Meek Mill Vs. Atheism Is Unstoppable (on the 'racist' prison system)

May 10, 2009
2,583
196
665
#2
I'm embarrassed for New York Times considering what they were and are supposed to be. They let Meek Mill represent them?
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,355
1,079
735
#3
You know, time is money.

The meek video is straight to the point and doesn't contain much fluff.

During the first three minutes of the second one not a valuable or interesting thing was said. Could you sum up the points, fluff free please.
 
Last edited:
May 10, 2009
2,583
196
665
#4
You know, time is money.

The meek video is straight to the point and doesn't contain much fluff.

During the first three minutes of the second one not a valuable or interesting thing was said. Could you sum up the points, fluff free please.
2nd video is pretty straight forward whether you agree or disagree, summarizing it isn't necessary.
 
Dec 22, 2010
1,880
244
525
#5
You know, time is money.

The meek video is straight to the point and doesn't contain much fluff.

During the first three minutes of the second one not a valuable or interesting thing was said. Could you sum up the points, fluff free please.
Character assassination in the first bit, a gross misrepresentation of the central argument decrying systemic racism and then a classical liberal take on ignoring the nuances of why criminals commit crime.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,355
1,079
735
#6
2nd video is pretty straight forward whether you agree or disagree, summarizing it isn't necessary.
Okay. Guess I'll pass on it then.

Character assassination in the first bit, a gross misrepresentation of the central argument decrying systemic racism and then a classical liberal take on ignoring the nuances of why criminals commit crime.
Not surprising considering how it started.

Thanks guys.
 
Feb 3, 2018
2,670
2,554
360
32
USA
#7
You know, time is money.

The meek video is straight to the point and doesn't contain much fluff.

During the first three minutes of the second one not a valuable or interesting thing was said. Could you sum up the points, fluff free please.
-Points out Meeks past, history of drug dealing, running drugs, breaking his parole etc...
-Covers how the "right to remain silent" is not, them trying to 'silence' you.
-Black criminals blame skin color on their mistakes. It's not about skin color, it's about your behavior.
-Brings up KKK lynching and how many more white people were lynched by other whites.
-Crime statistics by averages.
-'Honest mistakes' are NOT violating your parole. Simple to adhere to, stop committing crimes and you wont go back to jail.
-'they didn't bring us here to thrive' ...150 year old argument about slavery still keeping Meek down.
-Talks about how his family is from Africa.
-'the past is the present' … Time is actually linear, time moves forward. Disreguard time to blur the past with the present. Manipulate history. Vultures of the past.
 
Feb 3, 2018
2,670
2,554
360
32
USA
#8
Character assassination in the first bit, a gross misrepresentation of the central argument decrying systemic racism and then a classical liberal take on ignoring the nuances of why criminals commit crime.
Can you enlighten me on why criminals commit crime? Is it the fault of the prison system? Is systemic racism of the prison system why people commit crimes?
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,355
1,079
735
#9
-Points out Meeks past, history of drug dealing, running drugs, breaking his parole etc...
-Covers how the "right to remain silent" is not, them trying to 'silence' you.
-Black criminals blame skin color on their mistakes. It's not about skin color, it's about your behavior.
-Brings up KKK lynching and how many more white people were lynched by other whites.
-Crime statistics by averages.
-'Honest mistakes' are NOT violating your parole. Simple to adhere to, stop committing crimes and you wont go back to jail.
-'they didn't bring us here to thrive' ...150 year old argument about slavery still keeping Meek down.
-Talks about how his family is from Africa.
-'the past is the present' … Time is actually linear, time moves forward. Disreguard time to blur the past with the present. Manipulate history. Vultures of the past.
Cool thanks. So the only interesting thing to me is parole. So I'll hunt for that.
 
Dec 22, 2010
1,880
244
525
#11
Can you enlighten me on why criminals commit crime? Is it the fault of the prison system? Is systemic racism of the prison system why people commit crimes?
I'm not trying to hijack your thread away from the specifics of the prison system and if you wish to curate discussion around that specific tenet of systemic oppression then I'll respectfully bow out but to your first question and my underlying discontent with classical liberalism ignoring systemic issues I'll leave you with this link that speaks far better than me.

Or if you want a more fully fledged discussion there is also this.

I'll also make it a point to say that if you're confident in your beliefs and willing to defend them it's critically important that you understand the opposing side as well as your own and you argue against the best version of your opponent's arguments.
 
Feb 3, 2018
2,670
2,554
360
32
USA
#12
I'm not trying to hijack your thread away from the specifics of the prison system and if you wish to curate discussion around that specific tenet of systemic oppression then I'll respectfully bow out but to your first question and my underlying discontent with classical liberalism ignoring systemic issues I'll leave you with this link that speaks far better than me.

Or if you want a more fully fledged discussion there is also this.

I'll also make it a point to say that if you're confident in your beliefs and willing to defend them it's critically important that you understand the opposing side as well as your own and you argue against the best version of your opponent's arguments.
I will give the Contra video a watch later, I'm not giving Destiny any views. That guy is the definition of someone who 'debates' in bad faith. And I personally cant stand how he 'debates' people by being super passive aggressive and just making up what if's that relate to his arguments.
 
Feb 21, 2018
1,952
1,195
270
#14
This guy's brief on parole was basically caveman logic, the real conversation and ebs and flows around it is a little more interesting. Handwaving this is a bit dull.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/...ide-are-in-prison-for-minor-parole-violations
I didn't really read anything there. Minor or major parole violations, they are still violations. Not to mention the article says they are held for short amount of time.

If the rule says you can't go to a bar, or you have to meet each tuesday with your parole office then you do it since those are the conditions. Miss meetings and you go back to jail for a few months, then you might respect your parole conditions next time.

Parole isn't some sort of get out of jail free card, it comes with conditions to prove that you should be allowed out of your sentence.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,355
1,079
735
#15
I didn't really read anything there. Minor or major parole violations, they are still violations. Not to mention the article says they are held for short amount of time.

If the rule says you can't go to a bar, or you have to meet each tuesday with your parole office then you do it since those are the conditions. Miss meetings and you go back to jail for a few months, then you might respect your parole conditions next time.

Parole isn't some sort of get out of jail free card, it comes with conditions to prove that you should be allowed out of your sentence.
I think you missed the part where in response to a murder being committed while someone was on parole, a state adopted a zero tolerance policy (one you're done) on violations, and saw an explosion in people with any violation, including small ones, going back to jail.

There's some interesting ins and outs that narrow optics don't touch. As for small violations landing you back in jail, it's just more about the context.
 
Last edited:
Feb 3, 2018
2,670
2,554
360
32
USA
#16
I think you missed the part where in response to a murder being committed while someone was on parole, a state adopted a zero tolerance policy (one you're done) on violations, and saw an explosion in people with any violation, including small ones, going back to jail.

There's some interesting ins and outs that narrow optics don't touch. As for small violations landing you back in jail, it's just more about the context.
How does that apply to ones race tho?
 
Feb 3, 2018
2,670
2,554
360
32
USA
#18
I wasn't talking about race, just the basic conversation around parole. There is a disparity between blacks and whites, but from what studies I've read (like the one from the urban institute) they don't cite bias as a factor.
Meek seems to think the reason he violated parole was because he was black. Not because he violated the terms of his parole. But as you pointed out race is irrelevant in the statistics. That's why I find it interesting people believe in systemic oppression by some invisible boogyman.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,355
1,079
735
#19
Meek seems to think the reason he violated parole was because he was black. Not because he violated the terms of his parole. But as you pointed out race is irrelevant in the statistics. That's why I find it interesting people believe in systemic oppression by some invisible boogyman.
He may very well be right about his situation, there's a context to everything when looking at it on a 1:1 level. But on a grander scale with parole, probably not. Systematic oppression from the justice system has been real, but goes way deeper into the rabit hole than parole.
 
Last edited:
Apr 15, 2018
1,503
1,705
230
#20
You know, time is money.

The meek video is straight to the point and doesn't contain much fluff.

During the first three minutes of the second one not a valuable or interesting thing was said. Could you sum up the points, fluff free please.
It much easier to spread disinformation and bullshit in 2:26
 
Aug 22, 2018
96
87
150
#22
The Contrapoints video begins with an anecdote about some guy named Freddie Gray, completely inconsequential.
Then CP proceeds to point out, correctly, the relationship between elevated lead consumption and crime. One example, the correlation between lead exposure for children and adolescents and behavioral misconduct is about .19 (Marcus et al. 2010), although it varies a bit from study to study.
Now racial differences in lead exposure have been decreasing dramatically. African American children's mean Blood Lead Level over the White BLL has decreased steadily from 1 ug/dl in CDC Data from two decades ago, to just .5 ug/dl just a decade ago. Of note as well that adulthood BLL, population wide, across all races, are similiar.(Tsoi et al. 2016)
I don't believe lead to be a huge contributor to the overall variance in crime between populations, it has an impact, but it's not contributing a large amount. Many social scientists begin with the assumption that the environment is, not only the primary cause, but the ONLY cause of differences between populations. This egalitarian worldview is pleasant in theory, but it creates a situation where any variance in outcomes between populations that is unaccounted for by the environment must NECESSARILY be due to some kind of systemic oppression. This is naive, stupid, unscientific, and most especially dangerous due to the implication that you could remove this ethereal component only by toppling the system or the people who function happily under it.
According to Miley and Carey 1997, a meta analysis of 24 studies placed the general Heritability of aggression at about .5. As with most heritable traits, the genetic effect was smaller in childhood, but by Adulthood the genetic component had primacy over the environment.
We are also increasingly using Genome Wide Association Studies to find specific SNPs that correlate positively or negatively with certain traits, whether intelligence or violent behavior. We have a few SNPs right now that we have correlated positively with violent behavior and as always it seems, these genes are unequally distributed among populations, some populations have higher incidence of genes correlated with violent behavior than others.
 
Last edited:
Feb 23, 2016
317
47
200
#23
The Contrapoints video begins with an anecdote about some guy named Freddie Gray, completely inconsequential.
Then CP proceeds to point out, correctly, the relationship between elevated lead consumption and crime. One example, the correlation between lead exposure for children and adolescents and behavioral misconduct is about .19 (Marcus et al. 2010), although it varies a bit from study to study.
Now racial differences in lead exposure have been decreasing dramatically. African American children's mean Blood Lead Level over the White BLL has decreased steadily from 1 ug/dl in CDC Data from two decades ago, to just .5 ug/dl just a decade ago. Of note as well that adulthood BLL, population wide, across all races, are similiar.(Tsoi et al. 2016)
I don't believe lead to be a huge contributor to the overall variance in crime between populations, it has an impact, but it's not contributing a large amount. Many social scientists begin with the assumption that the environment is, not only the primary cause, but the ONLY cause of differences between populations. This egalitarian worldview is pleasant in theory, but it creates a situation where any variance in outcomes between populations that is unaccounted for by the environment must NECESSARILY be due to some kind of systemic oppression. This is naive, stupid, unscientific, and most especially dangerous due to the implication that you could remove this ethereal component only by toppling the system or the people who function happily under it.
According to Miley and Carey 1997, a meta analysis of 24 studies placed the general Heritability of aggression at about .5. As with most heritable traits, the genetic effect was smaller in childhood, but by Adulthood the genetic component had primacy over the environment.
We are also increasingly using Genome Wide Association Studies to find specific SNPs that correlate positively or negatively with certain traits, whether intelligence or violent behavior. We have a few SNPs right now that we have correlated positively with violent behavior and as always it seems, these genes are unequally distributed among populations, some populations have higher incidence of genes correlated with violent behavior than others.
Ah yes more vomit being spewed acting like something as widely and histrionically documented as this like it some kind of fuckin fairy tailand is trying to push instead fuckin lead and genes are we just letting every random no name uneducated race nut miss me with that that bigot non sense .
 
Aug 22, 2018
96
87
150
#24
Ah yes more vomit being spewed acting like something as widely and histrionically documented as this like it some kind of fuckin fairy tailand is trying to push instead fuckin lead and genes are we just letting every random no name uneducated race nut miss me with that that bigot non sense .
I'm not certain meaningful information can be ascertained from the letters you typed.
 
Mar 18, 2018
1,185
800
230
#25
Will watch it when I get home. I don’t believe our prison system is built as a racist institution but I do think it I corrupt and that many crimes are targeted at low income citizens to create a low pay work force.

Minorities just happen to be, for many reasons including historical racism, caught up in that system.

To say it is a modern day plantation is only viewing it from an African American perspective. There are more whites caught up in the prison system so it is hyperbole to make the comparison truely stick in the way it is being used unless I am jumping the gun having not watched yet.

Without a doubt we need massive reform and to stop the war on drugs to keep our young men out of a system that Either turns them into professional criminals outright or put them into a depression once they do get out reformed and they can’t enter back into society. They typically turn back to crime.

If there is one system that is the root of evil in our country it is our prison system.
 
Likes: DeafTourette
Sep 25, 2012
1,955
664
440
#26
The "modern plantation" narrative has got to be the dumbest shit I've heard in recent politics. For clarification, I mean when a conservative uses it to describe Black democrats. Which apparently has nothing to do with how Meek Mills used the term so nvm. :messenger_loudly_crying:
 
Last edited:
Likes: DeafTourette
Jan 12, 2009
15,355
1,079
735
#28
The Contrapoints video begins with an anecdote about some guy named Freddie Gray, completely inconsequential.
Then CP proceeds to point out, correctly, the relationship between elevated lead consumption and crime. One example, the correlation between lead exposure for children and adolescents and behavioral misconduct is about .19 (Marcus et al. 2010), although it varies a bit from study to study.
Now racial differences in lead exposure have been decreasing dramatically. African American children's mean Blood Lead Level over the White BLL has decreased steadily from 1 ug/dl in CDC Data from two decades ago, to just .5 ug/dl just a decade ago. Of note as well that adulthood BLL, population wide, across all races, are similiar.(Tsoi et al. 2016)
I don't believe lead to be a huge contributor to the overall variance in crime between populations, it has an impact, but it's not contributing a large amount. Many social scientists begin with the assumption that the environment is, not only the primary cause, but the ONLY cause of differences between populations. This egalitarian worldview is pleasant in theory, but it creates a situation where any variance in outcomes between populations that is unaccounted for by the environment must NECESSARILY be due to some kind of systemic oppression. This is naive, stupid, unscientific, and most especially dangerous due to the implication that you could remove this ethereal component only by toppling the system or the people who function happily under it.
According to Miley and Carey 1997, a meta analysis of 24 studies placed the general Heritability of aggression at about .5. As with most heritable traits, the genetic effect was smaller in childhood, but by Adulthood the genetic component had primacy over the environment.
We are also increasingly using Genome Wide Association Studies to find specific SNPs that correlate positively or negatively with certain traits, whether intelligence or violent behavior. We have a few SNPs right now that we have correlated positively with violent behavior and as always it seems, these genes are unequally distributed among populations, some populations have higher incidence of genes correlated with violent behavior than others.
Violent crimes have gone down YOY, and decade over decade as population rise. It's a tiny percentage of each population committing violent crimes.

Crime is majorily a factor of socioeconomics and nurture (environment, experiences). Hereditary is for rare outliers.
 
Last edited:
Sep 25, 2012
1,955
664
440
#29
Ok so this time I tried to watch both vids. Had to stop the atheist shithead when he compared black lynching to white lynching, as if they were in any way historical similar concerning the race aspect (i.e. black boys getting lynched for bullshit crimes like making a comment towards a white woman, or for other things like, you know, trying to fucking escape slavery).. This guy must be living in 2100 since he apparently thinks the current world and justice system is colorblind. I guess he thinks the war on drugs in the 90s didn't disproportionately target poor people, which just so happens to be primarily black urban people. He also strawmans the shit out of Meek by claiming his stance is "Fuck whites." Yawn. And he also appears to explicitly ignore the strongest arguments Meek makes, i.e. blacks have disproportionately less wealth, so they have less ability to hire good attorneys, thus making them easier targets for cops and the justice system to get guilty verdicts on and keep that money rolling in. He completely ignores how the "justice" that the justice system deals out is strongly correlated to personal wealth levels. I don't see cops raiding the mansion of Hollywood crack heads or elite university dorm rooms, how curious. Anyway that's my hot take, ain't gonna watch his whole rebuttal because he comes off like an insufferable prick.


The Contrapoints video begins with an anecdote about some guy named Freddie Gray, completely inconsequential.
Then CP proceeds to point out, correctly, the relationship between elevated lead consumption and crime. One example, the correlation between lead exposure for children and adolescents and behavioral misconduct is about .19 (Marcus et al. 2010), although it varies a bit from study to study.
Now racial differences in lead exposure have been decreasing dramatically. African American children's mean Blood Lead Level over the White BLL has decreased steadily from 1 ug/dl in CDC Data from two decades ago, to just .5 ug/dl just a decade ago. Of note as well that adulthood BLL, population wide, across all races, are similiar.(Tsoi et al. 2016)
I don't believe lead to be a huge contributor to the overall variance in crime between populations, it has an impact, but it's not contributing a large amount. Many social scientists begin with the assumption that the environment is, not only the primary cause, but the ONLY cause of differences between populations. This egalitarian worldview is pleasant in theory, but it creates a situation where any variance in outcomes between populations that is unaccounted for by the environment must NECESSARILY be due to some kind of systemic oppression. This is naive, stupid, unscientific, and most especially dangerous due to the implication that you could remove this ethereal component only by toppling the system or the people who function happily under it.
According to Miley and Carey 1997, a meta analysis of 24 studies placed the general Heritability of aggression at about .5. As with most heritable traits, the genetic effect was smaller in childhood, but by Adulthood the genetic component had primacy over the environment.
We are also increasingly using Genome Wide Association Studies to find specific SNPs that correlate positively or negatively with certain traits, whether intelligence or violent behavior. We have a few SNPs right now that we have correlated positively with violent behavior and as always it seems, these genes are unequally distributed among populations, some populations have higher incidence of genes correlated with violent behavior than others.
Heritability is pertinent to parents and offspring. Making a claim about genetic heritability based upon some notion of genetic racial markers requires substantial evidence, none of which current exists. And while we should expect a difference of some sort, there's no reason to assume such a difference would lead to any significant statistical difference in crime rates perpetrated by any particular race. It becomes especially farcical if you try to control for what % of European heritage a black person may have (many have a substantial amount) and attempt to correlate those ratios with crime rates. I'm sure the data would produce a giant mess, as opposed to just looking at the strength of how environmental factors like poverty effect aggression on communal scales.

Especially ironic is the fact that during the era of slavery blacks were viewed as docile and dumb, whereas now they're viewed as violent predators. Looks like America just can't make up it's mind on how race correlates to violence, assuming one even exists.
 
Last edited:
Likes: DeafTourette
Aug 22, 2018
96
87
150
#30
Crime is majorily a factor of socioeconomics and nurture (environment, experiences). Hereditary is for rare outliers.
Heredity is a general rule, it doesn't deal with outliers, it deals with everyone. That's why they're called general heritability estimates.
As for how crime correlates with social class, bluntly the poor commit more crime, but it's important to discover whether they commit crime because they are poor. Poverty correlates with crime at .44(Hsieh and Pugh 1993)(a study that has probably overestimate the correlation, it has been critiqued often), but the Effect Size of poverty on the overall crime rate seems to be around .253(Pratt and Cullen 2005), in other words despite poverty and crime correlating it does not seem that much of the overall crime rate is predicted to be attributable to the fact that people are poor, only about 25% of crime is predicted by poverty. This leaves 75% to other factors.
Crime has an unusual relationship with the economy as well, when the economy is poor, crime goes down, when it is good, crime increases.
Heritability is pertinent to parents and offspring.
Incorrect, Heritability estimates not just searching for the transfer of behaviors or traits from parents to children, but rather a general rule that seeks to disseminate how much of two or more populations' variances are attributable to genes and environment. It tests that, not by looking at how similar children are to their parents, but how different children are to each other in similar environments. Twin Studies, Trans-Racial adoption studies give us these estimates. They are well respected studies and cited far more often than any study searching for Buzzwords like Systemic Oppression or Prison Industrial Complex.
Again, nothing to do with the parent-Child relationship and everything to do with controlling for the environment and still finding differences between children that are then assumed to be attributable to genes or the environment.
These heritability estimates become ESPECIALLY applicable to large populations. The variance between Asian American average IQ and European American average IQ seems to be due to heritable(genetic) factors. Through GWAS' findings we can probably assume that there is a higher distribution of genes positively correlated to intelligence found in Asian American populations than European American populations.

All of this is not to say that somehow the environment has no impact, its impact is enormous, but when contolled for we find that there are persistent, population-wide variances and that's where heritability estimates fills in the blanks.
 
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2009
15,355
1,079
735
#31
Heredity is a general rule, it doesn't deal with outliers, it deals with everyone. That's why they're called general heritability estimates.
As for how crime correlates with social class, bluntly the poor commit more crime, but it's important to discover whether they commit crime because they are poor. Poverty correlates with crime at .44(Hsieh and Pugh 1993)(a study that has probably overestimate the correlation, it has been critiqued often), but the Effect Size of poverty on the overall crime rate seems to be around .253(Pratt and Cullen 2005), in other words despite poverty and crime correlating it does not seem that much of the overall crime rate is predicted to be attributable to the fact that people are poor, only about 25% of crime is predicted by poverty. This leaves 75% to other factors.
Crime has an unusual relationship with the economy as well, when the economy is poor, crime goes down, when it is good, crime increases.
...You're basing it off of phenotype variance...that's some extremely shaky stuff man. Proving the differences between nature and nurture, when accounting for nature when it's not very obvious, is shaky. Tbh research today leads to things being more entangled, dynamic and context dependent, rather than focusing on the isolated ways.

There is no singular relationship between the economy and crime. For example increasing welfare in a bad economy will have more of an affect on crime being lower. In history we've seen crime both go up and down in both good and bad economies.
 
Last edited:
Aug 22, 2018
96
87
150
#32
...You're basing it off of phenotype variance...that's some extremely shaky stuff man.
Phenotypes are physical expressions of genes that can manifest themselves as behaviors traits and physical appearance. It's understood that race is a broad category that can be subdivided further into ethnicities(as they pertain to the kind you would see on a DNA test, ancestry of origin). It's very easy to make a continuum fallacy here and say that it's impossible to group peoples by any criteria, so why bother?
But if the methodologies and groupings presented in Social Sciences, as they relate to Quantitative Genetics, are predictively valid and give consistent results, then it doesn't matter much if the areas in between are not as well accounted for, we are still establishing a general rule, more research can and has been done on the permutations for people who don't quite fit into a broad category.
 
Last edited:
Sep 25, 2012
1,955
664
440
#33
Incorrect, Heritability estimates not just searching for the transfer of behaviors or traits from parents to children, but rather a general rule that seeks to disseminate how much of two or more populations' variances are attributable to genes and environment.

These heritability estimates become ESPECIALLY applicable to large populations. The variance between Asian American average IQ and European American average IQ seems to be due to heritable(genetic) factors. Through GWAS' findings we can probably assume that there is a higher distribution of genes positively correlated to intelligence found in Asian American populations than European American populations.
1) Racial identities are not population groups, as they are self-identified (and based around color descriptors lol) without any actual genetic information or evidence backing the identification. This especially breaks down on global scales 2) the genes positively correlated to intelligence are barely understood, and unless I missed something in this past year or two, no scientist has ever claimed in a peer reviewed paper that Asian American populations have a higher distribution of those genes than European Americans. Heck, I'm pretty sure it's not even clear if, in IQ genetics markers, "more is better and means you're smarter" is even theorized. I've never heard such a claim. Even proponents of these arguments like Charles Murray have never to my knowledge made such a claim as the genetic science of intelligence is in it's infancy.

As for your poverty ratio I'm unable to access the journal so I'm unable to see how you're coming up with the effect rate of poverty on crime, or how it relates to race. Also really not sure how you're turning an "effect size" ratio directly into a static percentage for the amount of total crime committed "due to" poverty. It seems highly unlikely a correlation ratio can just be pushed into a" % of crime committed" ratio, but admitted I was never that good with statistics. I've never heard of these numbers being interchanged in the way you're attempting to use them. In any case, the type of crimes committed would be pertinent to the determination of the "crime" people normally associate with racial identities to begin with. And never mind the fact that crime statistics are already highly subjective based upon which populations the police choose to spend more money and time investigating in relation to other populations. This is especially relevant for things like drug charges. And never mind the fact that any attempt to cash out the historic disenfranchisement of black Americans as a controlled factor in relation to the results of white counterparts has to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

You also ignored my point that even if genetic racial factors do exist there's no reason to assume they represent any significant percentage of the rate, let alone make changes to social policy based upon highly incomplete science which is what many of the vocal "pro-genetics" team advocates. That "gap" could just as easily be filled by undiscovered/unknown environmental factors.

(wew this is enough derailing the topic for me, I'll let you have the last word if you want. In any case the video in the OP remains shit IMO.)
 
Last edited:
Jan 25, 2018
1,904
2,116
255
29
Southeastern USA
#35
The problem is the left wing today is so radicalized and keeps pushing and pushing things farther and farther.

First you have controversy over police shootings but very quickly people start shouting "all cops are bastards" and saying "the very concept of a police force is actually racist, ya know", how long until the left is saying that expecting black people to obey the law, any law, is itself racist? It's not a huge leap if you're already saying the very concept of a police force is racist.

It's pretty sad how the large prison population of black men makes for such easy propaganda fodder for both extremes, the radical left says "it's because of racism" and the radical right says "it's because they're inherently more prone to commiting crimes"

I don't think the prison system is perfect or beyond criticism, but calling them "plantations" is absurd.