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.
In America, the precipitous decline in crime rates coincided with legal access to abortion. Count forward 20 years from now, American crime rates will be going up, and will be debated endlessly. Except it won't be mysterious, and it won't be evenly distributed. States that have retained access to abortion will be the perfect control groups, but ignored, for all of the studies that will be created by social scientists to understand the criminal trends. Btw - Drug addicts, arguably, are adapting to society; for many, society is the cause, not the cure.
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.
Prisons could also be made much larger. Say on the scale of "Escape from New York," "Papillon," or even transport to various wastelands (think pre-revolutionary America and 19th century Australia). I'm partial to some US Government land in the desert southwest being given over to the project. Governance, loosely defined, would be the province of the inmates to run things as they see fit. The "Hotel California" principle would rule: "You can check out any time you you like, but you can never leave."
I'm sorry, I read Papillon, did you? That's an example of the worst kind of prison imaginable. Your view basically boils down to, eff them. Cool story bro. Meanwhile back in reality, the book and research I cited before is pristine and quite clear that larger prisons are not governable. You seem to not care that criminal gangs run most prisons and this destroys any rehabilitative experience they might be open to having. As well, it's dangerous and we actually have a legal obligation to prisoners to keep them safe while we hold them in custody.
Let's take stock of your position. You basically ignored the findings I shared - not an opinion - findings of serious research done by a serious researcher. And instead offer an inhumane alternative. Do you think that's clever or cool? Hope you never get locked up for anything. There are more than a few 'normal' people - non career criminal types - who make a mistake and get locked up. They have no chance of surviving that sentence without joining a gang in many prisons. The problem would only be worse with your idea. You are okay with just throwing people away who commit crime I guess. this is depraved and immoral and ignorant. Are you a Christian?
You (probably rightly) propose more and smaller populated prisons as one step (the first step). What might be the second and third steps?
You mention there are many "no career type criminals (how do we know that when they commit the crime (that they are only temporary criminals?))
If we can tell they qualify for avoidance of being included with the (hard core?). Seems this must be addressed during the trial phase of the justice system?
Daniel Kahneman,, in his co-written recent book "NOISE" reveals the significant problem of error in judgement of judges (Their inconsistency in applying sentences). Perhaps at this point, there is error that can be improved.
In the 1990s, former NYS Supreme Court Justice Rothwax wrote and preached extensively on the collapse of the criminal justice system. His book, "Guilty: The Collapse of the Criminal Justice System recommended many changes to the process to stem this collapse. No such changes seem to have taken place.
That prison populations break into "racial" groups is telling of what happens in societies as they de-civilize. Which America may be in process of doing.
America is turning into a very uncaring and distrustful nation. Based upon what you advise regarding prisons being a university of criminal and gang development, it seems concern about their welfare is the least of our problems until we can figure out what to do. Good Luck with that.
Humans are also, by nature, animals. Viktor Frankl designates "humans" not by being Christian but by accepting responsibility for their own existence and finding a meaning to life. Those who take that responsibility must be protected from the animals that some humans are. Without cruelty if possible. Any way if necessary.
What a silly comment.. Your comment about criminal history is silly - the same comment holds true for someone with no criminal record or a career criminal. Fyi, this has been studied with respect to rape very deeply. Turns out the majority of rapes are committed by a small pct of men who rape and sexually assault hundreds of women across their lives. Some are committed by men who will only commit one rape in their lives, usually a form of date rape vs. 'stranger rape' which is much more common from a predator. So, contrary to your breezy BS, there is all kinds of valid data out there about criminal history and crime. Do you know how busy social scientists are in jails, studying crime? Of course, you are just ignorant of it, but run your banal speculations by us all for what reason I do not know.
Even sillier? Speaking to me as though I'm not for punishing criminals. Nothing in my commentary says that. I've read Frankl, have you? Doubt it, cuz most people who've read him are much less pompous than you. Your comment is mere posing and hyperbole. You don't actually know a damn thing about any of this, lol. Yet you babble.
btw: Of course I read Frankl (my comment comes from The Unconscious God. Excuse me if I find Frankl's insight so essential. That insight is, imo, what is likely lacking in each of those who earn prison. The point is, without fixing that (who can?) you are correct we will need more prisons. Perhaps the social scientist can tell us how they can be made less cruel.
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.
In early colonial America, justice was tough but grew less harsh than remained in Europe. This was felt, know and contributed to the growing desire to be American.
There were and are always criminals. But in my youth (80 years ago to start) criminality in all communities seemed less committed. Remember the days when you did not fear to hitch-hike nor did people fear giving you a ride.
So perhaps, at some point we turned in criminal amount and severity.
If prisons are just universities that return harder and better criminals, it seems to me it time to make some changes for the sake of those who wish to contribute to building society as opposed to breaking it. Perhaps it's time to be more harsh.
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.
Exactly. I live in San Francisco and our recently ousted DA, Chesa Boudin, exercised his social justice experiment on the citizens of San Francisco to the demise of Public Safety. Every criminal in his eyes was the victim and were therefore released w/ankle monitor, promise to take a class or a simple misdemeanor. Well as no surprise to anyone, many went on to commit further crimes that resulted in violence and death.
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.
The primary context of victimization of young children is the family household. Children who have been abused and/or neglected by parents or other caregivers have higher odds of ending up in prison than children who haven't been, and the risk goes up with the number of different kinds of abuse the children have experienced in their homes.
See research on Adverse Childhood Experiences, originally conducted by Kaiser-Permanente:
Children in large, lower income black neighborhoods also experience more violence from peers in their neighborhoods than do children in other circumstances. The ACE Scale used for measuring exposure to childhood trauma does not measure violence outside the family environment. What is remarkable about the ACE results is that mental health issues, physical health issues and illegal behavioral problems are so strongly associated just with familial abuse and neglect.
This means that if incarcerated people are viewed as victims, then there should be a major amount of focus on what they experienced within their families. There is in fact evidence that children growing up in black homes in low income black neighborhoods are exposed to more domestic violence than children growing up in other situations. Black children more likely than other children, relative to their percentage of the population, to be killed by an abusive adult living within their family home.
That is a different perspective from the one that attributes incarceration of black men primarily to "racism." Unfortunately, it is a perspective that has been resisted when child trauma specialists (such as Bessel van der Kolk) have tried to get funding from the government to study child abuse in black families.
I would add that familial abuse in childhood is of course not the only reason why men end up in prison as adults. There is some evidence (from the Minnesota Twin Study) that some personality traits found in people diagnosed as "antisocial personality disorder" (sociopathy) are heritable.
There is also the fact that many ethnic groups in the U.S. and elsewhere have developed crime cultures in ethnic neighborhoods. Ethnic neighborhoods that are on lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder have been prone to this, with some notable exceptions (immigrants from some Asian countries). Young men in these neighborhoods who lack other job skills and opportunities seek a way to earn a living and a sense of pride where money and status are not easily available from legitimate employment. Creating a job selling illegal products and services could be seen as resourceful from this perspective.
All that being said, however, we do not know much about how to rehabilitate young men who have become established in a criminal career by the time they are eighteen. And we do have to prevent them from hurting and killing more people. So whether they got into jail by being victims or by being opportunists, what else are we going to do with them?
I really appreciate your deep and thoughtful comments. The problem of child abuse certainly deserves much more attention and funding. Let's remember, too, that there are many Black children who are brought up in foster families where they can face abuse, so it is not a "Black family problem".
The role of "crime cultures" and of harmful masculinity models in poor neighbourhoods should also be considered. I am glad that you have also mentioned the fact that poor men can see e.g. drug trade as an attractive "career" compared to the available legal job opportunities. In the same way poor women can be interested in various types of "sex work" despite its dangers.
As to the role of genetic factors, I think that one has to be very careful. Genetic explanations for all kinds of things are very popular because of their seductive simplicity. There is the risk of jumping much too quickly to the assumption that a man is breaking the law because he has inherited an "antisocial personality disorder". It can lead to excessive pessimism.
There are psychological and sociological reasons why poor men are much more likely to display "antisocial" behaviour than middle-class men. The poor may feel forced to break the law by their life circumstances. They also often see the law as a force serving the interests of the powers that be. Finally, they can feel that breaking the law can benefit them e.g. in the form of increased social status among their peers.
I personally tend to trust police officers and I am not afraid of them. My attitude is completely different from the visceral mistrust and often hatred boys and men from poor backgrounds - and especially poor Black boys and men - frequently feel towards the police. This difference in attitudes is largely (if not mainly) caused by a difference in experiences. The poor can also see the law itself as an alien and oppressive force.
First off, it’s ALL about OPENLY setting the rules and making the consequences known to everyone from birth! What comes as a result of abhorrent behavior must be ingrained into the American psyche from the very first stages of life.
That understood, then after a citizen commits these crimes and after being tried and legally convicted in a just court of law, we publicly, on broadcasted television, punish them physically via caning or lashing. After both the physical pain they endure coupled with the humiliation suffered knowing all their friends/family witnessed them being caught and punished we then shitcan, poleaxe and banish them to our very own Gulag of brutally hard labor commensurate with their crimes/repetition of their crimes.....
If they’ve raped, they have their testicles chopped off. Simple as.
Look at the utter lack of any relevant crime in Singapore! They Government doesn’t fuck around there and guess what? The known repercussions for breaking the law are so mortally frightening to even the most hardened of evil-doer that any dregs of society think twice before committing these atrocious acts. As has been righteously stated for thousands of years - “Violence, or threat thereof, solves 99.9% of the world’s problems” !
Until the USA stops being a bunch of gutless, spineless, SJW turds thus constantly turning the, statistically speaking, overwhelmingly black perpetrator into the victim, we’ll be mired in exponentially worsening crime! Glenn himself knows how damaging this inversion of reality is and the toll it’s verifiably taking on the average, honest, tax-paying, law abiding White citizen. It is radicalizing the very people who just so happen to be in the majority and possess by far and away, the most firearms, ammunition and hands-on knowledge/experience with said weapons.
It’s high time WE take our country back!
⬇️ Something to consider ⬇️
“The most terrifying force of death, comes from the hands of White Men who wanted to be left alone.
They try, so very hard, to mind their own business and provide for themselves and those they love. They resist every impulse to fight back, knowing the forced and permanent change of life that will come from it.
They know, that the moment they fight back, their lives as they have lived them, are over. The moment the White Men who wanted to be left alone are forced to fight back, it is a form of suicide. They are literally killing off who they used to be. Which is why, when forced to take up violence, these White Men who wanted to be left alone, fight with unholy vengeance against those who murdered their former lives.
They fight with raw hate, and a drive that cannot be fathomed by those who are merely play-acting at politics and terror. TRUE Terror will arrive at these people’s door, and they will cry, scream, and beg for mercy… but it will fall upon the deaf ears of the White Men who just wanted to be left alone.”
Agreed 100% ! This Prof Vincent chump is an absolute embarrassment to any self-respecting, upstanding black citizen! How DARE him just dismiss the plight of the victim out of hand! It’s insulting and dehumanizing to the person who actually deserves empathy and yet he grants clemency to these subhuman, mongrel ghetto birds “cause their dads beat them up”.
When it’s MY family or MY friend or ANYONE else innocently harmed, maimed or killed, I DON’T GIVE A RAT’S ASS ABOUT GOLD-TOOF, SAGGING PANTS, JAMAL FROM DA’ HOOD !!! That dirtbag needs to be locked AWAY from society or put to death if his crimes warrant it! Ever wonder why this abhorrent behavior doesn’t remotely happen in Singapore? Cause they don’t have these insipid, bleeding heart Shitlibs like Prof. Vincent making excuses for hood rat thugs. You get outta line even slightly in Singapore you get publicly caned! Yeah, Tyrone, try stealing from a grocery store or beating up a kid on a school bus and they’ll cane your ass immediately and lock you up in solitary! You won’t like it and will be deterred from your shitty thug behavior!
Frankly, I’m disgusted with both Glenn and John’s feckless lack of any real response to this immoral parasite they chose to have on their otherwise vaunted show! If they’re going to desecrate their hallowed and sacred show by inviting Vincent on in the first place they both should’ve at least had the stones to eviscerate Vincent’s shameful argument against incarceration! I swear, lately whenever any black pundit with an absurd, crazed ‘protected’ worldview comes on, Glenn and John give said charlatan WAY too much leeway. They should have politely listened to Vincent’s drivel and then proceeded to mercilessly obliterate his pathologically vile worldview! It pains me to say it but I’ve watched both Glenn and John’s balls drop off as of late. Wouldn’t want to upset the ‘woke’ Gods huh, fellas? I expect this cowardice from McWhorter but when Loury meekly shies away from facing the enemy head on, you know we’re in deep shit......Sad.
I have to say that the things you are saying about Vincent Lloyd ("immoral parasite") and Black men from poor neighbourhoods ("subhuman, mongrel ghetto birds", "gold-toof, sagging pants, Jamal from da'hood") are shockingly hateful. The things you say about Black men from poor neighbourhoods actually sound openly racist.
We seem to be living in an age of ad hominem attacks. Do they advance anyone's cause? Do they move the ball forward? It seems they polarize and make enemies. I'm not speaking of here in these comments but in our wider society. They seem to describe the speaker more than the targets. It's hard to consider the merits of a comment when it's salted with such words. Removing that distraction, the question remains: do we need prisons?
Prof. Lloyd seems high in two psychological traits, if I may say so. One is Agreeableness and the other is Openness. His agreeableness seems evident in his apparent willingness to go along with the prevailing flow of thought and assumptions in his particular academic environment. His echo chamber, if you will. To my ear, he seems to parrot a lot of the approved language of the group of whom he seeks approval and their feathers he hopes not to ruffle. Does this contribute to public safety? Does it contribute to a stable society where people can get on with life and create lives for their families? No. So does it suggest we don't need prisons? No.
Indeed, he seems to be endangering his students and our communities by perpetuating tropes which just aren't real. And the farther we are led down imaginary paths, the farther away we get from practical solutions.
The Openness thing seems evident in a willingness to abandon the present way of seeing and doing things. I get it. There has always been and will always be a (hopefully) healthy tension between traditions and the past vs. new ideas. It's the depiction of the ying and yang we often see. Unbridled Openness, however, especially when matters of community safety are concerned, and especially cooked up in environments where unreal orthodoxies are worshipped and dissent is effectively outlawed, can be very dangerous.
Once again, it seems Prof. Lloyd has very little experience in the sometimes violent communities he speaks much about. The ordinary person might well just shake their head and say, "You just don't know what you're talking about. You clearly have no real solutions and therefore have no business popping off or teaching rubbish to our young people." We need to move on.
As for Glenn and John's questions, some might greatly benefit from going back and listening again. What they did was give Prof. Lloyd all the rope he needed to make very plain what his views are, as impractical, perhaps horrifying and wrong headed as they are. It's actually a very effective cross examination technique. No one put words in his mouth. He said it all. It gives we, the jury, so to speak, a very clear picture of his case and makes our choice clear. I don't think any of us could have done better.
We still need prisons. For many offenders the present model is a lost opportunity. But to Glenn's question, the answer remains yes.
I agree with everything you are saying. As to prof. Lloyd, I would not say that he talks in this way merely because of his lack of experience with violent communities. I think that because of the popularity of the prison abolition ideology he fails to understand that "community solutions" to crimes such as murder have nothing in common with justice.
How would he feel if someone killed one of his family members and then merely had to listen to the rebukes of the community elders/leaders and do some community work? One does not need any experience with violent communities to understand that the feelings of the murderer are not much more important than the feelings of people s/he has harmed and that there are far worse things than being incarcerated.
I, too, really liked Glenn and John's questions. I think that it would have been a great idea to ask Vincent Lloyd why he centers the feelings and the vulnerability of the person who has committed a serious crime like murder. Even if a murderer is a victim of e.g. childhood sexual abuse, one can't assume that s/he was unable to control his/her actions.
The murderer (or the rapist, or the domestic abuser etc.) should not be centered at the expense of the victim. The incarceration of a violent criminal should never be seen as a tragedy, especially if the crime has been ruthless. The incarceration of people who kill or seriously hurt others should not be portrayed as "putting someone in a cage". And prisoners can actually learn and change their lives, they are not merely kept in cages.
And I agree with your points. I do believe Prof. Lloyd is out of touch but agree his ideologies are the stronger drivers. They do seem to come from a place of unreality, which is why it seemed to me he lacked certain life experience.
Yes, he most probably lacks certain experiences, but one does not need these experiences to realize that killing someone is a very serious crime and telling a killer "return to your community, do some community work and try to become a better person" is not only extremely utopian, but also shockingly unjust to the victim and the victim's loved ones.
And of course the belief in the healing power of the community is dangerous in itself. Even if a community happens to be close-knit, it can be very lenient towards popular people and harsh or even cruel towards people with a low status. People - especially family members and friends - can be very influenced by their emotions and can perceive even dangerous individuals in a distorted way. It is often very difficult to accept that one's grandson, cousin or neigbour may be a deeply damaged and ruthless person.
And what about crimes such as rape or sexual abuse? How many victims would be ready to inform their own community about what happened to them? And how many people would try to defend the perpetrator or even claim that the victim must be lying?
The precise description I provided was EXACTLY the kind of dirtbag Vincent was wantonly excusing for the most heinous of crimes! I take nothing back and make absolutely zero apologies! Those heathen thugs I meticulously described ARE the ones committing those crimes. It’s NOT black Harvard students perpetrating those crimes. It’s rancid, soulless, pathologically cursed cretins destroying innocent family’s lives. If you take offense to my accurate description then it only proves I’m directly above the intended target and spot-on in my assessment! Perhaps YOU should stop living in fantasy land about the dregs of society carrying out this unwarranted evil. We call balls and strikes here as ‘facts DO NOT care about your feelings!” If that’s a source of tension or embarrassment for you - I don’t give a shit! Every single one of those vile turds destroying innocent lives should face unspeakable repercussions for their actions!
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.
I look forward to it. You are a thoughtful person.
Thanks for considering me worth your time. About what? What train of thought? Get me started. Good Tidings, to you as well.
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.
In America, the precipitous decline in crime rates coincided with legal access to abortion. Count forward 20 years from now, American crime rates will be going up, and will be debated endlessly. Except it won't be mysterious, and it won't be evenly distributed. States that have retained access to abortion will be the perfect control groups, but ignored, for all of the studies that will be created by social scientists to understand the criminal trends. Btw - Drug addicts, arguably, are adapting to society; for many, society is the cause, not the cure.
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.
Prisons could also be made much larger. Say on the scale of "Escape from New York," "Papillon," or even transport to various wastelands (think pre-revolutionary America and 19th century Australia). I'm partial to some US Government land in the desert southwest being given over to the project. Governance, loosely defined, would be the province of the inmates to run things as they see fit. The "Hotel California" principle would rule: "You can check out any time you you like, but you can never leave."
I'm sorry, I read Papillon, did you? That's an example of the worst kind of prison imaginable. Your view basically boils down to, eff them. Cool story bro. Meanwhile back in reality, the book and research I cited before is pristine and quite clear that larger prisons are not governable. You seem to not care that criminal gangs run most prisons and this destroys any rehabilitative experience they might be open to having. As well, it's dangerous and we actually have a legal obligation to prisoners to keep them safe while we hold them in custody.
Let's take stock of your position. You basically ignored the findings I shared - not an opinion - findings of serious research done by a serious researcher. And instead offer an inhumane alternative. Do you think that's clever or cool? Hope you never get locked up for anything. There are more than a few 'normal' people - non career criminal types - who make a mistake and get locked up. They have no chance of surviving that sentence without joining a gang in many prisons. The problem would only be worse with your idea. You are okay with just throwing people away who commit crime I guess. this is depraved and immoral and ignorant. Are you a Christian?
You (probably rightly) propose more and smaller populated prisons as one step (the first step). What might be the second and third steps?
You mention there are many "no career type criminals (how do we know that when they commit the crime (that they are only temporary criminals?))
If we can tell they qualify for avoidance of being included with the (hard core?). Seems this must be addressed during the trial phase of the justice system?
Daniel Kahneman,, in his co-written recent book "NOISE" reveals the significant problem of error in judgement of judges (Their inconsistency in applying sentences). Perhaps at this point, there is error that can be improved.
In the 1990s, former NYS Supreme Court Justice Rothwax wrote and preached extensively on the collapse of the criminal justice system. His book, "Guilty: The Collapse of the Criminal Justice System recommended many changes to the process to stem this collapse. No such changes seem to have taken place.
That prison populations break into "racial" groups is telling of what happens in societies as they de-civilize. Which America may be in process of doing.
America is turning into a very uncaring and distrustful nation. Based upon what you advise regarding prisons being a university of criminal and gang development, it seems concern about their welfare is the least of our problems until we can figure out what to do. Good Luck with that.
Humans are also, by nature, animals. Viktor Frankl designates "humans" not by being Christian but by accepting responsibility for their own existence and finding a meaning to life. Those who take that responsibility must be protected from the animals that some humans are. Without cruelty if possible. Any way if necessary.
What a silly comment.. Your comment about criminal history is silly - the same comment holds true for someone with no criminal record or a career criminal. Fyi, this has been studied with respect to rape very deeply. Turns out the majority of rapes are committed by a small pct of men who rape and sexually assault hundreds of women across their lives. Some are committed by men who will only commit one rape in their lives, usually a form of date rape vs. 'stranger rape' which is much more common from a predator. So, contrary to your breezy BS, there is all kinds of valid data out there about criminal history and crime. Do you know how busy social scientists are in jails, studying crime? Of course, you are just ignorant of it, but run your banal speculations by us all for what reason I do not know.
Even sillier? Speaking to me as though I'm not for punishing criminals. Nothing in my commentary says that. I've read Frankl, have you? Doubt it, cuz most people who've read him are much less pompous than you. Your comment is mere posing and hyperbole. You don't actually know a damn thing about any of this, lol. Yet you babble.
btw: Of course I read Frankl (my comment comes from The Unconscious God. Excuse me if I find Frankl's insight so essential. That insight is, imo, what is likely lacking in each of those who earn prison. The point is, without fixing that (who can?) you are correct we will need more prisons. Perhaps the social scientist can tell us how they can be made less cruel.
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.
In early colonial America, justice was tough but grew less harsh than remained in Europe. This was felt, know and contributed to the growing desire to be American.
There were and are always criminals. But in my youth (80 years ago to start) criminality in all communities seemed less committed. Remember the days when you did not fear to hitch-hike nor did people fear giving you a ride.
So perhaps, at some point we turned in criminal amount and severity.
If prisons are just universities that return harder and better criminals, it seems to me it time to make some changes for the sake of those who wish to contribute to building society as opposed to breaking it. Perhaps it's time to be more harsh.
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.
Exactly. I live in San Francisco and our recently ousted DA, Chesa Boudin, exercised his social justice experiment on the citizens of San Francisco to the demise of Public Safety. Every criminal in his eyes was the victim and were therefore released w/ankle monitor, promise to take a class or a simple misdemeanor. Well as no surprise to anyone, many went on to commit further crimes that resulted in violence and death.
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.
The primary context of victimization of young children is the family household. Children who have been abused and/or neglected by parents or other caregivers have higher odds of ending up in prison than children who haven't been, and the risk goes up with the number of different kinds of abuse the children have experienced in their homes.
See research on Adverse Childhood Experiences, originally conducted by Kaiser-Permanente:
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/about.html
Children in large, lower income black neighborhoods also experience more violence from peers in their neighborhoods than do children in other circumstances. The ACE Scale used for measuring exposure to childhood trauma does not measure violence outside the family environment. What is remarkable about the ACE results is that mental health issues, physical health issues and illegal behavioral problems are so strongly associated just with familial abuse and neglect.
This means that if incarcerated people are viewed as victims, then there should be a major amount of focus on what they experienced within their families. There is in fact evidence that children growing up in black homes in low income black neighborhoods are exposed to more domestic violence than children growing up in other situations. Black children more likely than other children, relative to their percentage of the population, to be killed by an abusive adult living within their family home.
That is a different perspective from the one that attributes incarceration of black men primarily to "racism." Unfortunately, it is a perspective that has been resisted when child trauma specialists (such as Bessel van der Kolk) have tried to get funding from the government to study child abuse in black families.
I would add that familial abuse in childhood is of course not the only reason why men end up in prison as adults. There is some evidence (from the Minnesota Twin Study) that some personality traits found in people diagnosed as "antisocial personality disorder" (sociopathy) are heritable.
There is also the fact that many ethnic groups in the U.S. and elsewhere have developed crime cultures in ethnic neighborhoods. Ethnic neighborhoods that are on lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder have been prone to this, with some notable exceptions (immigrants from some Asian countries). Young men in these neighborhoods who lack other job skills and opportunities seek a way to earn a living and a sense of pride where money and status are not easily available from legitimate employment. Creating a job selling illegal products and services could be seen as resourceful from this perspective.
All that being said, however, we do not know much about how to rehabilitate young men who have become established in a criminal career by the time they are eighteen. And we do have to prevent them from hurting and killing more people. So whether they got into jail by being victims or by being opportunists, what else are we going to do with them?
I really appreciate your deep and thoughtful comments. The problem of child abuse certainly deserves much more attention and funding. Let's remember, too, that there are many Black children who are brought up in foster families where they can face abuse, so it is not a "Black family problem".
The role of "crime cultures" and of harmful masculinity models in poor neighbourhoods should also be considered. I am glad that you have also mentioned the fact that poor men can see e.g. drug trade as an attractive "career" compared to the available legal job opportunities. In the same way poor women can be interested in various types of "sex work" despite its dangers.
As to the role of genetic factors, I think that one has to be very careful. Genetic explanations for all kinds of things are very popular because of their seductive simplicity. There is the risk of jumping much too quickly to the assumption that a man is breaking the law because he has inherited an "antisocial personality disorder". It can lead to excessive pessimism.
There are psychological and sociological reasons why poor men are much more likely to display "antisocial" behaviour than middle-class men. The poor may feel forced to break the law by their life circumstances. They also often see the law as a force serving the interests of the powers that be. Finally, they can feel that breaking the law can benefit them e.g. in the form of increased social status among their peers.
I personally tend to trust police officers and I am not afraid of them. My attitude is completely different from the visceral mistrust and often hatred boys and men from poor backgrounds - and especially poor Black boys and men - frequently feel towards the police. This difference in attitudes is largely (if not mainly) caused by a difference in experiences. The poor can also see the law itself as an alien and oppressive force.
First off, it’s ALL about OPENLY setting the rules and making the consequences known to everyone from birth! What comes as a result of abhorrent behavior must be ingrained into the American psyche from the very first stages of life.
That understood, then after a citizen commits these crimes and after being tried and legally convicted in a just court of law, we publicly, on broadcasted television, punish them physically via caning or lashing. After both the physical pain they endure coupled with the humiliation suffered knowing all their friends/family witnessed them being caught and punished we then shitcan, poleaxe and banish them to our very own Gulag of brutally hard labor commensurate with their crimes/repetition of their crimes.....
If they’ve raped, they have their testicles chopped off. Simple as.
Look at the utter lack of any relevant crime in Singapore! They Government doesn’t fuck around there and guess what? The known repercussions for breaking the law are so mortally frightening to even the most hardened of evil-doer that any dregs of society think twice before committing these atrocious acts. As has been righteously stated for thousands of years - “Violence, or threat thereof, solves 99.9% of the world’s problems” !
Until the USA stops being a bunch of gutless, spineless, SJW turds thus constantly turning the, statistically speaking, overwhelmingly black perpetrator into the victim, we’ll be mired in exponentially worsening crime! Glenn himself knows how damaging this inversion of reality is and the toll it’s verifiably taking on the average, honest, tax-paying, law abiding White citizen. It is radicalizing the very people who just so happen to be in the majority and possess by far and away, the most firearms, ammunition and hands-on knowledge/experience with said weapons.
It’s high time WE take our country back!
⬇️ Something to consider ⬇️
“The most terrifying force of death, comes from the hands of White Men who wanted to be left alone.
They try, so very hard, to mind their own business and provide for themselves and those they love. They resist every impulse to fight back, knowing the forced and permanent change of life that will come from it.
They know, that the moment they fight back, their lives as they have lived them, are over. The moment the White Men who wanted to be left alone are forced to fight back, it is a form of suicide. They are literally killing off who they used to be. Which is why, when forced to take up violence, these White Men who wanted to be left alone, fight with unholy vengeance against those who murdered their former lives.
They fight with raw hate, and a drive that cannot be fathomed by those who are merely play-acting at politics and terror. TRUE Terror will arrive at these people’s door, and they will cry, scream, and beg for mercy… but it will fall upon the deaf ears of the White Men who just wanted to be left alone.”
Agreed 100% ! This Prof Vincent chump is an absolute embarrassment to any self-respecting, upstanding black citizen! How DARE him just dismiss the plight of the victim out of hand! It’s insulting and dehumanizing to the person who actually deserves empathy and yet he grants clemency to these subhuman, mongrel ghetto birds “cause their dads beat them up”.
When it’s MY family or MY friend or ANYONE else innocently harmed, maimed or killed, I DON’T GIVE A RAT’S ASS ABOUT GOLD-TOOF, SAGGING PANTS, JAMAL FROM DA’ HOOD !!! That dirtbag needs to be locked AWAY from society or put to death if his crimes warrant it! Ever wonder why this abhorrent behavior doesn’t remotely happen in Singapore? Cause they don’t have these insipid, bleeding heart Shitlibs like Prof. Vincent making excuses for hood rat thugs. You get outta line even slightly in Singapore you get publicly caned! Yeah, Tyrone, try stealing from a grocery store or beating up a kid on a school bus and they’ll cane your ass immediately and lock you up in solitary! You won’t like it and will be deterred from your shitty thug behavior!
Frankly, I’m disgusted with both Glenn and John’s feckless lack of any real response to this immoral parasite they chose to have on their otherwise vaunted show! If they’re going to desecrate their hallowed and sacred show by inviting Vincent on in the first place they both should’ve at least had the stones to eviscerate Vincent’s shameful argument against incarceration! I swear, lately whenever any black pundit with an absurd, crazed ‘protected’ worldview comes on, Glenn and John give said charlatan WAY too much leeway. They should have politely listened to Vincent’s drivel and then proceeded to mercilessly obliterate his pathologically vile worldview! It pains me to say it but I’ve watched both Glenn and John’s balls drop off as of late. Wouldn’t want to upset the ‘woke’ Gods huh, fellas? I expect this cowardice from McWhorter but when Loury meekly shies away from facing the enemy head on, you know we’re in deep shit......Sad.
I have to say that the things you are saying about Vincent Lloyd ("immoral parasite") and Black men from poor neighbourhoods ("subhuman, mongrel ghetto birds", "gold-toof, sagging pants, Jamal from da'hood") are shockingly hateful. The things you say about Black men from poor neighbourhoods actually sound openly racist.
We seem to be living in an age of ad hominem attacks. Do they advance anyone's cause? Do they move the ball forward? It seems they polarize and make enemies. I'm not speaking of here in these comments but in our wider society. They seem to describe the speaker more than the targets. It's hard to consider the merits of a comment when it's salted with such words. Removing that distraction, the question remains: do we need prisons?
Prof. Lloyd seems high in two psychological traits, if I may say so. One is Agreeableness and the other is Openness. His agreeableness seems evident in his apparent willingness to go along with the prevailing flow of thought and assumptions in his particular academic environment. His echo chamber, if you will. To my ear, he seems to parrot a lot of the approved language of the group of whom he seeks approval and their feathers he hopes not to ruffle. Does this contribute to public safety? Does it contribute to a stable society where people can get on with life and create lives for their families? No. So does it suggest we don't need prisons? No.
Indeed, he seems to be endangering his students and our communities by perpetuating tropes which just aren't real. And the farther we are led down imaginary paths, the farther away we get from practical solutions.
The Openness thing seems evident in a willingness to abandon the present way of seeing and doing things. I get it. There has always been and will always be a (hopefully) healthy tension between traditions and the past vs. new ideas. It's the depiction of the ying and yang we often see. Unbridled Openness, however, especially when matters of community safety are concerned, and especially cooked up in environments where unreal orthodoxies are worshipped and dissent is effectively outlawed, can be very dangerous.
Once again, it seems Prof. Lloyd has very little experience in the sometimes violent communities he speaks much about. The ordinary person might well just shake their head and say, "You just don't know what you're talking about. You clearly have no real solutions and therefore have no business popping off or teaching rubbish to our young people." We need to move on.
As for Glenn and John's questions, some might greatly benefit from going back and listening again. What they did was give Prof. Lloyd all the rope he needed to make very plain what his views are, as impractical, perhaps horrifying and wrong headed as they are. It's actually a very effective cross examination technique. No one put words in his mouth. He said it all. It gives we, the jury, so to speak, a very clear picture of his case and makes our choice clear. I don't think any of us could have done better.
We still need prisons. For many offenders the present model is a lost opportunity. But to Glenn's question, the answer remains yes.
I agree with everything you are saying. As to prof. Lloyd, I would not say that he talks in this way merely because of his lack of experience with violent communities. I think that because of the popularity of the prison abolition ideology he fails to understand that "community solutions" to crimes such as murder have nothing in common with justice.
How would he feel if someone killed one of his family members and then merely had to listen to the rebukes of the community elders/leaders and do some community work? One does not need any experience with violent communities to understand that the feelings of the murderer are not much more important than the feelings of people s/he has harmed and that there are far worse things than being incarcerated.
I, too, really liked Glenn and John's questions. I think that it would have been a great idea to ask Vincent Lloyd why he centers the feelings and the vulnerability of the person who has committed a serious crime like murder. Even if a murderer is a victim of e.g. childhood sexual abuse, one can't assume that s/he was unable to control his/her actions.
The murderer (or the rapist, or the domestic abuser etc.) should not be centered at the expense of the victim. The incarceration of a violent criminal should never be seen as a tragedy, especially if the crime has been ruthless. The incarceration of people who kill or seriously hurt others should not be portrayed as "putting someone in a cage". And prisoners can actually learn and change their lives, they are not merely kept in cages.
And I agree with your points. I do believe Prof. Lloyd is out of touch but agree his ideologies are the stronger drivers. They do seem to come from a place of unreality, which is why it seemed to me he lacked certain life experience.
Yes, he most probably lacks certain experiences, but one does not need these experiences to realize that killing someone is a very serious crime and telling a killer "return to your community, do some community work and try to become a better person" is not only extremely utopian, but also shockingly unjust to the victim and the victim's loved ones.
And of course the belief in the healing power of the community is dangerous in itself. Even if a community happens to be close-knit, it can be very lenient towards popular people and harsh or even cruel towards people with a low status. People - especially family members and friends - can be very influenced by their emotions and can perceive even dangerous individuals in a distorted way. It is often very difficult to accept that one's grandson, cousin or neigbour may be a deeply damaged and ruthless person.
And what about crimes such as rape or sexual abuse? How many victims would be ready to inform their own community about what happened to them? And how many people would try to defend the perpetrator or even claim that the victim must be lying?
The tide is turning Joanna.....people are done with these scumbags.....watch till the end- sound ⬆️ UP!
https://gab.com/WesternChauvinist1/posts/109914374559521983
The (slow, but steady) education of Scott Adams is one of my favorite processes to witness.
The precise description I provided was EXACTLY the kind of dirtbag Vincent was wantonly excusing for the most heinous of crimes! I take nothing back and make absolutely zero apologies! Those heathen thugs I meticulously described ARE the ones committing those crimes. It’s NOT black Harvard students perpetrating those crimes. It’s rancid, soulless, pathologically cursed cretins destroying innocent family’s lives. If you take offense to my accurate description then it only proves I’m directly above the intended target and spot-on in my assessment! Perhaps YOU should stop living in fantasy land about the dregs of society carrying out this unwarranted evil. We call balls and strikes here as ‘facts DO NOT care about your feelings!” If that’s a source of tension or embarrassment for you - I don’t give a shit! Every single one of those vile turds destroying innocent lives should face unspeakable repercussions for their actions!
We’re done here...