This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Firstly that's not what the study says, secondly in order to actually rebutt my hypothesis you'd have to first answer the question; where are these "affluent black young men" coming from?
Prince Georges County, Maryland is the wealthiest predominantly-black county in America, but its crime rate is pretty high.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, they appear largely to be too young to have made the money themselves...
There may be studies that show a zip code breakdown that says that within zip codes there is no difference. I am not aware of such a study. This Times article appears to make the claim that living in wealthy neighborhoods does not protect black men from the devil of racism, which would seem to rebut your theory to an extent.
I never said it was poverty asshole, It's culture. As much as wokesters and their fellow travelers like to make hay out of blacks making up 38 percent of those incarcerated despite being only 15 percent of the general population, the fact remains that "is the son of a single mother" remains a far stronger predictor of whether someone will spend time in prison than their skin color, and that's a big part of why establishment liberals would rather make it about race.
Thing is that woke left and alt right have both made rolling their eyes at and talking down "boomer social-cons" a major component of their identity, and the last thing any of them want to do is admit that the Republicans were right about anything.
How do you know this is culture and not genetic confounding? Like, I'd imagine that men – regardless of race – who dump mothers of their own children have antisocial inclinations across the board, and perhaps women who find such men tolerable tend to possess subpar characters as well. It's reasonable to stipulate that this far left tail of black population explains much/most of their overrepresentation in violent crime statistics for genetic reasons, without bringing in some special single-parent culture.
Of course it's never 100% genetics. But that's no salvation to the theory. I'm pretty sure there was at least one study that showed that removing a violent/criminal father (as in, incarcerating him) is a net improvement for the child's outcomes, despite moving the family into single-mother category. Do we have good studies on the effect of those specific fathers being kept around the family, or just comparisons versus organic two-parent black homes?
In Africa, most of agriculture is done by women, who can survive by themselves, so less reasons for a male to be attached to a single woman.
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair that is a possible, and perhaps major confounder. At the same time it's not guys like me who are making excuses for sluts and deadbeats. And I can't help but suspect that there is something to the fact that those who are making such excuses are the same ones who are trying very hard to make any disparity in outcome out to be something biological rather than something to do with the fact that they've been making excuses for sluts and deadbeats regardless of how much conventional wisdom would seem to argue otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link