• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Do you think white supremacists and Nazis are evil?

Are white supremacists/Nazis evil?


  • Total voters
    36

Spark

Global Moderator
I'm guessing this is the study harsh is referencing. An interesting read:

https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

Most important, our analysis of the changes in out-of-wedlock birth suggests that a return to the old system of shotgun marriage will not be brought about by significant reductions in welfare benefits, and possibly not even by very large reductions. With ***ual activity taking place early in relationships and with little social stigma enforcing the norm of shotgun marriage, fathers no longer have strong extrinsic reasons for marriage. Cuts in welfare therefore have little effect on the number of out-of-wedlock births, while reducing dollar-for-dollar the income of the poorest segment of the population. The initial goal of the welfare program was to see that the children in unfortunate families were adequately supported. The support of poor children not the alteration of the behavior of potential mothers should remain the major policy goal of welfare in the United States. This level of support must be tempered by equity between those who collect welfare and do not work and those who do work and also are paying taxes that, at least in part, go to pay for the less fortunate. In this regard a generous Earned Income Tax Credit serves two roles. Not only does it reward those who work, but by increasing the differential between the working poor and the nonworking poor, it allows greater benefits equitably to be paid to nonworking mothers.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Apologies, it is killed or injured*.
Yeah but then it's no longer a like-for-like comparison. I have absolutely no idea how many people are injured by police, but I'm sure it's a startlingly large number.

There are several reasons of that outside of institutional racism. Like the fact that black people commit more crime and are reported more (by other black people). Heather MacDonald recently released a book that is good on this.
I'm talking specifically about drug use and access to legal resources, not whatever illiberal, authoritarian garbage MacDonald claims it is.

Pretending it is just a conversation killer is the disingenuous part.
I'm saying it's sometimes used as such. Most sentences that begin with the words "what about..." are.
 
Last edited:

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Social stigma isn't the only counterbalance. It's money. Those social stigmas in large part were prevalent because prior to the state paying for your kids you and your surrounding family had to. Therefore childbirth outside of marriage made you a black sheep, not just because it was morally wrong but because other people didn't want to pay for your irresponsible choices.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Social stigma isn't the only counterbalance. It's money. Those social stigmas in large part were prevalent because prior to the state paying for your kids you and your surrounding family had to. Therefore childbirth outside of marriage made you a black sheep, not just because it was morally wrong but because other people didn't want to pay for your irresponsible choices.
Are you saying that welfare was responsible for the ***ual revolution?

EDIT: Also this runs up hard against the iron wall of history, which states in very unmistakeable terms that until fairly recently more kids = more money for your family. The stigma against children born out of wedlock has much more to do with primogeniture than the burden of children, because having more kids was how your family didn't starve until not that long ago. If you want to put it that way, then the root cause isn't the welfare state; it's the steam engine and the power loom.
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's fine if you want to talk about causes over solutions. If you talk about nothing but the causes of problems you're just going to cause more problems.
Well obviously searching for causes is fundamental to the search for solutions. I mean if the breakdown of black families is the result of (e.g.) urban geography then that deeper level of reasoning tells you a lot about how to fix it.
 

harsh.ag

Hall of Fame Member
Social stigma isn't the only counterbalance. It's money. Those social stigmas in large part were prevalent because prior to the state paying for your kids you and your surrounding family had to. Therefore childbirth outside of marriage made you a black sheep, not just because it was morally wrong but because other people didn't want to pay for your irresponsible choices.
Abortion was a big part as well. The major issue is, as you say, that feeling of personal responsibility. Which the option of abortion erodes significantly.
 

harsh.ag

Hall of Fame Member
A bit grim to treat kids as a lost cause though.
The kids aren't at fault. But they are human, there are constraints and they need fathers and a family to do well in life. A bit of money can't do much about that at all.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
The kids aren't at fault. But they are human, there are constraints and they need fathers and a family to do well in life. A bit of money can't do much about that at all.
It can do a lot if you don't have much though.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Absolutely. But if the goal of the policy is for the kids have a better life, focusing on welfare over incentivizing marriage is the wrong path forward imo.
l honestly think incentivising marriage is a completely lost cause, and though it took quite a while to become obvious, it's been lost for a long time. Once your economic security became decoupled from the number of children you had (and indeed started to flip) then the economic imperatives driving (heterosexual, monogamous or at least with clear rules of progimenture) marriage fell apart. The social ones are still in flux, but also very wobbly.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah but then it's no longer a like-for-like comparison. I have absolutely no idea how many people are injured by police, but I'm sure it's a startlingly large number.
It's not a like for like example, you're right but it's not supposed to be because lightning is not about negligent or malicious actors. It just puts the number in a better light so that people can conceptualise how rare these deaths are.

I'm talking specifically about drug use and access to legal resources, not whatever illiberal, authoritarian garbage MacDonald claims it is.
And the argument for that amongst BLM and the left is that there is overpolicing. The retort is that there is overpolicing - ironically, often campaigned for - because black people are committing more crimes. Even if the drug use is the same as other races, the police aren't just looking for drug cheats but all crime. Where would you like the police to be situated: in neighbourhoods where there is a prevalence of crime, particularly violent crimes, or ones that aren't? And ultimately, if you've committed a crime it's still in large part down to the individual for not giving the police a reason to be put in jail.

Whether you think something like stop and frisk is illiberal is besides the point here - it shows that policing does work in combatting criminal behaviour. I would argue with you that unreasonable searches are unconstitutional but that is not for this debate and is not just a black issue. What we are discussing here are the causes for certain people to commit more crime. I'm for drug legalisation myself because I think you are inviting a criminal element into a neighbourhood when you provide an avenue for uneducated and desperate people to make money. But they are uneducated and desperate not because the government is set out to get them. That's why this discussion comes back to black fathers and marriages because of how determinative they are of leading to people living healthy lives. It impacts the community and people who cooperate and create wealth together are going to need less policing as a result.

It should be said also re the drug discussion that white people, for instance, are more likely to be charged for crystal meth and there is also the issue that drug use is not the only crime, so too is selling/trafficking. So it is not as simple as people would like to portray. I mean, look at Baltimore also where there is a black majority city, has majority black police officers, with a majority black city council, mayor and district attorney (and at one time black President) and this crime rate still indicated more black crime.

I'm saying it's sometimes used as such. Most sentences that begin with the words "what about..." are.
Pardon the use of the term: but we should stop being triggered by these things and listen to arguments as a whole. Otherwise, we just play this game where our side has defined certain terms as dog whistling when there may be truth.
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I've also not heard really good arguments about how constantly referencing the ****** past does much more than highlight how bad things like slavery and segregation were. Again, you'll find very few people on the right that think they are. You don't have to whitewash it (heh), but putting how **** things were on a pedestal and using it to dominate a discussion completely poisons both sides of the debate.
So obviously I completely disagree with this, otherwise I'd need a new job. There are two reasons that history is important. The first is that you lose touch with reality if you ignore it. So you have 200 years of slavery followed by Jim Crow, segregation, exclusion from benefits and credit until the mid-1960s, then in the 1980s you have a president implying that the reason black people aren't as rich as white people is because of their bad culture.

The second is that ignoring it allows others to weaponise it for political purposes. So the obvious example is the mythologising of the Civil War as nothing to do with slavery. But an example from the other side is the atrociously bad left-wing histories currently being written under the banner of "History of Capitalism".
 

Spark

Global Moderator
It's not a like for like example, you're right but it's not supposed to be because lightning is not about negligent or malicious actors. It just puts the number in a better light so that people can conceptualise how rare these deaths are.
Yeah, but even that small number is enough for anyone with a working brain take precautions against being struck by lightning; indeed a principal factor in explaining the rate of lightning strikes is how many people decide to be idiots as the NOAA study hints at.

Applying that logic to black people and the police is troubling. Particularly so if the killings are seen to have no consequences.

And the argument for that amongst BLM and the left is that there is overpolicing. The retort is that there is overpolicing - ironically, often campaigned for - because black people are committing more crimes. Even if the drug use is the same as other races, the police aren't just looking for drug cheats but all crime. Where would you like the police to be situated: in neighbourhoods where there is a prevalence of crime, particularly violent crimes, or ones that aren't?
The argument is more subtle than this; it's that there is both overpolicing and underpolicing at the same time. In particularly, petty, non-violent offences like drug possession are disproportionately punished (both in the rate at which they are punished relative to other sectors of the population, and in the proportionality of the punishments themselves, and in the fair allocation of the natural justice rights allotted to criminal defendants) whilst major crimes like murder often go uninvestigated, unsolved and unpunished. The theory apparently is that stopping the former will somehow solve the latter, This theory is wrong.

Whether you think something like stop and frisk is illiberal is besides the point here - it shows that policing does work in combatting criminal behaviour. I would argue with you that unreasonable searches are unconstitutional but that is not for this debate.
Definitely relevant to whether i think she is an authoritarian goon though. It's not so much that she's racist―I have no idea―so much that she idolises police to a degree I find personally repulsive.

What we are discussing here are the causes for certain people to commit more crime. I'm for drug legalisation myself because I think you are inviting a criminal element into a neighbourhood when you provide an avenue for uneducated and desperate people to make money. But they are uneducated and desperate not because the government is set out to get them. That's why this discussion comes back to black fathers and marriages because of how determinative they are of leading to people living healthy lives.
I think you are vastly underplaying how much legalisation will help, which is kind of weird tbh.



Pardon the use of the term: but we should stop being triggered by these things and listening to arguments in whole. Otherwise, we just play this game where our side has defined certain terms as dog whistling when there may be truth.
Who said anything about triggering? I made an observation.

If you want the moral argument against whataboutery, then Jonah Goldberg makes it here, albeit on a very different topic:
Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump, Hypocrisy & Mitt Romney?s ?Binders Full of Women? | National Review
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
More generally, I used to have a lot more time for "poisoning the terms of the debate" critiques than I do now. Emotive rhetoric might turn people off but if something is too dry then nobody reads it and it has no effect anyway.

I think it's very rarely possible to know whether making a particular argument or utilising a particular form of protest is helpful or not. If you think about it too much you end up like Hillary Clinton.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
More generally, I used to have a lot more time for "poisoning the terms of the debate" critiques than I do now. Emotive rhetoric might turn people off but if something is too dry then nobody reads it and it has no effect anyway.

I think it's very rarely possible to know whether making a particular argument or utilising a particular form of protest is helpful or not. If you think about it too much you end up like Hillary Clinton.
I just think it's mostly pointless tbh. I commend the attempt, but even Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert tried this a few years back, and they pretty soon realised that it wasn't going to work.
 

harsh.ag

Hall of Fame Member
So obviously I completely disagree with this, otherwise I'd need a new job. There are two reasons that history is important. The first is that you lose touch with reality if you ignore it. So you have 200 years of slavery followed by Jim Crow, segregation, exclusion from benefits and credit until the mid-1960s, then in the 1980s you have a president implying that the reason black people aren't as rich as white people is because of their bad culture.
The culture reason has its merits. Whether it's a good story or not. But the good news has always been that it's not about group culture but individual decisions (which are certainly affected by group culture but can run counter to it by force of will and education and so forth). Black people in a good culture do as well as white people in a good culture.

The same public policies apply to everyone. There is a reason Asian Americans, Indian Americans, White Americans do better than the black community. Strong family values, positive goals, social pressures among other things help people achieve success.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
The culture reason has its merits. Whether it's a good story or not. But the good news has always been that it's not about group culture but individual decisions (which are certainly affected by group culture but can run counter to it by force of will and education and so forth). Black people in a good culture do as well as white people in a good culture.

The same public policies apply to everyone. There is a reason Asian Americans, Indian Americans, White Americans do better than the black community. Strong family values, positive goals, social pressures among other things help people achieve success.
Cite your justification for this. Particularly I will be interested in hearing how this explains the difference in quality of neighbourhood that a black person and a white person with teh same education and income live in.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The culture reason has its merits. Whether it's a good story or not. But the good news has always been that it's not about group culture but individual decisions (which are certainly affected by group culture but can run counter to it by force of will and education and so forth). Black people in a good culture do as well as white people in a good culture.

The same public policies apply to everyone. There is a reason Asian Americans, Indian Americans, White Americans do better than the black community. Strong family values, positive goals, social pressures among other things help people achieve success.
So how or why do you think black culture got bad?
 

Top