There is a constructive way and destructive way to approach everything. I don't think I deserved that for voicing my opinion and yet you babbled on about rape as if that is what I commented upon.
For what it is worth, so far, other than expanding prisons, you've added less than you think to the conversation yourself except to inform us all that prisons graduate professional gang members. What should be done about that? Apparently what I'm most ignorant of is what social "scientist" have accomplished. Apparently, not much.
Some brief background: I’m 56 and white, and I got a music education bachelor’s degree at 40 from Howard University.
When the woke philosophy got my attention, I read books and articles and talked about the ideas with a younger guy I knew. My intention was to evolve.
I spent a few sincere years trying to become more “woke,” as a white liberal who’d been raised in a white conservative household.
Long story short, I became disillusioned with the movement, and John McWhorter’s book really resonated with me.
My position is, basically, that a left wing movement that can’t have a civil conversation with me (a person who is in sympathy with much of their thinking) is a left wing movement with serious problems.
I would love to chat with you whenever we can find time to do that.
This was a very frustrating podcast. I don’t know if I would have been able to exercise the patience that Glenn and John exhibited toward Prof. Lloyd.
Prof. Lloyd’s defense of the assertions on the infantile manifesto issued to him by “Keisha” and co. brought to mind the old observation that “a liberal is someone who won’t take his own side in an argument.” Prof. Lloyd seems to have learned nothing from his experience. He wants education to be focused upon “domination” but is oblivious to how domination, and his inability to control it, led to the explosion of his Telluride seminar.
John, you say Prof. Lloyd is “not naïve”? A university professor who wants to address capital crimes through a few sessions with “Big Mama,” and by returning murderers to “those who love them”? If any of the people in those communities were that influential, it seems unlikely the perpetrators would have murdered anyone in the first place. And what consequences would Prof. Lloyd prescribe for non-black murderers of the same age and economic stratum who may also have suffered injustices?
I defer to the opinions of Glenn and John that Prof. Lloyd is intelligent and well-meaning, but considering the persistence of such insubstantial opinions despite such emblematic experiences, one must at some point conclude that this man is simply not using his intelligence.
Addicts are rational economic beings: they will finance their addiction in the manner that is the most efficient for them : by stealing from others whatever is necessary to pay quickly for satisfaction of their drug needs.
Yes. All that being what it is...I would refer those interested in the overall social impact of what you lay out to Charles Murray's last book (a very short but interesting collection of statistics and thoughts)...."Facing Reality: Two Truths About Race In America".
We have problems, causes and victims of all kinds. Sometimes how severe depends on how much thought and concern one pays to them. That often correlates to one' wealth, circumstance (SES) and degree of interest.
All our "troubles" are true. More-so to those most concerned about them.
To the rest of our 350+ fellow citizens which range from not knowing who George Washington was to what LaBron James thinks today, onward to getting a STEM qualifying education, little of all that matters.
A massive heterogeneous national population built on destroying former aristocracies, former slavery and world immigration is not easily accommodated via a government model that is NOT supposed to define and command the people's economic and social life. It all takes great "self-governance". That takes awareness of personal responsibility, awareness of issues, sense of mission and taking into account human nature.
After WW2, we did, I think, a pretty good job of rebooting and dealing with the pressures of fixing some great government social flaws (Civil Rights, Voting and Housing Rights). The rest of changing hearts and minds took us from Jackie Robinson to Tiger Woods (see 18th green in 2019 Masters (YouTube)).
Our biggest problem is not anything anyone tends to talk about. Which is how to protect our individual rights under the law and equal opportunity to speak and seek.
All you say has merit. That is one reason (deterrence), I'm guessing ,is why, I, like so many choose to navigate through life avoiding what causes the risk of prison.
I see no reason why America should not make best effort to make prisons less cruel. Incarcerating criminals is sufficient. We don't need to torture them with cruelty.
The best way to resolve criminal life in both Norway and the US is to breed and nurture better people.
What can any prison accomplish to transform people willing to steal and harm other people when they are released? Not that we should not try to assist those in prison who come to realize better ideas and ways.
As for criminalizing more than other nations, perhaps drug laws are a part of that. And perhaps that is worthy of revision. But a nation so full of people who desire and need to function on drugs (and alcohol) as their "meaning to life" goes back to my former comment on nurturing better people. Who really wants to employ and depend on the addicted for their welfare. I think the individual should adapt to society more than society adapting to the people. We are only as good as the sum of our parts.
The combined state and federal imprisonment rate for 2019 (419 per 100,000 U.S. residents), based on sentenced prisoners (those sentenced to more than on year), decreased 3% from 2018 (432 per 100,000 U.S. residents).” “This was the lowest imprisonment rate in 24 years, dating back to 1995.” And “Since 2009, the imprisonment rate-the portion of U.S. residents who are in prison has dropped 17% overall…”
“IN 2019, THE IMPRISONMENT RATE OF BLACK RESIDENTS WAS THE LOWEST RATE IN 30 YEARS, SINCE 1989.”
The majority of this data is not influenced by the recent First Step Act (signed by Trump) which will benefit more and more prisoners seeking clemency and relief.
My comment was too snarky, but it's born of some actual research into the penal system. One of the primary problems with incarceration is the control by gangs of the populations in most large prisons. This prevents rehabilitation and helps develop more criminal behaviors while locked up. It also creates opportunity for the corruption of prison guards and other staff.
In David Skarbek's incredible book, The Social Order of the Underworld what you see is how prisons are a key part of the organized crime ecosystem. The title is misleading as the book it focuses exclusively on prisons. The key observations that came from his analyses were: 1. When a jail gets bigger than 250-300 prisoners, it ends up being run by the inmates to a significant degree. 2. This occurs as a solution to a 'governance' vacuum in large prisons with thousands of inmates. A social order and some sort of governance of conduct will always emerge in these prisons but it's not feasible for it to come down from the guards and institution. Only in small jails does this not happen.
This applies to most federal and state penitentiaries, and even in some large city jails. And of course serious conviction sends you to one of these places where an inmate has to 'pick a side' when the arrive, often by race. When living in such a criminal social setting, how does one 'rehabilitate' themselves? So, the first thing we need to do is fix prisons by making them much smaller. This will solve many, many problems.
Should we decriminalize non-violent crimes? Yes. Do we need to improve the conditions in prison? Yes. Do we need to do a lot more to raise children up to be non-violent? Yes. Do we need to just let violent criminals walk free because it would be mean to throw them in prison? No. The only reason anyone would advocate that is because they want to cause a crime wave.
Let's see: multiple jurisdictions have adopted the equivalent of no prisons by eliminating cash bail. How's that working out? It is amazing to hear the thoughts of people who will never have to suffer the consequences of their ideas. Every other day, there is the story of a multi-time offender who was released shortly after being arrested, only to go out and commit another crime, perhaps a crime in which an innocent was assaulted or killed.
When did it become fashionable to elevate the criminal over the law-abiding citizens? Probably around the same time it became cool to push for medical experimentation on children. Probably near the time that the border became a punchline and everyone wandering across it was treated like someone seeking asylum. Until a fraction of those people wound up in Martha's Vineyard, of course. Then we saw quite clearly what the left thinks of having to live up to what it wants to force on everyone else.
Leaving a murder unpunished, treating a murderer like a naughty child would be a moral abomination. Incarcerating a murderer is certainly not a moral abomination. I am shocked by Vincent Lloyd's very naive and much too ideological approach to crime and prisons. I also disagree with his belief that people harm others because they were earlier harmed themselves - this is true in many cases, maybe even in most cases, but not in all cases. There are also many people who have experienced serious abuse, but who don't commit violent crimes against others.
I don’t understand how this is even a debate. Of course we need prisons. Just like you need water and food to survive.
Of interest: https://blacksnakeofvanity.substack.com/p/white-supremacy
Prof Loury- can you give me a day/time to call you so that I don’t telephone you during dinner or class?
There is a constructive way and destructive way to approach everything. I don't think I deserved that for voicing my opinion and yet you babbled on about rape as if that is what I commented upon.
For what it is worth, so far, other than expanding prisons, you've added less than you think to the conversation yourself except to inform us all that prisons graduate professional gang members. What should be done about that? Apparently what I'm most ignorant of is what social "scientist" have accomplished. Apparently, not much.
You are taking too much credit for your field.
I did not criticize
I would be happy to talk any time, schedule permitting.
My phone number is (571) 236-2038
and my email is karlstraub@hotmail.com.
Some brief background: I’m 56 and white, and I got a music education bachelor’s degree at 40 from Howard University.
When the woke philosophy got my attention, I read books and articles and talked about the ideas with a younger guy I knew. My intention was to evolve.
I spent a few sincere years trying to become more “woke,” as a white liberal who’d been raised in a white conservative household.
Long story short, I became disillusioned with the movement, and John McWhorter’s book really resonated with me.
My position is, basically, that a left wing movement that can’t have a civil conversation with me (a person who is in sympathy with much of their thinking) is a left wing movement with serious problems.
I would love to chat with you whenever we can find time to do that.
Karl Straub
Writing: karlstraub.substack.com
I'll call you tomorrow.
This was a very frustrating podcast. I don’t know if I would have been able to exercise the patience that Glenn and John exhibited toward Prof. Lloyd.
Prof. Lloyd’s defense of the assertions on the infantile manifesto issued to him by “Keisha” and co. brought to mind the old observation that “a liberal is someone who won’t take his own side in an argument.” Prof. Lloyd seems to have learned nothing from his experience. He wants education to be focused upon “domination” but is oblivious to how domination, and his inability to control it, led to the explosion of his Telluride seminar.
John, you say Prof. Lloyd is “not naïve”? A university professor who wants to address capital crimes through a few sessions with “Big Mama,” and by returning murderers to “those who love them”? If any of the people in those communities were that influential, it seems unlikely the perpetrators would have murdered anyone in the first place. And what consequences would Prof. Lloyd prescribe for non-black murderers of the same age and economic stratum who may also have suffered injustices?
I defer to the opinions of Glenn and John that Prof. Lloyd is intelligent and well-meaning, but considering the persistence of such insubstantial opinions despite such emblematic experiences, one must at some point conclude that this man is simply not using his intelligence.
Addicts are rational economic beings: they will finance their addiction in the manner that is the most efficient for them : by stealing from others whatever is necessary to pay quickly for satisfaction of their drug needs.
Yes. All that being what it is...I would refer those interested in the overall social impact of what you lay out to Charles Murray's last book (a very short but interesting collection of statistics and thoughts)...."Facing Reality: Two Truths About Race In America".
We have problems, causes and victims of all kinds. Sometimes how severe depends on how much thought and concern one pays to them. That often correlates to one' wealth, circumstance (SES) and degree of interest.
All our "troubles" are true. More-so to those most concerned about them.
To the rest of our 350+ fellow citizens which range from not knowing who George Washington was to what LaBron James thinks today, onward to getting a STEM qualifying education, little of all that matters.
A massive heterogeneous national population built on destroying former aristocracies, former slavery and world immigration is not easily accommodated via a government model that is NOT supposed to define and command the people's economic and social life. It all takes great "self-governance". That takes awareness of personal responsibility, awareness of issues, sense of mission and taking into account human nature.
After WW2, we did, I think, a pretty good job of rebooting and dealing with the pressures of fixing some great government social flaws (Civil Rights, Voting and Housing Rights). The rest of changing hearts and minds took us from Jackie Robinson to Tiger Woods (see 18th green in 2019 Masters (YouTube)).
Our biggest problem is not anything anyone tends to talk about. Which is how to protect our individual rights under the law and equal opportunity to speak and seek.
Darn. I wrote a response but accidentally lost it. Different time zone, after 3an here! I'll give it another shot tomorrow.
All you say has merit. That is one reason (deterrence), I'm guessing ,is why, I, like so many choose to navigate through life avoiding what causes the risk of prison.
I see no reason why America should not make best effort to make prisons less cruel. Incarcerating criminals is sufficient. We don't need to torture them with cruelty.
The best way to resolve criminal life in both Norway and the US is to breed and nurture better people.
What can any prison accomplish to transform people willing to steal and harm other people when they are released? Not that we should not try to assist those in prison who come to realize better ideas and ways.
As for criminalizing more than other nations, perhaps drug laws are a part of that. And perhaps that is worthy of revision. But a nation so full of people who desire and need to function on drugs (and alcohol) as their "meaning to life" goes back to my former comment on nurturing better people. Who really wants to employ and depend on the addicted for their welfare. I think the individual should adapt to society more than society adapting to the people. We are only as good as the sum of our parts.
Thanks Vincent Lloyd. Learn from research.
The combined state and federal imprisonment rate for 2019 (419 per 100,000 U.S. residents), based on sentenced prisoners (those sentenced to more than on year), decreased 3% from 2018 (432 per 100,000 U.S. residents).” “This was the lowest imprisonment rate in 24 years, dating back to 1995.” And “Since 2009, the imprisonment rate-the portion of U.S. residents who are in prison has dropped 17% overall…”
“IN 2019, THE IMPRISONMENT RATE OF BLACK RESIDENTS WAS THE LOWEST RATE IN 30 YEARS, SINCE 1989.”
The majority of this data is not influenced by the recent First Step Act (signed by Trump) which will benefit more and more prisoners seeking clemency and relief.
My comment was too snarky, but it's born of some actual research into the penal system. One of the primary problems with incarceration is the control by gangs of the populations in most large prisons. This prevents rehabilitation and helps develop more criminal behaviors while locked up. It also creates opportunity for the corruption of prison guards and other staff.
In David Skarbek's incredible book, The Social Order of the Underworld what you see is how prisons are a key part of the organized crime ecosystem. The title is misleading as the book it focuses exclusively on prisons. The key observations that came from his analyses were: 1. When a jail gets bigger than 250-300 prisoners, it ends up being run by the inmates to a significant degree. 2. This occurs as a solution to a 'governance' vacuum in large prisons with thousands of inmates. A social order and some sort of governance of conduct will always emerge in these prisons but it's not feasible for it to come down from the guards and institution. Only in small jails does this not happen.
This applies to most federal and state penitentiaries, and even in some large city jails. And of course serious conviction sends you to one of these places where an inmate has to 'pick a side' when the arrive, often by race. When living in such a criminal social setting, how does one 'rehabilitate' themselves? So, the first thing we need to do is fix prisons by making them much smaller. This will solve many, many problems.
Should we decriminalize non-violent crimes? Yes. Do we need to improve the conditions in prison? Yes. Do we need to do a lot more to raise children up to be non-violent? Yes. Do we need to just let violent criminals walk free because it would be mean to throw them in prison? No. The only reason anyone would advocate that is because they want to cause a crime wave.
Yes, prisons are cruel And?
Let's see: multiple jurisdictions have adopted the equivalent of no prisons by eliminating cash bail. How's that working out? It is amazing to hear the thoughts of people who will never have to suffer the consequences of their ideas. Every other day, there is the story of a multi-time offender who was released shortly after being arrested, only to go out and commit another crime, perhaps a crime in which an innocent was assaulted or killed.
When did it become fashionable to elevate the criminal over the law-abiding citizens? Probably around the same time it became cool to push for medical experimentation on children. Probably near the time that the border became a punchline and everyone wandering across it was treated like someone seeking asylum. Until a fraction of those people wound up in Martha's Vineyard, of course. Then we saw quite clearly what the left thinks of having to live up to what it wants to force on everyone else.
Leaving a murder unpunished, treating a murderer like a naughty child would be a moral abomination. Incarcerating a murderer is certainly not a moral abomination. I am shocked by Vincent Lloyd's very naive and much too ideological approach to crime and prisons. I also disagree with his belief that people harm others because they were earlier harmed themselves - this is true in many cases, maybe even in most cases, but not in all cases. There are also many people who have experienced serious abuse, but who don't commit violent crimes against others.