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