Racial Tension in the U.S.

[Nathan S]

Let's start here, because it's important. So in the future, you will not dismiss a report because of the source?

Sure. But I reserve the right to look at it, realize that it's far-right propaganda, and then not waste my time with it. If you want me to ignore the fact that it's (surprise, surprise) a far-right propaganda machine sitting behind the piece of far-right propaganda, then sure, I won't mention it, whatever.

 

[David.]

Sure. But I reserve the right to look at it, realize that it's far-right propaganda, and then not waste my time with it. If you want me to ignore the fact that it's (surprise, surprise) a far-right propaganda machine sitting behind the piece of far-right propaganda, then sure, I won't mention it, whatever.

Fair enough. I'll proceed as though you don't have an argument that addresses the data I worked to find at your request because you don't. And I won't bother to make the effort in the future.

Sorry you got an answer you didn't like. Let's not pretend this isn't anything else than what it is.

 

[Nathan S]

Fair enough. I'll proceed as though you don't have an argument that addresses the data I worked to find at your request because you don't. And I won't bother to make the effort in the future.

People on welfare do worse than people with jobs.

Single parent households do worse than two-parent households.

I don't doubt these facts. I doubt the convoluted reasoning that uses these facts to argue that we should cut welfare.

 

[AZ_]

To the contrary, most acts of violence by leftists rioting when there aren't any Nazis around, whether property destruction or attacks on the person, validate my point. It is happening, whether you want to believe that or not. Also, just for future references, telling other people that their argument is embarrassing doesn't actually refute anything.

And again, I'm not sure where you think people are denying this.

It's the strawman which has become embarrassing.

Oh -- are these all just puppies too?

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEVyAPU5xZRcQAswlXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0ZXVidmp0BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjM5MTlfMQRzZWMDcGl2cw--?p=white silence is violence&fr2=piv-web&fr=yfp-t

And here's the article I saw --

View: http://twitter.com/sangichandra/status/898925595844898816

Okay? That's not the same sign as someone saying "Silence is violence," but in any event, there is an argument to be made about hate speech from white supremacist groups not being protected by the First Amendment because it's purpose is to bring violence to citizens.

That's the whole point of white supremacy, right? To take away colored people and ensure a pure America.

Why is that not a threat to American citizens of color?

To the contrary, I think that's exactly what was happening last summer, and is still happening in a lot of places -- local Democrat governments/universities deliberately turn a blind eye to violence committed by leftist radicals against conservatives, because they don't want those conservatives in their cities/campuses at all. That massive disturbance in Chicago, cancellation of a speech by a Presidential candidate, and only four arrests -- all of which were for assaults on police officers, none for assaults on those trying to attend.

And the President blamed Trump.

These groups didn't rise up in the face of emboldened hate speech until Donald Trump championed them, so I understand that urge to put some of the blame on him.

These groups are marching in support of who they think is championing their cause, and the extreme "leftist" groups are not seemingly encouraged by any faction of government.

 

[TyGuy]

Just out of curiosity...

What do you guys who lean left think of ANTIFA? Just generally.

 

[gourimoko]

Fair enough. I'll proceed as though you don't have an argument that addresses the data I worked to find at your request because you don't. And I won't bother to make the effort in the future.

Sorry you got an answer you didn't like. Let's not pretend this isn't anything else than what it is.

I got curious so I went back through the thread to find the study in question...

Is it this?
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/pdf/IB4302.pdf

Because, if it is, then I think what @Nathan S is saying is that this isn't an academic study at all but a policy paper. These kinds of papers are published by think tanks specifically for the purpose of creating the appearance of an academic/scientific (rational) basis for preconceived policy positions.

And this brings us to what @King Stannis was talking about with respect to think tanks and, while this has nothing to do with the Heritage Foundation per se, but the point here is that, if you read the paper you can see (as Nathan stated) that the author, Robert Rector, doesn't actually look at or for causative associations behind his reasoning. He simply notes that married stable households have outcomes n, and by contrast, these various non-married households of varying types have outcomes {a..d}. But this isn't really science, or a study because Rector makes numerous assertions that he doesn't actually attempt to prove.

You need to make several leaps to get to where Rector is, and even then, it's a questionable at best to think that government assistance leads to divorce and even in his own data, as Nathan pointed out previously, it doesn't appear that remarrying is always beneficial - and one might think, sociologically, remarrying out of financial need likely wouldn't lead to a more stable home environment for children. But this question isn't addressed... none of these questions are addressed.

Moreover, a minor bit of scrutiny yields doubt with respect to the axioms Rector asserts in his paper. For one, austerity in Europe (see Greece) leads to lower marriage rates and higher divorce rates, expectedly so one would think; however, this would be counter to his assertion that greater government assistance universally leads to lower marriage rates and higher divorces. And secondly, countries following the Nordic or Continental models of social welfare systems have substantially lower divorce rates than the United States.

So why did these obvious issues get past Robert Rector? Surely he thought to just look at the data more closely, right?

And this is where the questioning of the institution that published this (non-peer reviewed) paper comes into play. Rector isn't trying to bolster a case regarding his argument about the causative connection between government funding and social welfare with respect to marriage and divorce rates -- I think the point here is that he is chiefly motivated to publish a paper solely for the purposes of policy-makers to have some believably valid reasoning behind their policy positions. This allows politicians, aides, and others funded by corporate or lobbyist interests to cite Heritage's work when presenting "pro-growth" (i.e., supply-side) economic theories as being beneficial not only for business but for working families.

So the case being bolstered isn't anything to do with marriage or the stability of the home, but instead, why entitlements and consequently taxes should be cut.

 

[Mr. Orange]

Radicalized white dudes continue their terror on brown people, even in Cleveland. This shit is not ok.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/inde..._in_suspected_hate.html#incart_river_home_pop

 

[DJTJ]

Flag protest question...

There's a guy in my neighborhood who I've heard go ballistic about the flag protests, so he mounted two flags to his truck.

Those two flags are now torn and ripped, but he proudly talks about the valor of the flag at the local breakfast spot.

Anyone's thoughts on this? Should someone who breaks the established flag rules be running their mouth about how much the flag means to them?

 

[Sebastian]

Flag protest question...

There's a guy in my neighborhood who I've heard go ballistic about the flag protests, so he mounted two flags to his truck.

Those two flags are now torn and ripped, but he proudly talks about the valor of the flag at the local breakfast spot.

Anyone's thoughts on this? Should someone who breaks the established flag rules be running their mouth about how much the flag means to them?

What flag rule?

 

[gourimoko]

What flag rule?

Think he's talking about the "Flag Code." Stuff like not letting the flag touch the ground, or being out in harsh weather, etc...

 

[Sebastian]

Think he's talking about the "Flag Code." Stuff like not letting the flag touch the ground, or being out in harsh weather, etc...

Ah.

I find the whole flag business interesting. People get wrapped up in a piece of cloth.

That said, I do have a pretty sweet flag. It flew over FOB Caldwell in Iraq for seven months as the base flag. Big canvas fucker. It is dirty and tattered. Neat souvenir.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Ah.

I find the whole flag business interesting. People get wrapped up in a piece of cloth.

Well, try flying a Confederate or Nazi flag, and a whole lot of people will get wrapped up in a piece of cloth.

 

[WellYouNeednt]

Radicalized white dudes continue their terror on brown people, even in Cleveland. This shit is not ok.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/inde..._in_suspected_hate.html#incart_river_home_pop

Don't you think your statement is a little incendiary?

If you do not mind me asking, what do you mean by "continue their terror on brown people"?

 

[Sebastian]

Flag protest question...

There's a guy in my neighborhood who I've heard go ballistic about the flag protests, so he mounted two flags to his truck.

Those two flags are now torn and ripped, but he proudly talks about the valor of the flag at the local breakfast spot.

Anyone's thoughts on this? Should someone who breaks the established flag rules be running their mouth about how much the flag means to them?

What flags are they?

 

[Nathan S]

Don't you think your statement is a little incendiary?

If you do not mind me asking, what do you mean by "continue their terror on brown people"?

As a brown person, these attacks are mildly terrifying. Not fun to wake up every day and think "welp, hope I don't get killed for being brown today."