Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 6 votes

Obama pulls a Bill Cosby


  • Please log in to reply
440 replies to this topic

#421 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,086 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 05:48 AM


whose history? white history?

 

 

and .....    /thread

 

Census data = racist white history

 

 

lol



#422 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,086 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 06:00 AM

tbh i never pegged you as a right winger but welp here we are, debating the validity of chicago school economics

 

I'm not a right winger or a left winger. I am willing to listen to any ideas provided they make sense.

 

 

Saying there is no racism and it does not play a part in today's problems = silly

 

Saying census data is racist white history = silly

 

 

As in all things, the truth is somewhere in the middle.



#423 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 07:58 AM

Man, I hate this.  I really have sooo much to say on this topic but with 20 something odd pages of pure B/S and a total of about 10 posts worth responding to, the ratio is just not there



#424 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,181 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 25 May 2013 - 08:06 AM

Can someone cut and paste the conclusion from the paper floppin later re added?

There were some key takeaways I got from it as well that the author would use the same argument for upper class blacks and single parent or poor about uncertainty.

I'm on my phone the rest of the day.

Cantrell I'm not going anywhere. Posting reams and reams and being a bandwidth vampire doesn't mean you are 100 % correct.

#425 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,506 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 10:51 AM

Can someone cut and paste the conclusion from the paper floppin later re added?
 

 

It is literally what Floppin and Cantrell have posted, but essentially, economic uncertainty appears to be the reason that black female head of households were on the rise (and still are).  Economic uncertainty takes MANY forms.  A few specific issues identified in the paper, though not all effect all black income levels equally obviously: Joblessness of low income black men, premature death of black mortality among black men, and higher rates of incarceration (all of which lead to fewer marriagable men, and, these statements are supported by other literature in the paper so if anyone wants to bitch about them just go look up what it's talking about or provide more recent sources, I don't give a poo how anyone "feels" about that), extreme upward mobility for a small number of black men due to economic opportunity, hugely increased urbanization of the black population compared to the white population (which can influence a lot of things), I mean there's basically an entire page and a half of the paper dedicated to this so I would suggest checking it out when you get home.  

 

To sum it up from a simple quote from the paper:

 

The increasing vulnerability of disadvantaged black males to the vicissitudes of the economy seems to explain their avoidance of marriage and their increasing involvement in loose consensual unions.
 
There's also this:
 
If increasing levels of nonmarriage and female-headed families are due to increasing levels of uncertainty experienced by blacks in the postwar era, then increasing family instability should be observable for all groups experiencing increased levels of economic uncertainty. It is clear that the rate of female-headed families has increased significantly for whites and more sharply for other disadvantaged minorities. The incidence of female-headed families among Puerto Ricans, for example-a group whose socioeconomic conditions are similar to those of blacks-increased dramatically from 15.8 to 43.9 percent between 1960 and 1985, compared to the previously mentioned increase of from 20.6 to 43.7 percent for blacks.  Nonetheless, the above explanation of family-formation problems of upper- and lower-class blacks must be taken as little more than informed speculation, as research is needed to affirm the relationship between economic change, economic uncertainty, and black family formation.
 
(waits for someone to jump on the HAH THEY ARE ONLY SPECULATING line ;) )

 

 

And the final conclusion, in total, including the preceding paragraph which hasn't been pasted.  So, for those of you keeping score, this will be the third time this thread has had this final paragraph posted.  Let's all take some time to read this poo now.
 
Despite research findings to the contrary, some conservatives and liberals continue to find slavery and sharecropping compelling explanations for black family-formation problems. Perhaps it is because slavery and sharecropping are sufficiently distant that they can be used to buttress conservative views that what has been happening to black families is a consequence of an immutable history and is therefore beyond policy intervention. At the same time, liberals use the argument to tie the present problems of blacks to historical injustices, painting blacks as innocent victims. Both arguments detract from a search for the root causes of recent black family-formation problems. The danger is that by blaming black family-formation patterns on slavery and sharecropping, society is blamed for the problems in lieu of taking action to ameliorate them.
 
To restate the main points of this article: Significant familyformation problems among the black population are of recent origin, for there is no evidence suggesting that  family-formation patterns of blacks have historically been fundamentally different from those of whites. If anything, the evidence shows that blacks married at higher rates during most of the period studied. Serious family-formation problems among blacks began to emerge after World War 11, when black urbanization surpassed that of whites. I have speculated that the unprecedented economic uncertainty experienced by both upper-class and lower-class blacks over the last few decades is at the core of the family-formation problems of both groups. And because both groups function in the same marriage market, I believe the shortage of marriageable men relative to women and the hedging of bets by both men and women will likely contribute to a spiraling of family-formation problems over the near future. It is unlikely that these problems can be easily reversed, and they are likely to get worse without significant changes in economic circumstances.

 

 

EDIT: SO, just since I think some of you are going to pick out specific lines....

 

The author seems to be concluding that this isn't an issue of "BLACK PEOPLE ARENT MARRIED!" it's an issue of "Any people experiencing such a huge amount of economic uncertainty are unlikely to undertake family formation behaviors."

 

http://www.irp.wisc....dfs/foc121e.pdf

 

to post that damn link again :P



#426 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,547 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 11:33 AM

It is literally what Floppin and Cantrell have posted, but essentially, economic uncertainty appears to be the reason that black female head of households were on the rise (and still are). Economic uncertainty takes MANY forms. A few specific issues identified in the paper, though not all effect all black income levels equally obviously: Joblessness of low income black men, premature death of black mortality among black men, and higher rates of incarceration (all of which lead to fewer marriagable men, and, these statements are supported by other literature in the paper so if anyone wants to bitch about them just go look up what it's talking about or provide more recent sources, I don't give a poo how anyone "feels" about that), extreme upward mobility for a small number of black men due to economic opportunity, hugely increased urbanization of the black population compared to the white population (which can influence a lot of things), I mean there's basically an entire page and a half of the paper dedicated to this so I would suggest checking it out when you get home.

To sum it up from a simple quote from the paper:

The increasing vulnerability of disadvantaged black males to the vicissitudes of the economy seems to explain their avoidance of marriage and their increasing involvement in loose consensual unions.

There's also this:


If increasing levels of nonmarriage and female-headed families are due to increasing levels of uncertainty experienced by blacks in the postwar era, then increasing family instability should be observable for all groups experiencing increased levels of economic uncertainty. It is clear that the rate of female-headed families has increased significantly for whites and more sharply for other disadvantaged minorities. The incidence of female-headed families among Puerto Ricans, for example-a group whose socioeconomic conditions are similar to those of blacks-increased dramatically from 15.8 to 43.9 percent between 1960 and 1985, compared to the previously mentioned increase of from 20.6 to 43.7 percent for blacks. Nonetheless, the above explanation of family-formation problems of upper- and lower-class blacks must be taken as little more than informed speculation, as research is needed to affirm the relationship between economic change, economic uncertainty, and black family formation.

(waits for someone to jump on the HAH THEY ARE ONLY SPECULATING line ;) )


And the final conclusion, in total, including the preceding paragraph which hasn't been pasted. So, for those of you keeping score, this will be the third time this thread has had this final paragraph posted. Let's all take some time to read this poo now.


Despite research findings to the contrary, some conservatives and liberals continue to find slavery and sharecropping compelling explanations for black family-formation problems. Perhaps it is because slavery and sharecropping are sufficiently distant that they can be used to buttress conservative views that what has been happening to black families is a consequence of an immutable history and is therefore beyond policy intervention. At the same time, liberals use the argument to tie the present problems of blacks to historical injustices, painting blacks as innocent victims. Both arguments detract from a search for the root causes of recent black family-formation problems. The danger is that by blaming black family-formation patterns on slavery and sharecropping, society is blamed for the problems in lieu of taking action to ameliorate them.

To restate the main points of this article: Significant familyformation problems among the black population are of recent origin, for there is no evidence suggesting that family-formation patterns of blacks have historically been fundamentally different from those of whites. If anything, the evidence shows that blacks married at higher rates during most of the period studied. Serious family-formation problems among blacks began to emerge after World War 11, when black urbanization surpassed that of whites. I have speculated that the unprecedented economic uncertainty experienced by both upper-class and lower-class blacks over the last few decades is at the core of the family-formation problems of both groups. And because both groups function in the same marriage market, I believe the shortage of marriageable men relative to women and the hedging of bets by both men and women will likely contribute to a spiraling of family-formation problems over the near future. It is unlikely that these problems can be easily reversed, and they are likely to get worse without significant changes in economic circumstances.


EDIT: SO, just since I think some of you are going to pick out specific lines....

The author seems to be concluding that this isn't an issue of "BLACK PEOPLE ARENT MARRIED!" it's an issue of "Any people experiencing such a huge amount of economic uncertainty are unlikely to undertake family formation behaviors."

http://www.irp.wisc....dfs/foc121e.pdf

to post that damn link again :P


Here, here!

And the next logical step you would take is this economic uncertainty was for a large part caused by both conscious and unconscious systemic racism. If you want a comparable example not in the US, look at the Aboriginal people in Australia.

And before I get the "It's an excuse!" red faced rants, these systemic barriers do not prevent success altogether, rather they make it much more difficult. To borrow a metaphor, succeeding as a white male is beating the game on easy mode.

#427 googoodan

googoodan

    Memberest

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,622 posts
  • LocationBayside

Posted 25 May 2013 - 12:32 PM

so are black ppl more likely to be a part of the "welfare culture"


That wasn't discussed in the research I used, but going back to the post I quoted, the first few sentences implied he was asking about poor people across all races.
I used the page I used because 1- the Cato Institute is more reputable than the other sources I found and 2- it spells out the correlation between welfare and single parent homes.

#428 Carolina Husker

Carolina Husker

    I hate football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,498 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 06:42 PM

Well since we're all just spinning our wheels at this point, let's just summarize:

Obama, like the rest of us in this thread who actually believe blacks are capable of improving their lot in life, is a racist who should take advantage of any one of a poo-ton of excuses at his disposal next time he dares speak about personal responsibility in the black community.

#429 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 10:09 PM

and .....    /thread

 

Census data = racist white history

 

 

lol

 

you have no idea what "causation" means, do you?

 

 

I'm not a right winger or a left winger. I am willing to listen to any ideas provided they make sense.

 

i'm not a right winger. now let me tell you all about noted centrists milton friedman and thomas sowell

 

 

Saying census data is racist white history = silly

 

well it's a good thing no one actually said that. you're tearing into yet another straw man

 

As in all things, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

golden mean fallacy



#430 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 10:10 PM

Can someone cut and paste the conclusion from the paper floppin later re added?

There were some key takeaways I got from it as well that the author would use the same argument for upper class blacks and single parent or poor about uncertainty.

I'm on my phone the rest of the day.

Cantrell I'm not going anywhere. Posting reams and reams and being a bandwidth vampire doesn't mean you are 100 % correct.

 

when i tell you to tumblr_lmv2nokis91qbn533.gif, it's because you bring absolutely nothing to the table. nothing.



#431 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 10:24 PM

That wasn't discussed in the research I used, but going back to the post I quoted, the first few sentences implied he was asking about poor people across all races.
I used the page I used because 1- the Cato Institute is more reputable than the other sources I found and 2- it spells out the correlation between welfare and single parent homes.

 

i understand where you're going with this, but understand that my responses in this thread have been directed at the meaningless spamming of a statistic in which black people don't rank particularly high. the post of mine that you quoted was written in that context; in the same way i cringe at "hey black ppl need to stop making excuses and be educated on the value of family", i cringe at mentions of "welfare culture" (which is disproportionately black). basically i totally forgot zod's "forget race" moment and continued to think of it within that context. my mistake

 

that being said, i dispute the notion that the social safety net is anywhere near strong enough to "cuckold" fathers. countries with much stronger welfare programs do not have such high single-parent home rates in their poorest classes. i will link some stuff later, don't let me forget



#432 PhillyB

PhillyB

    that jungle football

  • ALL-PRO
  • 19,724 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 25 May 2013 - 11:15 PM

GS, i don't know if you've already posted it, but how would you summarize (if it is even possible to do so, obviously it's a complex topic that does not beget a simple answer) your position on the whole "black people family values problem" (for lack of a more graceful term)? would you say it's wholly economic?



#433 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 26 May 2013 - 01:48 AM

GS, i don't know if you've already posted it, but how would you summarize (if it is even possible to do so, obviously it's a complex topic that does not beget a simple answer) your position on the whole "black people family values problem" (for lack of a more graceful term)? would you say it's wholly economic?

 

yes it's a super complex topic but i'll try

 

 

i would say that there is no "family values problem" and that it's much harder to maintain a committed relationship when facing significant social and economic stressors. for someone to acknowledge the reality of institutional racism, but suggest that black men need to be educated on the value of family, is textbook victim blaming. to say that, yes, there are significant barriers to success, but that it's their fault for not achieving a rate similar to white families, is doublethink. no one should HAVE to overcome the barriers which are easily identifiable and prevalent, but also quite fixable. it's great that people have done it, but to expect it of them? uhhh no

 

bear with me as i now attempt to make a football analogy. holding happens on (virtually) every play (much like drug use rates are very similar across races). for the sake of simplicity, let's say 2/3 of the league averages one holding penalty per game. meanwhile the rest of the league average as much as 10 holding penalties per game (this is reflective of the 10-1 racial disparity in the rate of convictions for drug crimes here in north carolina). zod and madhatter (iirc) only cared to ask if they were actually holding (are they committing the crimes or are the gestapo dragging them from their homes?). i argue that it is irrelevant; there is no reason why 1/3 of the league is getting penalized for holding 10 times for every 1 time that the majority is called for holding. it harms the performance of each "minority" team in a number of ways. drives stall, the offense scores less, the defense is on the field more, the defense gives up more points out of fatigue and simple statistical probability. while i would say "hey these teams are getting fuged by the officials on a weekly basis, these other teams are doing the exact same thing with much less repercussion," others itt would argue "hey it's still possible that a team that's perpetually fuged by the officials can win a game so if they aren't in playoff contention like the privileged teams, they clearly need to be educated on the value of not getting so many penalties so that they too can achieve a rate of 1 hold per game"

 

now consider the long-term, far reaching effects of incarceration. not only are "marriageable men" removed from the population; sons lose fathers, girlfriends/wives lose boyfriends/husbands, parents lose children; these are all significant sources of stress for those on the outside. additionally, research shows that non-violent offenders have an increasing likelihood of committing violent and/or property crime upon release, once again removing a "marriageable man", a father, a son, from the population.

 

say a child grows up in a single-parent household; i believe it's been posted in this thread that growing up in such a household increases the likelihood that they too will either head a single-parent household OR be a parent that's absent in a single-parent household. when black people are disproportionately arrested, convicted, and sentenced for the same crimes as white people, this indicates a significant social barrier to a single-parent home rate similar to that of white ppl. at that point it is really, really fuging dumb to start spamming statistics without interpreting them beyond "welp maybe they just need to be taught how to be good like us." i mean goddamn there's some real "white man's burden" poo going down in this thread, yet only KT's been banned.

 

anyway the economic uncertainty stuff has been posted repeatedly through the thread so i won't go into detail, other than to say that economic uncertainty for black ppl goes hand-in-hand with social issues. take for instance the study finding that black people with no record have received fewer call-backs on job applications than white convicts; this ISN'T an economic problem, it is a social problem. that social problem contributes directly to feelings of economic uncertainty, which in turn discourages marriage.

 

now consider the impact economic uncertainty has on marriage (from the study zod fuging posted), and attempt to reconcile that with zod's call for reducing or eliminating welfare. i've heard the saying which (paraphrased) goes "never attribute to malice, that which can be explained by ignorance," but this is some sinister poo.

 

 

 

 

anyway i know this response is all over the place because it's such a complex topic, and there are other sociological factors that could probably be included in this, but i find the easiest ones for ppl outside of the field to understand and possibly relate to are the significant disparities within the justice system and in the workplace. they're just so visible. now, to answer your question: no, it is not wholly economic. economic justice and social justice go hand-in-hand, and you can't have one without the other.



#434 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,086 posts

Posted 26 May 2013 - 06:55 AM

 zod's call for reducing or eliminating welfare.
 
 
Is welfare needed? I think it is.

 

 

 



#435 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,506 posts

Posted 26 May 2013 - 10:24 AM

so you wouldn't reduce welfare, Zod?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com