished for daring to question their authoratie. It will probably ruin your trajectory within that institution or even worse, all possibilities for you. If you're willing to waste a bunch of time and money on standing up for free speech and critical thought like a real user, go ahead. But you will never change their npc minds. You will do much better by suffering through the motions of consent, keeping your head down, staying as anonymous as possible and doing what you have to do to get where you are going. It sucks and I hate it, but maybe you will be wise enough to choose a career which affords you the power to work toward the un-making of the gigantic clusterfuck of faggotry and shocking disregard for and destruction of the hallowed traditions of education and even civilization itself. We will make them pay, but you gotta take your shit-tickets in order to get there.

I have no explanation for why you would say this to me, except that you can't read. Did you just recognize that phrase and post your image and your line without reading anyhting else or something lmfao?

What do you mean by this? Calculating per-capita from raw numbers is pretty easy. Elaborate

Point out that most blacks are in prison for committing crimes against other black people. And black victims of crime deserve justice the same as white victims

This guy is absolutely right, there is literally no reason for you to out yourself in the middle of a left wing religious institution and tell everyone you are right wing, because thats all you'll be doing if you decide to start talking about scientific racism in this context. Literally no one will be convinced or interested in such a perspective, all you will accomplish is ostracizing yourself.

Coward

The only good advice on this board is telling you not to fight the fight.
This shit has become the substitute for religion among the progressive class. It is faith bound, not fact bound. To question will make you a heretic.
As painful as it may be (I honestly couldn’t do it), play along. Parrot all of the shit they teach you. Hide the disdain you may have for the subversion of the truth. It is what it is.

Fool

I don't know why you said that 'calculating per capital from raw numbers is pretty easy', I dont see what that has to do with anything.

The problems with crime rate data, incarceration data, conviction data, etc, are too numerous to list exhaustively here.

Crime rate data is basically totally worthless because it is easily falsified, highly politicized, and totally unverifiable. Crime rate data that is contingent on any kind of police work is also totally worthless because police departments have specific organizational goals which biases the characteristics of the actual investigative work that they do and skews the resulting data in arbitrary ways (Im not charging sinister racism or anything here, organization biases could be anything from a particular police commander being better at drawing in more talented officers to his precint causing brain drain elsewhere, anti crime campaigns that focus on specific crimes, etc)

There is no reason to ever believe crime rate data even bares a slight resemblance to reality.

Incarceration data is totally worthless because prisons barely track any information about themselves, and what they do track is so bare bones its impossible to associate it with information from other data sets. Further more, the way prisoners are distributed among different faciliities often has nothing to do with the actual geospatial circumstances of their crime.

All of these factors and more with both crime rate data and incarceration data is subject to wide variance state to state and county to county. Its all complete garbage, you can't learn anything from it.

All of these considerations and more are also subject to ever changing government policy, and its totally impossible to tie any of it back to census data since the census happens so infrequently and because the incarceration data is so bare bones and unhinged from the actual circumstances of each sample, theres literally no way to reason about it without resorting to quackery.

That is a verbal salad of bullshit Missie

The level of scholarship is also a complete joke with this kind of research. Pretty much no one shares the code they used too arrive at their results and they instead just describe their methodology in extremely vague and broad terms which seem technical journalists and people with no scientific education, and is also satisfactory to reviewers, but is totally worthless for the purpose of actually trying to replicate their results. The data sets are also under lock and key often, due to ethical considerations, and you have no idea if you are getting the same data the other researchers used when you request it from whatever shitty government agency.

Honestly not even exaggerating, this type of stuff is completely worthless, its not science in any sense. Its literally just an ideological tool, but no one close to the problem will bother voicing this strong criticisms because why would you bite the hand that feeds you?

Nah, its pretty obvious and clear what I am saying, maybe you are just retarded? What exactly are you struggling to understand?

Look, I'd like to take you seriously, but you're not giving me a lot to work with here. Arrest rates match up very well with victimization surveys, and generally, crime rates for groups seem to hold true pretty well across time and place. We have all this evidence, which matches up, and in opposition to that, we have your unproven bullshit. I mean if anything you say is true, can you give us some evidence? Some studies that make this point? Some disparate numbers? Anything? Because right now it just seems like shoving your fingers up in your ears and screaming "LALALALALA I DON'T LIKE DATAA LALALA!!!!"

point out that human behavior is an interaction between nature and nurture.
That culture as part of nurture influences behavior.
That everyone is equal under the law, but that differences in law enforcement is part of nurture.
That differences in outcome i.e. is not irrefutable evidence of anything, and that the subjects needs to be studied with more rigour.
That you consider it unscientific to rush to conclusions.

>That differences in outcome i.e. is not
That difference in outcome i.e. different incarceration rates is not irrefutable evidence

Why do you think the supposed fact that arrest rates correspond with victimization surveys is demonstrative of anything, much less that it indicates anything about the quality of crime rate data? It sounds like you are just repeating something you heard somewhere without understanding the contingencies and implications associated with that alleged fact.

Along those same lines, saying that 'crime rates for groups seem to hold true pretty well across time and place' also comes off as though you are uncritically repeating something. I pointed out a couple big reasons which make crime rate data totally worthless and untrustworthy, and your response is that "well the data looks like this". So? How does that relate to any of the problems I pointed out regarding the glaring methodological issues with how the data is gathered?

Im saying "these apples are rotten, they've been sitting out in the sun for weeks" and you're saying "no, these apples are fine, they are red.". Do you understand why what you said is totally irrelevant?

Not true, the amount of blacks leads to more crime. If a bunch of East Asians segregated from blacks, the East Asian society would have less crime.

add something about the fact that economic factors are not a good predictor of homicide rates.

randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/racial-differences-in-homicide-rates-are-poorly-explained-by-economics/

I agree in theory but there are other ways of arguing without making direct statements.
One can probe with questions in a Socratic Method, without ever stating a position, and always fall back on being neutral and merely playing devils advocate. Really, it is the only way to argue, as it can take apart others positions without ever having ones own known.

I have no idea why you say my bullshit is unproven, you asked me for a high level overview of the problems with the data in this area and I summarized a few of my issues. What's confusing to you about where to find evidence of what I allege? Read the fucking papers we are talking about and judge their methodology for yourself, see if their statistical instruments are actually valid and not complete nonsense and trickery. See if you can replicate any of their findings. Look into the data sets they use and how the data was gathered, does it correspond to what I say? Like do you want me to come to your and read the papers to you?

No, you said something. Something for which there is no evidence. In fact, all the evidence seems to contradict you. If crime data were "random", meaning that it's heavily affected by factors such as bias, we would expect to see huge variability. But you're probably too stupid to understand any of this, which is why you keep repeating your false, unprovable BS talking point, because you can't come to grips with reality. Provide a study or get out

You're simply saying stuff. Stuff that contradicts reality, and stuff for which you've provided zero evidence

>OP is fucked if he goes with the scientific racism route
Quite the buzzword you have there.
>Crime rate data is complete trash, just like incarceration data
lol

>white women
What the fuck is wrong with them?

The fact that data is not prefect does not disqualify the data as a whole,at least not from a policy perspective. Policy needs to be made regardless on the basis of the best information we have it does not require perfect data, only a scientist has the luxury to reject data because he does not need to govern a nation.

That being said an African American murder rate upwards of 8 times higher than that of their white counter parts is so significant that even with poor data it is irrefutable. And it seems that other crimes fit the same pattern as the murder rate. Murder rate is a pretty decent standard to look at because the nature of the crime is so serious that any manipulation in the statistics would lead to a massive public outcry.

I never said crime data was random, I have no idea where you are coming from with that. Are you retarded, or lying, or confusing me for another poster or something?

I have no idea why you are saying there is no evidence for what I am telling you. Read the papers we are are talking about and decide for yourself if the work has any merit.

Are you expecting me to provide a study based around the strong attack I am presenting you you know? Or you want a study which is illustrative of the problems I mention? If its the prior, I doubt there is any such study, because these are just the facts on the ground when it comes to microeconomics. Its not like they are lying in their publications, you can see for yourself the shoddy quality of the work, and completely unreliable data. If its the latter... read the papers we are talking about, like I keep telling you, and decide for yourself.

Nothing I've said contradicts reality in anyway. If you read almost any paper in a microecon journal you will find plenty of examples of the problems I am talking about.

You characterize my criticisms as a 'talking point', whatever. You are unable to confront my criticisms so you are resorting to pretending like this isnt conventional practice in the field, and just saying the evidence isn't there when I think you yourself have referenced papers which contain these flaws, papers which you must not have read if you are going to continue to say there is no evidence of my criticisms.

>Read the papers
anecdotal evidence, the fact that those manipulations get reported on is "The exception proving the rule" i.e. that manipulation of data is in fact not the rule.

How is it a buzz word, I didn't even say it in a way that was negative. Nice argument by the way, 'lol'. Very compelling stuff.

I've read the papers, and the data seems very reliable. If you want to claim that the data is reliable, then tell me why. How do we know it's "unreliable"? Because a random moron (you) says so on the internet? Because the studies have flawed methdology? Ok, point out the flawed methodology. You do understand how science works, right? That crime rates differ is a finding which has been replicated over many studies. It's a robust finding, backed up by many studies.

Look man, you're clearly out of touch with reality. Do you even have high school education? Do you understand even the very basics of the philosophy of science? Or are you simply going to continue with the "all data I don't like is unreliable cuz I say so!!!!"

>Nothing I've said contradicts reality in anyway. If you read almost any paper in a microecon journal you will find plenty of examples of the problems I am talking about.
Economy? You do realize that's a bullshit field? It has nothing to do with crime data. No wonder you're too stupid to understand any of this

Black murder rate.

The rate of black incarceration matches the reported rate of black murderers. So, even if we imprisoned the wrong guy, we know that it was the wrong BLACK guy.

Similar patterns can be found elsewhere, but I find the homicide statistic useful and interesting for many different reasons, namely:

it is hard to sweep it under the rug statistically or otherwise distort (e.g., under-reporting, misattribution, etc)
it is a good bellwether for broader differences in social conditions.
the statistics are readily available
it demonstrates the limited power of mechanistic economic explanations and that even large residuals associated with race/ethnicity are not necessarily the product of “racism” on the part of police, teachers, etc.

randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/racial-differences-in-homicide-rates-are-poorly-explained-by-economics/

Some are a little more clever on this though:

'The patriarchy is harder on men because men are more of a threat to other men with regards to power dynamics. Whenever there is a power struggle, you always hit those hardest who are closest to it; which in this case in men.'

This doesn't work. Its not proportionally the same which is a huge problem when discussing statistics. You're also forgetting types if crimes committed.

I never said the data is not perfect, that goes without saying. The debate isn't about if the data is perfect it or not. I said that the data was completely worthless, totally unreliable. There is no reason to believe it corresponds to reality. I've never heard anyone try to defend shit like incarceration data sets, everyone just accepts that they are what they are, and thats all thats available to publish about.

Your aside about policy is irrelevant, I have nothing to say about politicians basing policy decisions off of worthless science, no science, or astrology. The findings of scientists are of secondary importance to politicians in my opinion (though econ people and poli sci people want to change that, pretty much no one cares)

Bringing up the crime victimization report helps too. It just so happens that individuals are lying extremely proportional to the rate of arrests between races?

this, look at russia and Ukraine which are white

>There is no reason to believe it corresponds to reality
Ok, prove it

Yea I think the biggest hurdle is to establish that the blacks are actually doing the crime at higher rates than other gorups.

Once you establish that, you look at crime in income ranges, and find that no matter what you control for, blacks are always more criminal than everybody else in the category.

I mean look, incarceration data is as easy as this: you count the inmates, you record their race. Only a moron economist could get this wrong. And according to you, this is wrong, because of reasons you cannot name, supported by evidence that doesn't exist. Same with arrest rates. Look user at this point you're simply denying reality because you're too stupid to understand it

This does not explain the higher murder rate in the middle and upper class of the black community.

Then it's by definition not a patriarchy, as it's oppressing men more than women

Yes, establishing that the data isn't skewed is the biggest hurdle. I've heard a lot of elaborate theories, some of them plausible (and testable), but most of them bullshit and nothing but pity excuse making.

Another plausible idea:

If "black" is the target, why are black immigrants so less likely to be involved in such situations? Wouldn't it make sense for white people to target all blacks? African immigrants are not shot and killed by police (and especially) other blacks like American born blacks. It's not even close.

Really? Post your source. I don't believe you.

If you read a micro econ paper and assess it as 'highly reliable', than we are looking at the same thing and just disagree on what we are seeing, there isn't anything to talk about.

I have no idea why anyone would consider these data sets to be reliable or expect them to correspond to reality. In the case of incarceration data, the data quality contains such little information it practically doesn't matter since it can't be matched with any other data set you could possibly be interested in, but also because the data is self reported by institutions with large conflicts of interest, little incentive to provide accurate data, absolutely no oversight from an outside party. There is literally no way to reason about their numbers or to try and estimate their accuracy, their data collection process is impossible to replicate by its very nature, and the nature of the insitution.

So for you, this constitutes highly reliable science. I have no idea why you would say that, but it doesn't matter. I actually work in this field and have to work with these problems daily so its not an option for me to just completely avoid thinking about this subject and just accept dogma.

You are just an ideologue and its perfectly acceptable to you to say "its highly reliable", without even explaining any of these data sets merits, or even acknowledging any of these criticisms.

Attached: google-chrome14.png (300x257, 44K)

Sorta, but its run largely by men. So even if they're going after their "own" harder, its still determined by a distinct group with power. I don't disagree with you, but I'm merely presenting higher than meme tier arguments from the opposition.

I have spent the last hours calling the field complete bullshit, so of course I realize that.

Your claim that microecon researchers dont work with crime data is just idiotic. You have no fucking clue what you are talking about this entire time, do you?

Because they know that more men are in prison because men commit more crime. Which then would make them face the truth about why so many blacks are in prison

Doesn't matter. If it's not for ALL men, it's not a patriarchy. It is an elitist group of (((individuals))) taking care of their own interests at the detriment of all goys