On July 02 2020 04:54 Spitfiree wrote:
The government is there to ensure that the freedom of people is untouched. Naturally, the word 'freedom' and the enforcement of it is something too complex to define. Popper defines the restrictions that the government takes to ensure social freedom by those that if otherwise let unmonitored would cause more harm than good e.g. unregulated gun market. As long as the people have the choice to change a government through elections it's all good. Which brings me to the point....
You're all just making random bullcrap conclusions regarding the fatherlessness, obviously, both sides make completely legitimate points, however I somehow heavily doubt that there are more people taking advantage of the system than those that simply need it. Either way, none of this can be solved without hard data and even then you will probably both interpret it in a way that passes your world views.
Then again Loco actually talks about the system's imperfections, while the rest of you just try to pass your views as empirical truths with no evidence.
The hard data (from the CDC) shows single motherhood basically tripled in black households in just the 3 decades at exactly the time the "War on Poverty" was started. I'm assuming that nobody is going to dispute that the main qualifying factor for almost any welfare program is household income. Putting 2 and 2 together is just common sense.
Loco's argument was that fatherlessness is a symptom of poverty so it's terribly unfortunate that something that is a symptom of poverty would explode during the war on poverty. I guess that would make the war on poverty quite a bit of a failure.
That's not what I said. You cut out the rest of the sentence. It's not just about poverty but about the causes of that poverty, and those causes affect why we see those results.
And yes, I used the word "fatherlessness". You're posting about nonmarital births and non-married black women with children. In what world is there a clear equivalent between "not married" and "the father isn't present in the child's life"?
I'll say the same thing I said to Santafairy: try doing some research. I don't want to debate Candace Owens talking points from scratch when thousands of people have already done work to show they are misrepresenting the reality of the situation. Here's some keywords you might find interesting: "the absent father myth".
Okay I took your recommendation and did some research. I found this Vox article titled Debunking the most pervasive myth about black fatherhood which uses CDC data to make their case. Indeed, it cites a statistic that among fathers who live with their children under 5 they are slightly more likely bathe/feed/dress their child. So it appears you are right.
Except you scroll down a little more in the article and you get
Still, the same CDC data shows black men are nearly three times as likely as white men to have at least one child they don't live with
Oh really? That's hilarious. So they cherry pick the single data point that fits their narrative and make a big pretty graph of it and put it at the top of the article and then the important statistic that is the crux of what we are talking about gets glossed over further into the article.
Like holy shit, how pathetic. That's going to be the statistic they use to break this "myth" about absent black fathers? The one that shows that among fathers who live with their children they are ever so slightly more likely to give their kid a pop tart? If they are already living with their children they are already by definition not absent so that statistic is already completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Edit - btw I tried to do some more research but everything I found, Newsweek, NYT, etc all use this exact same cherry picked statistic which as I just said is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The desperation is palpable.
Santafairy, hiems: NeO-NaZis MaKe SoMe GoOd PoiNtS tOO!!!! ! !
Ok lets play the do you agree with a Nazi game... Raise your hand anyone that has used these arguments by Joseph Goebbels?
----------------------------
"The money pigs of capitalist democracy… Money has made slaves of us… Money is the curse of mankind. It smothers the seed of everything great and good. Every penny is sticky with sweat and blood."
"The bourgeoisie has to yield to the working class ... Whatever is about to fall should be pushed. We are all soldiers of the revolution. We want the workers' victory over filthy lucre. That is socialism."
"Maintaining a rotten economic system has nothing to do with nationalism, which is an affirmation of the Fatherland. I can love Germany and hate capitalism. Not only can I, I must. Only the annihilation of a system of exploitation carries with it the core of the rebirth of our people"
"The people's community must not be a mere phrase, but a revolutionary achievement following from the radical carrying out of the basic life needs of the working class. A ruthless battle against corruption! A war against exploitation, freedom for the workers! The elimination of all economic-capitalist influences on national policy."
"The worker in a capitalist state—and that is his deepest misfortune—is no longer a living human being, a creator, a maker. He has become a machine. A number, a cog in the machine without sense or understanding. He is alienated from what he produces."
On July 02 2020 04:54 Spitfiree wrote:
The government is there to ensure that the freedom of people is untouched. Naturally, the word 'freedom' and the enforcement of it is something too complex to define. Popper defines the restrictions that the government takes to ensure social freedom by those that if otherwise let unmonitored would cause more harm than good e.g. unregulated gun market. As long as the people have the choice to change a government through elections it's all good. Which brings me to the point....
You're all just making random bullcrap conclusions regarding the fatherlessness, obviously, both sides make completely legitimate points, however I somehow heavily doubt that there are more people taking advantage of the system than those that simply need it. Either way, none of this can be solved without hard data and even then you will probably both interpret it in a way that passes your world views.
Then again Loco actually talks about the system's imperfections, while the rest of you just try to pass your views as empirical truths with no evidence.
The hard data (from the CDC) shows single motherhood basically tripled in black households in just the 3 decades at exactly the time the "War on Poverty" was started. I'm assuming that nobody is going to dispute that the main qualifying factor for almost any welfare program is household income. Putting 2 and 2 together is just common sense.
Loco's argument was that fatherlessness is a symptom of poverty so it's terribly unfortunate that something that is a symptom of poverty would explode during the war on poverty. I guess that would make the war on poverty quite a bit of a failure.
That's not what I said. You cut out the rest of the sentence. It's not just about poverty but about the causes of that poverty, and those causes affect why we see those results.
And yes, I used the word "fatherlessness". You're posting about nonmarital births and non-married black women with children. In what world is there a clear equivalent between "not married" and "the father isn't present in the child's life"?
I'll say the same thing I said to Santafairy: try doing some research. I don't want to debate Candace Owens talking points from scratch when thousands of people have already done work to show they are misrepresenting the reality of the situation. Here's some keywords you might find interesting: "the absent father myth".
Okay I took your recommendation and did some research. I found this Vox article titled Debunking the most pervasive myth about black fatherhood which uses CDC data to make their case. Indeed, it cites a statistic that among fathers who live with their children under 5 they are slightly more likely bathe/feed/dress their child. So it appears you are right.
Except you scroll down a little more in the article and you get
Still, the same CDC data shows black men are nearly three times as likely as white men to have at least one child they don't live with
Oh really? That's hilarious. So they cherry pick the single data point that fits their narrative and make a big pretty graph of it and put it at the top of the article and then the important statistic that is the crux of what we are talking about gets glossed over further into the article.
Like holy shit, how pathetic. That's going to be the statistic they use to break this "myth" about absent black fathers? The one that shows that among fathers who live with their children they are ever so slightly more likely to give their kid a pop tart? If they are already living with their children they are already by definition not absent so that statistic is already completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Edit - btw I tried to do some more research but everything I found, Newsweek, NYT, etc all use this exact same cherry picked statistic which as I just said is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The desperation is palpable.
Okay, since you're making an effort (albeit it's a very minimal one) I'll make an effort to respond charitably.
The first thing that I am noticing from your post is what appears to be a projection of motivated reasoning (at best) or dishonesty (at worst) onto the author of the Vox piece (or Vox in general). It goes something like this: "Vox has deliberately crafted a narrative that hides the truth, or makes it harder to find, by putting it further down the page." Now, the question I ask is, why the hell would they do that? This article takes less than one minute to read. There is a total of 6 paragraphs. Do you really, honestly believe that there is an attempt to capitalize on a short attention span here or something? Who doesn't have the ability to read 6 paragraphs when they are interested in a subject? Very few people. You really think using a graph for one statistic and not another is some kind of problem and its being used for manipulation purposes? Because that would most definitely be motivated reasoning.
Which brings me to your apparent motivated reasoning. (I don't think you are being dishonest). You immediately assumed that this second statistic is some kind of smoking gun. First, let's remember, the subject was fatherlessness, not father-live-at-home-with. And secondly, you assume that the reason why fewer black men live with their kids has nothing to do with structural injustices and racism. Except the very same paragraph you quoted explains to the reader why this is actually what is happening. You have simply dismissed it - you refused to even engage with that point because you already assumed that the article was bogus. You apparently went in with the purpose to come out with your biases confirmed. (which is of course what any social psychologist would expect happens in this context, so there is nothing wrong with you in that sense, you are performing as expected.)
Now, what is it that I said in my post? That their disproportionate poverty is a result of... systemic discrimination and hundreds of years of economic disenfranchisement. I will add that these dynamics and events created poverty, but the problems are not reducible to poverty. Structural racism can have horrible impacts even if you are not miserably poor. And yes, it all affects black culture too, black people's psychology (they can internalize white supremacist racism too), and obviously, they affect the number of black people on the streets. When you have a law like the 13th amendment that served from its inception the purpose to put black people in prison, and you have a racist police institution, yes, you get less black people on the streets who can be with their kids. At no point did you mention any of this, and yet, we are supposed to assume that Vox are the ones who are glossing over important facts.
Yes, the statistic is hugely important, because if you expected this to be entirely or predominantly caused by something about black culture/black men's values that makes men care less about their children, you'd not see them perform better than other races in paying attention to them.
It's also worth pointing out that the idea that a missing father (or not living with one) is extremely destructive to a child's life is dangerous on its own, and extremely debatable. There are tons of factors that go into whether or not a child will be damaged by not having a father, it is not in and of itself a terrible thing which you can use to explain whatever confirms the predominant idea (that blacks are careless, lazy, selfish, most drawn to crime). If the mother has financial and emotional stability, and she really cares about her kids, there is very little evidence that the lack of a father will create huge problems. All of this comes with prepackaged ideas about the superiority of the nuclear family which we are leaving completely unexamined when we are zoomed in.
If the nuclear family is so goddamn important, it's a wonder we've managed to have evolved as a species and made it here, since it's origins only dates back to the 1920s, and a similar structure can only be found as far back as the 17th century. How the fuck did human beings take care of their kids before that? Why aren't we trying to conserve that structure instead of the newer one?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 02/07/2020 23:32
0
hiems United States. Jul 02 2020 23:19. Posts 2979
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
Santafairy, hiems: NeO-NaZis MaKe SoMe GoOd PoiNtS tOO!!!! ! !
Ok lets play the do you agree with a Nazi game... Raise your hand anyone that has used these arguments by Joseph Goebbels?
----------------------------
"The money pigs of capitalist democracy… Money has made slaves of us… Money is the curse of mankind. It smothers the seed of everything great and good. Every penny is sticky with sweat and blood."
"The bourgeoisie has to yield to the working class ... Whatever is about to fall should be pushed. We are all soldiers of the revolution. We want the workers' victory over filthy lucre. That is socialism."
"Maintaining a rotten economic system has nothing to do with nationalism, which is an affirmation of the Fatherland. I can love Germany and hate capitalism. Not only can I, I must. Only the annihilation of a system of exploitation carries with it the core of the rebirth of our people"
"The people's community must not be a mere phrase, but a revolutionary achievement following from the radical carrying out of the basic life needs of the working class. A ruthless battle against corruption! A war against exploitation, freedom for the workers! The elimination of all economic-capitalist influences on national policy."
"The worker in a capitalist state—and that is his deepest misfortune—is no longer a living human being, a creator, a maker. He has become a machine. A number, a cog in the machine without sense or understanding. He is alienated from what he produces."
-------------------------------
Wait, you mean to tell me that the chief minister of propaganda of the Nazi regime was... using propaganda? To... appeal to as many people as possible? That... the working class was an important demographic to attempt to win over? That... appealing to popular sentiments was the best way to get Hitler into power and keep him there? Even if they never had any interest in helping the working class or creating socialism?!? You don't say! I am just stunned at your discovery.
You also mean to tell me that these talking points resemble anything that the average socialists say today?
Are you mentioning this because you think that there is a perfect equivalence between the opinions of those who talk about similar things as those selectively chosen Nazi propaganda talking points from a master propagandist and the average person using talking points from the average Neo-Nazi?
Edit: Note: At the same time as Baal makes this point, his mentor, the banned-from-YouTube cult leader extraordinaire Stefan Molyneux also makes it in his own way!
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 02/07/2020 23:52
1
blackjacki2 United States. Jul 02 2020 23:48. Posts 2582
On July 02 2020 04:54 Spitfiree wrote:
The government is there to ensure that the freedom of people is untouched. Naturally, the word 'freedom' and the enforcement of it is something too complex to define. Popper defines the restrictions that the government takes to ensure social freedom by those that if otherwise let unmonitored would cause more harm than good e.g. unregulated gun market. As long as the people have the choice to change a government through elections it's all good. Which brings me to the point....
You're all just making random bullcrap conclusions regarding the fatherlessness, obviously, both sides make completely legitimate points, however I somehow heavily doubt that there are more people taking advantage of the system than those that simply need it. Either way, none of this can be solved without hard data and even then you will probably both interpret it in a way that passes your world views.
Then again Loco actually talks about the system's imperfections, while the rest of you just try to pass your views as empirical truths with no evidence.
The hard data (from the CDC) shows single motherhood basically tripled in black households in just the 3 decades at exactly the time the "War on Poverty" was started. I'm assuming that nobody is going to dispute that the main qualifying factor for almost any welfare program is household income. Putting 2 and 2 together is just common sense.
Loco's argument was that fatherlessness is a symptom of poverty so it's terribly unfortunate that something that is a symptom of poverty would explode during the war on poverty. I guess that would make the war on poverty quite a bit of a failure.
That's not what I said. You cut out the rest of the sentence. It's not just about poverty but about the causes of that poverty, and those causes affect why we see those results.
And yes, I used the word "fatherlessness". You're posting about nonmarital births and non-married black women with children. In what world is there a clear equivalent between "not married" and "the father isn't present in the child's life"?
I'll say the same thing I said to Santafairy: try doing some research. I don't want to debate Candace Owens talking points from scratch when thousands of people have already done work to show they are misrepresenting the reality of the situation. Here's some keywords you might find interesting: "the absent father myth".
Okay I took your recommendation and did some research. I found this Vox article titled Debunking the most pervasive myth about black fatherhood which uses CDC data to make their case. Indeed, it cites a statistic that among fathers who live with their children under 5 they are slightly more likely bathe/feed/dress their child. So it appears you are right.
Except you scroll down a little more in the article and you get
Still, the same CDC data shows black men are nearly three times as likely as white men to have at least one child they don't live with
Oh really? That's hilarious. So they cherry pick the single data point that fits their narrative and make a big pretty graph of it and put it at the top of the article and then the important statistic that is the crux of what we are talking about gets glossed over further into the article.
Like holy shit, how pathetic. That's going to be the statistic they use to break this "myth" about absent black fathers? The one that shows that among fathers who live with their children they are ever so slightly more likely to give their kid a pop tart? If they are already living with their children they are already by definition not absent so that statistic is already completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Edit - btw I tried to do some more research but everything I found, Newsweek, NYT, etc all use this exact same cherry picked statistic which as I just said is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The desperation is palpable.
Okay, since you're making an effort (albeit it's a very minimal one) I'll make an effort to respond charitably.
The first thing that I am noticing from your post is what appears to be a projection of motivated reasoning (at best) or dishonesty (at worst) onto the author of the Vox piece (or Vox in general). It goes something like this: "Vox has deliberately crafted a narrative that hides the truth, or makes it harder to find, by putting it further down the page." Now, the question I ask is, why the hell would they do that? This article takes less than one minute to read. There is a total of 6 paragraphs. Do you really, honestly believe that there is an attempt to capitalize on a short attention span here or something? Who doesn't have the ability to read 6 paragraphs when they are interested in a subject? Very few people.
I think you should do some research on how many people only read the headline to an article or share articles based simply on the headline. I would say in the case of Vox they are just lazy and trying to fit their slant - all they are doing is rehashing the points of someone else for the NYT. But for the guy who made the point in the NYT it's very obvious he is trying to manipulate the data dishonestly, how can this even be disputed? This is the most blatant example of cherry picking a statistic I have ever seen and anyone that falls for it should be ashamed.
Which brings me to your apparent motivated reasoning. (I don't think you are being dishonest). You immediately assumed that this second statistic is some kind of smoking gun. First, let's remember, the subject was fatherlessness, not father-live-at-home-with. And secondly, you assume that the reason why fewer black men live with their kids has nothing to do with structural injustices and racism. Except the very same paragraph you quoted explains to the reader why this is actually what is happening. You have simply dismissed it - you refused to even engage with that point because you already assumed that the article was bogus. You apparently went in with the purpose to come out with your biases confirmed. (which is of course what any social psychologist would expect happens in this context, so there is nothing wrong with you in that sense, you are performing as expected.)
I didn't refuse to engage in their point about why black men are less likely to live with their children. We were debating whether or not fatherlessness was a myth, I don't have to engage further on the REASON for the fatherlessness to prove it wasn't a myth. I simply chose to wait for you to shift the goal posts from the ridiculously naive position of "This is a myth" to "ok it's not a myth but this is why it's happening."
Now, what is it that I said in my post? That their disproportionate poverty is a result of... systemic discrimination and hundreds of years of economic disenfranchisement. I will add that these dynamics and events created poverty, but they are not reducible to it. They affect black culture too, black people's psychology (they can internalize white supremacist racism too), and obviously, they affect the number of black people on the streets. When you have a law like the 13th amendment that served from its inception the purpose to put black people in prison, and you have a racist police institution, yes, you get less black people on the streets who can be with their kids.
Yes, the statistic is hugely important, because if you expected this to be entirely or predominantly caused by something about black culture/black men's values that makes men care less about their children, you'd not see them perform better than other races in paying attention to them.
It's also worth pointing out that the idea that a missing father (or not living with one) is extremely destructive to a child's life is dangerous on its own, and extremely debatable. There are tons of factors that go into whether or not a child will be damaged by not having a father, it is not in and of itself a terrible thing which you can use to explain whatever confirms the predominant idea (that blacks are careless, lazy, selfish, most drawn to crime). If the mother has financial and emotional stability, and she really cares about her kids, there is very little evidence that the lack of a father will create huge problems. All of this comes with prepackaged ideas about the superiority of the nuclear family which we are leaving completely unexamined when we are zoomed in.
If the nuclear family is so goddamn important, it's a wonder we've managed to have evolved as a species and made it here, since it's origins only dates back to the 1920s, and a similar structure can only be found as far back as the 17th century. How the fuck did human beings take care of their kids before that? Why aren't we trying to conserve that structure instead of the newer one?
Now that you have shifted the goalposts let me address this point
Still, the same CDC data shows black men are nearly three times as likely as white men to have at least one child they don't live with — but Blow pointed to policy-driven issues that may be driving the disparity.
Isn't this what I have said from the start? That the disparity is POLICY driven? You seem to be arguing against some Ed Norton Neo-Nazi in your mind where I am trying to argue that those dirty stinkin' blacks are just no good at being fathers when if you follow the debate you would see that from the very beginning I've been the one making the point that the policy makers in Washington are the ones driving poor and black families apart.
Of course you have the trump card of structural injustices and systemic racism. It's hard to argue against. I guess my only question is why would these out of wedlock childbirths start to climb in the 1960s through the 1990s, 100 years after the civil war ended? This is right around the start of the civil rights movement and the war on poverty. If this was driven by poverty and social injustices then these statistics should have been going down during these times. It's hard to argue that black families had a harder time with structural injustices in the 1980s than in the 1950s.
"00:04
The absent black father myth is the idea
00:07
– the stereotypical and incorrect notion – that African-American fathers have
00:13
very little contact with their children, if any contact at all."
- Dr. Travis Dixon https://experts.illinois.edu/en/persons/travis-l-dixon - "Professor Dixon is a media effects scholar who specializes in investigating the prevalence of stereotypes in the mass media and the impact of stereotypical imagery on audience members."
This is my understanding of the myth. The initial statistic that you pushed to justify this myth was marriage statistics, which do not represent this situation accurately. So yes, it feeds into that myth, so I called you out on it. That doesn't mean that I am not aware of the other statistic, or that it 's cherry-picking and manipulation to put the other one before that one in an article. I don't have an interest in manipulation and cherry-picking which is why I told you to do your own research and I didn't present a disconnected statistic.
I was not shifting the goalpost. No one actually has an interest in such statistics on their own. You talked about the statistic because you believe it tells a story. To me, it clearly tells a story about a myth that is constantly repeated, and it is usually repeated in the context of blaming black people and black culture for their circumstances. This is not a point that is only made by Neo-Nazis, it is predominantly made by non Neo-Nazis, but it does serve them. Barack Obama is one of the best examples of someone who has done a lot of harm by spreading this idea around in a very simplistic way.
I didn't hear you talk about policy that actively discriminates against black people. Nor have I heard you make any mention of a progressive policy that the Black community supports. I heard you talk about policy that affects the poor. And it seemed to be the usual Malthusian/social Darwinistic shtick of using economic hardship as incentive, welfare state bad, pull yourself by your bootstraps. If I have misunderstood then by all means please do clarify what you meant. What are the policies that you favour? I don't think this is a policy issue btw. Policy has transformed racial oppression, sometimes mitigating it in an area only to put it elsewhere; it has not caused it.
I don't have a trump card of structural injustices and systemic racism, I have an interest in reality, and reality in the year 2020 makes these things impossible to deny when one has this interest.
I guess my only question is why would these out of wedlock childbirths start to climb in the 1960s through the 1990s?
I'm more inclined to trust Loco when it comes to data, but that video is utter trash They could've left a link to the supposed CDC report .... and called CNN a centrist media. They can't be serious. I feel like the video is making the topic worse for the people they are 'protecting'
Ignoring structural and societal racism towards blacks is tenfold worse though, even if you only take the last 60 years of events in the USA.
1
blackjacki2 United States. Jul 03 2020 01:11. Posts 2582
That video is the same as all the other articles. It takes the one cherry picked and irrelevant statistic and props it up to support their narrative. Ignoring all the data except for that one cherry picked stat is just being willfully ignorant.
It's funny that they all bring up mass incarceration though. It's like "black fatherlessness is a myth but if it weren't it's because of xyz." If it's a myth then you wouldn't need xyz now would you?
Sad news. 2 days ago the Seattle police went in and cleared the CHAZ, they were having shootings every 48h and a 14 and 16yo were killed by the CHAZ guards and that was too much to tolerate ever for the joke of mayor that city has.
On July 02 2020 23:47 Spitfiree wrote:
I'm more inclined to trust Loco when it comes to data, but that video is utter trash They could've left a link to the supposed CDC report .... and called CNN a centrist media. They can't be serious. I feel like the video is making the topic worse for the people they are 'protecting'
Ignoring structural and societal racism towards blacks is tenfold worse though, even if you only take the last 60 years of events in the USA.
Wtf, they are running you through the relevant findings of the report and provide the source at the top left corner and you complain there is no link? It's easy to find.
I pretty much never watch CNN but as far as I know from the clips I have seen through other media they are the establishment personified... is the establishment supposed to be on the radical left or something? What they do, as far as I know, is recuperate identity politics for their own money-making purposes, which is not progressive. Did you watch the CNN-sponsored democratic debates earlier this year? There was no attempt at journalistic integrity; the bias that they had against Sanders should tell you something about the space within which CNN wants to operate, and who it is that they think will serve their agenda the best, and it wasn't the only truly progressive candidate.
Neither of these two things should be a "deal breaker" and make a 10+ video qualify as trash. There is plenty of valuable info in there. Even if there were a mistake or two you don't just assume the entire thing is trash as a result...
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On July 03 2020 00:11 blackjacki2 wrote:
That video is the same as all the other articles. It takes the one cherry picked and irrelevant statistic and props it up to support their narrative. Ignoring all the data except for that one cherry picked stat is just being willfully ignorant.
It's funny that they all bring up mass incarceration though. It's like "black fatherlessness is a myth but if it weren't it's because of xyz." If it's a myth then you wouldn't need xyz now would you?
Well, I guess the conversation is over, since we are just repeating ourselves, and you are ignoring the questions I asked and deliberately ignoring the points being made. So I guess I'll repeat myself one last time. Thanks for trying though.
First, let's define cherry-picking, shall we?
"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position."
You provided ONE statistic, superimposed it onto the war on poverty, and you thought it painted a complete enough picture. You had a narrative from the start, so don't pretend like there is just the truth on one side (yours) and a false narrative on the other. You framed it as a "2+2=4" common sense thing. One freaking statistic. That is the epitome of cherry-picking.
The Vox article did not do cherry-picking, you have even admitted this indirectly. If you cherry-pick, you suppress or avoid mentioning data that contradicts your message. You read the article. You saw that they included the statistic that you think debunks their narrative (except it didn't, it provided evidence of the myth being false, when correctly defined). They did not suppress it. You had to engage in mental gymnastics on a 6 paragraphs article and assume they were being manipulative precisely because they were not cherry-picking. You could say they used manipulative formatting that didn't highlight the most relevant stat, you'd be wrong, but at least you'd not be making stuff up about cherry-picking. Manipulative formatting is not equivalent to cherry-picking.
As for this video, it runs through the history, it mentions the stereotypes and what contributed to them, it doesn't hide the stats that you think is the most relevant one, it presents it, and re-frames it in light of more data and attempts to paint a larger picture than the one that you have cherry-picked, which follows the dominant narrative: "this stat means government intervention bad. government feeds into bad black culture. remove welfare programs now!" That is not cherry-picking either. You might not like what you hear, but it doesn't make it cherry-picking.
The myth, again, is not that there are not more black people who do not live with their children. It has never been about that. You have decided to straw man it from the start, and you refuse to acknowledge it even when I quote it for you from an expert. The myth is the idea that there is fatherlessness-- total or near total absence in a child's life--based on the will of the father. And then it is extrapolated from that that the will of the father is influenced not to have the correct values likely because of the surrounding "black culture" (though some people would argue it's biological, and unfortunately your argument serves them even though you are not making that argument). Both of these assumptions are connected, and they are both wrong. I have given you evidence of it and you have refused to look at it, and your arguments for not acknowledging them are piss poor.
This is not that complicated of an issue. One side says the biggest problem is deeply structural, the other blames the problem on the individuals. One side thinks it requires enormous work to change the situation on multiple levels; the other thinks it's just a matter of having a bootstraps mindset and a policy or two, forcing poor people to no longer depend on the state. We grow up in a world that encourages us to believe that "we reap what we sow" (the just world fallacy) and that people who struggle deserve it. There are numerous studies that have been replicated and that prove that we have this bias.
We grow up to blame people for their problems on pretty much every issue, largely because it benefits capitalism and those in power. This is just one of the many instances of that. People believe it not because it's true, and not because it helps us in our daily lives. We believe it because we're dumb, easy-to-manipulate animals who would be nothing without our culture (look up "feral children", and culture reproduces itself to serve dominant socio-economic interests, and it's always very difficult to challenge and resist that process. We've evolved for millions of years living in tight-knit communities where exclusion was a literal death sentence; we are very much wired to avoid challenging the dominant order of things.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Isn't this what I have said from the start? That the disparity is POLICY driven? You seem to be arguing against some Ed Norton Neo-Nazi in your mind where I am trying to argue that those dirty stinkin' blacks are just no good at being fathers when if you follow the debate you would see that from the very beginning I've been the one making the point that the policy makers in Washington are the ones driving poor and black families apart.
Of course you have the trump card of structural injustices and systemic racism. It's hard to argue against. I guess my only question is why would these out of wedlock childbirths start to climb in the 1960s through the 1990s, 100 years after the civil war ended? This is right around the start of the civil rights movement and the war on poverty. If this was driven by poverty and social injustices then these statistics should have been going down during these times. It's hard to argue that black families had a harder time with structural injustices in the 1980s than in the 1950s.
Just want to requote this and point out an interesting fact:
In the first paragraph, you say that I have this false image of you using Ed Norton's racist rhetoric.
In the second paragraph, you manage to use his rhetoric. Of course you don't have his overt racism and call black people monkeys. I don't think for a second that you are racist like him. But just listen to the clip. He is either incredulous about or denies structural racism, and just like you near the end of his rant he mentions that slavery has been over for over 100 years, so wtf how can anyone say that these problems arent to be blamed on the individuals and their cultures, their opportunism and their state sanctioned laziness.
It's really not hard to argue that the war on poverty was a miserable failure. You have not spent any time looking into it, just like Ed Norton, you assume the authorities are right and they do things right. War on poverty? Experts were in charge or that, must have had good results. War on drugs? Experts in charge, real authorities, must have had good results. Why look at the data provided when our intuitions are so much more reliable am I right? It is strikingly similar to Norton's defense of the cops beating King, that they knew what they were doing, they are trained experts.
It's also worth pointing out that the rhetoric of a far right extremist adjusts to the people they are talking to. In that scenario he is trying to impress upon his family, including his very young brother. He isn't going to have the most extreme opinions there, he controls himself and uses arguments that somewhat seem plausible enough to plant the seed of doubt. That's all you need when you have an ideology based on hatred. Nothing more is required of you than to make more people doubt whether some people deserve the same rights and treatment as you. The goal isn't full conversion right away, it's an insidious process of moving people right as much as possible. You have to cast a large enough net, and as long as people wouldnt directly oppose you, you've done a good enough job. Few people are gonna be foot soldiers, but as long as they aren't in the way, your ideology progresses.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Isn't this what I have said from the start? That the disparity is POLICY driven? You seem to be arguing against some Ed Norton Neo-Nazi in your mind where I am trying to argue that those dirty stinkin' blacks are just no good at being fathers when if you follow the debate you would see that from the very beginning I've been the one making the point that the policy makers in Washington are the ones driving poor and black families apart.
Of course you have the trump card of structural injustices and systemic racism. It's hard to argue against. I guess my only question is why would these out of wedlock childbirths start to climb in the 1960s through the 1990s, 100 years after the civil war ended? This is right around the start of the civil rights movement and the war on poverty. If this was driven by poverty and social injustices then these statistics should have been going down during these times. It's hard to argue that black families had a harder time with structural injustices in the 1980s than in the 1950s.
Just want to requote this and point out an interesting fact:
In the first paragraph, you say that I have this false image of you using Ed Norton's racist rhetoric.
In the second paragraph, you manage to use his rhetoric. Of course you don't have his overt racism and call black people monkeys. I don't think for a second that you are racist like him. But just listen to the clip. He is either incredulous about or denies structural racism, and just like you near the end of his rant he mentions that slavery has been over for over 100 years, so wtf how can anyone say that these problems arent to be blamed on the individuals and their cultures, their opportunism and their state sanctioned laziness.
It's really not hard to argue that the war on poverty was a miserable failure. You have not spent any time looking into it, just like Ed Norton, you assume the authorities are right and they do things right. War on poverty? Experts were in charge or that, must have had good results. War on drugs? Experts in charge, real authorities, must have had good results. Why look at the data provided when our intuitions are so much more reliable am I right? It is strikingly similar to Norton's defense of the cops beating King, that they knew what they were doing, they are trained experts.
It's also worth pointing out that the rhetoric of a far right extremist adjusts to the people they are talking to. In that scenario he is trying to impress upon his family, including his very young brother. He isn't going to have the most extreme opinions there, he controls himself and uses arguments that somewhat seem plausible enough to plant the seed of doubt. That's all you need when you have an ideology based on hatred. Nothing more is required of you than to make more people doubt whether some people deserve the same rights and treatment as you. The goal isn't full conversion right away, it's an insidious process of moving people right as much as possible. You have to cast a large enough net, and as long as people wouldnt directly oppose you, you've done a good enough job. Few people are gonna be foot soldiers, but as long as they aren't in the way, your ideology progresses.
Do you understand how words and context works? Do you think simply stating a fact "the Civil war was 100 years ago" is a racist statement?
I thought my point was quite clear - if you're blaming the statistics I cited on structural racism then you have to explain why there was a massive change in the trend during just a 3 decade period. Are you implying that structural racism did not exist in the 100 years following the civil war and only started in the 1960s?
It's funny that the only thing you were able to pick up from that nuanced idea is "hurr durr those 6 words in your post taken out of context sound exactly like 6 words that Ed Norton said hurr durr you're a neo-nazi durr"
1
blackjacki2 United States. Jul 03 2020 11:08. Posts 2582
On July 03 2020 00:11 blackjacki2 wrote:
That video is the same as all the other articles. It takes the one cherry picked and irrelevant statistic and props it up to support their narrative. Ignoring all the data except for that one cherry picked stat is just being willfully ignorant.
It's funny that they all bring up mass incarceration though. It's like "black fatherlessness is a myth but if it weren't it's because of xyz." If it's a myth then you wouldn't need xyz now would you?
Well, I guess the conversation is over, since we are just repeating ourselves, and you are ignoring the questions I asked and deliberately ignoring the points being made. So I guess I'll repeat myself one last time. Thanks for trying though.
First, let's define cherry-picking, shall we?
"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position."
You provided ONE statistic, superimposed it onto the war on poverty, and you thought it painted a complete enough picture. You had a narrative from the start, so don't pretend like there is just the truth on one side (yours) and a false narrative on the other. You framed it as a "2+2=4" common sense thing. One freaking statistic. That is the epitome of cherry-picking.
The Vox article did not do cherry-picking, you have even admitted this indirectly. If you cherry-pick, you suppress or avoid mentioning data that contradicts your message. You read the article. You saw that they included the statistic that you think debunks their narrative (except it didn't, it provided evidence of the myth being false, when correctly defined). They did not suppress it. You had to engage in mental gymnastics on a 6 paragraphs article and assume they were being manipulative precisely because they were not cherry-picking. You could say they used manipulative formatting that didn't highlight the most relevant stat, you'd be wrong, but at least you'd not be making stuff up about cherry-picking. Manipulative formatting is not equivalent to cherry-picking.
As for this video, it runs through the history, it mentions the stereotypes and what contributed to them, it doesn't hide the stats that you think is the most relevant one, it presents it, and re-frames it in light of more data and attempts to paint a larger picture than the one that you have cherry-picked, which follows the dominant narrative: "this stat means government intervention bad. government feeds into bad black culture. remove welfare programs now!" That is not cherry-picking either. You might not like what you hear, but it doesn't make it cherry-picking.
The myth, again, is not that there are not more black people who do not live with their children. It has never been about that. You have decided to straw man it from the start, and you refuse to acknowledge it even when I quote it for you from an expert. The myth is the idea that there is fatherlessness-- total or near total absence in a child's life--based on the will of the father. And then it is extrapolated from that that the will of the father is influenced not to have the correct values likely because of the surrounding "black culture" (though some people would argue it's biological, and unfortunately your argument serves them even though you are not making that argument). Both of these assumptions are connected, and they are both wrong. I have given you evidence of it and you have refused to look at it, and your arguments for not acknowledging them are piss poor.
This is not that complicated of an issue. One side says the biggest problem is deeply structural, the other blames the problem on the individuals. One side thinks it requires enormous work to change the situation on multiple levels; the other thinks it's just a matter of having a bootstraps mindset and a policy or two, forcing poor people to no longer depend on the state. We grow up in a world that encourages us to believe that "we reap what we sow" (the just world fallacy) and that people who struggle deserve it. There are numerous studies that have been replicated and that prove that we have this bias.
We grow up to blame people for their problems on pretty much every issue, largely because it benefits capitalism and those in power. This is just one of the many instances of that. People believe it not because it's true, and not because it helps us in our daily lives. We believe it because we're dumb, easy-to-manipulate animals who would be nothing without our culture (look up "feral children", and culture reproduces itself to serve dominant socio-economic interests, and it's always very difficult to challenge and resist that process. We've evolved for millions of years living in tight-knit communities where exclusion was a literal death sentence; we are very much wired to avoid challenging the dominant order of things.
Statistic on black fatherlessness I'm citing
Black men are nearly three times as likely as white men to have at least one child they don't live with
Statistic on black fatherlessness you're citing
Among Black Men aged 15-44 that live with their children under age 5, 78% feed or eat meals with their child on a daily basis compared to 72% for white men.
Note: not all differences are statistically significant.
You're really going to sit there with a straight face and argue that I'm the one cherry picking my statistics?
I see you've once again tried to phrase this debate as one where "one side blames this on structural issues and the other blames individuals that need to pull themselves up by the boot straps." I'm paraphrasing. As I've said numerous times, I blame policies not individuals. The fact that you continuously ignore that and attempt to paint this as "me vs the racists" is quite telling.
Contact Users: 830 Active, 1 Logged in - Time: 16:33
, and culture reproduces itself to serve dominant socio-economic interests, and it's always very difficult to challenge and resist that process. We've evolved for millions of years living in tight-knit communities where exclusion was a literal death sentence; we are very much wired to avoid challenging the dominant order of things.
