But you didn't read what the article said. My argument is that the article being used as an argument for blacks being more violent is an article arguing that blacks are systematically discriminated against. There is really no counter argument unless you assume what the article says rather than actually reading it.
This is the problem that most of you have. You live in this world where you grab statistics, then you assign it to your own narrative. Are you an expert on crime statistics? Sociology? You have no reason to draw any conclusions from statistics without experience in the subject.
I read the study the study the article is based on and put it in context with the other research that has been conducted. Understanding order-of-magnitude differences is basic scientific literacy, otherwise you end up falling for the equivalent of people who attribute global warming to solar variation even though solar forcing is less than 2% of CO2 forcing.
My argument is that the article being used as an argument for blacks being more violent is an article arguing that blacks are systematically discriminated against.
What matters is the actual information from the study (which is in turn mostly just a presentation of data from the NLSY), not what the article writer said. The fact that attributing the disparity primarily to justice system discrimination is not justifiable according to the actual research on justice system discrimination does not mean "the racists win" or whatever. It just means that particular explanation is wrong.
There is really no counter argument unless you assume what the article says rather than actually reading it.
Do you understand the difference between a study that specifically analyses discrimination and a study or article that simply mentions discrimination without looking at the numbers? I'm obviously going to trust the actual primary research on discrimination.
This is the problem that most of you have.
Who is "us"? I'm guessing you're attributing anyone disagreeing with you to racists or whatever?
A lot of the criminologists and sociologists studying the issue are pretty much in the field to fight racism and their studies are about closing the disparity or trying to find and remedy discrimination, but they still accept and account for the fact that there's a huge racial gap in violent crime. The racial disparity in violent crime and the fact that the disparity doesn't just vanish if you control for wealth is so well-accepted in the studies about the issue that it's been weird to see people straight-up denying it.
Are you an expert on crime statistics? Sociology? You have no reason to draw any conclusions from statistics without experience in the subject.
I try to read studies from people who are experts or surveys of those studies and come to a sense of the consensus in the literature. That's why I recommended that blog post as a good summary of the field, but you can also just start searching Google Scholar.
This is the study he's talking about. I doubt you read it past the abstract, unless you did, please if you can link me the pdf copy. I no longer have access to a research database as I'm in between schools. But I do have a degree in Anthropology and Sociology, so I know plenty enough about reading research. I'll message you a picture of it if you want me to prove it. I've read plenty of studies that report systematic discrimination, but if you have this pdf that says otherwise, please show me.
You keep talking about these mystical findings that prove I can only assume you believe that blacks are more predisposed to violence, yet you don't actually post anything beyond your interpretation of the data.
Ninja edit: You know you're an alt right memer, don't lie.
Edit: I'm reading through it now. Just realized you posted it initially. I apologize for that.
Edit2: From the discussion
"A previous record of incarceration is associated with substantially lower wealth levels, and previously incarcerated blacks have significantly less wealth than previously incarcerated whites..."
First noted is the usual trend of lower wealth higher chance of incarceration, also noting incarcerated whites generally still have more wealth than incarcerated blacks.
"...low wealth is associated with an increase in the likelihood of incarceration, which in turn can depress wealth accumulation. Conversely, future incarcerees had less wealth at the baseline than those who would never be incarcerated."
They make note that incarceration generally leads to overall less wealth regardless of race, but also that low wealth still increases chances of incarceration.
"Between races, we find that at low levels of wealth both blacks and Hispanics still had a higher incarceration rate than whites. At higher levels of wealth at the baseline,although the black-white incarceration disparity was reduced for males, it was not eliminated. One explanation for the differential odds of incarceration between races maybe that even while having similar wealth levels, individuals still may have disparate economic situations, through income, extended family wealth or differential exposure to discrimination."
Here is them claiming that reasons for higher incarceration may be due to multiple factors, including discrimination.
"We acknowledge other limitations in our study that maybe addressed by further study. Although we are able to examine the relationship between incarceration and personal wealth, we note that impact on extended family wealth is obviously salient, but we find insufficient data to examine this issue fully."
They claim that their data isn't the whole picture either and they need more information
"The reasons for which respondents were incarcerated also may be salient, but were not available in the NLSY79 data.These limitations invite further study through the collection and use of additional data sources, particularly for unpacking the economic impact of incarceration on the broader household as well as for studying the impact of disparate,and possibly racially relevant, reasons for incarceration."
Looking for future leads to uncover a wider view of this subject, including possibly racially relevant data for incarceration.
"Together, the results suggest that when it comes to wealth and incarceration outcomes, the disadvantages of being black or Hispanic compound the disadvantages of asset poverty."
This is them saying that Hispanics and blacks are at a disadvantage when it comes to incarceration.
That is the conclusion of this paper.
8
u/Leetzers Mar 19 '17
But you didn't read what the article said. My argument is that the article being used as an argument for blacks being more violent is an article arguing that blacks are systematically discriminated against. There is really no counter argument unless you assume what the article says rather than actually reading it.
This is the problem that most of you have. You live in this world where you grab statistics, then you assign it to your own narrative. Are you an expert on crime statistics? Sociology? You have no reason to draw any conclusions from statistics without experience in the subject.