I am a bit unconfident about it...

Here, to give a basis of the argument I need to debunk, here's an article from right-libertarian think tank Reason.com to respond to:

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/24/race-and-violent-crime/

Blacks, which here means non-Hispanic blacks, were 12.5% of the U.S. population, and non-Hispanic whites were 60.4%. It thus appears from this data that the black per capita violent crime rate is roughly 2.3 to 2.8 times the rate for the country as a whole, while the white per capita violent crime rate is roughly 0.7 to 0.9 times the rate for the country as a whole.

Note: keep in mind he's extrapolating a certain part of the U.S, New York, to the rest of America's national crime statistics

Something in the vein of a masterpost like Naomi's research and rhetoric masterdoc

Easily understandable and accessible, yet with a great amount of statistics put upon it

  • thirtymilliondeadfish [she/her]
    ·
    10 months ago

    But Professor Townsley said the overall figures were worrying because of the "quite sizeable differences" [between regional and metro Queensland]

    He cited factors like local economic conditions, a lack of services and population demographics.

    "A city that has a really large youth population, they will have a very different crime distributional profile than a place that has got an older demographic, simply because they're the young people — it's their peak of offending time," Professor Townsley said.

    "In rural areas they probably have less access to activities than their counterparts in cities would have, so I think that's another factor."

    from today https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-26/queensland-crime-stats-show-divide-between-regional-metro-cities/102826018

    Idk who you're talking with that's putting these arguments forward but they'd want to be worth the trouble. Anyone accepting or making these arguments has already decided black people are bad/criminal/deserving of contact with the judicial system, youre not going to sway them by focusing on the skewed justifications they've used to shield themselves

    • Lemmygradwontallowme [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      10 months ago

      The reason why I asked is more of a personal reason. I don't wanna be caught lacking if I'm going to faced with this sort of shit, especially if it's by a smuglord like Charlie Kirk (yes he did utilize that 13/50 myth in an argument)

      • thirtymilliondeadfish [she/her]
        ·
        10 months ago

        You need to refuse the argument on its premise, not debate it within the realms of its framing.

        Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies, and so on and so forth

        • Lemmygradwontallowme [he/him, comrade/them]
          ·
          10 months ago

          Idk... sometimes I feel like debating, sometimes I just do... it's just that I just want to get the myth off my chest, because some brainworms like that still keep on wigglin' inside my mind...

          • thirtymilliondeadfish [she/her]
            ·
            10 months ago

            shapiro-poplar I would simply beat the brainworms with a stick.

            but really you gotta unlearn that shit, not entertain it. 13-50 is a retroactive justification for why black people need to be policed

            • Lemmygradwontallowme [he/him, comrade/them]
              ·
              10 months ago

              It's not that I learned it... it's just that I've haven't challenged the notion (this is just probably one of those notions that I had gotten, during my years as a slight chud...)