Another White Guilt Post

[tantric superman 4667]

8 hours ago, David Dennison said:

And when racial disparity, particularly between black and white, continues to plague this country, then what?

If people follow what I propose then it won't "plague" the country, even though there will always be disparities that remain, with the idea that we at some point get to a point where disparities are based on choice and not discrimination.

My post outlined a way to resolve economic disparities in a color blind way and then on top of that stressed that lingering vestiges of discrimination should still be addressed.  I don't expect all issues to vanish on a particular day, but I think this is how we can actually begin addressing them.  I think addressing economic disparity via racial preferences is an inefficient way to address economic disparity. 

Edited February 28, 2021 by tantric superman

[tantric superman 4667]

8 hours ago, David Dennison said:

And incarceration rates, arrest rates, infant mortality rates, life expectancy, etc., etc.

I don't think these disparities aren't serious issues.  I just don't think they are as serious as some other existential threats, as well as the general idiocracy affecting a large swath of our population.

[tantric superman 4667]

9 hours ago, gmr548 said:

You’re right about the root cause being poverty rather than skin color. However, in a terms of a macro level analysis of this country, “POC = poverty,” while obviously a rough generalization, is not untrue.

I don't have any problem with anyone arguing that 99-100% of poverty is all due to discrimination.  The issue is how to we approach resolving it?  Whatever the cause, poverty is poverty, so let's solve poverty in a color-blind way, because a color-blind approach can still solve a problem created by color based discrimination.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I don't have any problem with anyone arguing that 99-100% of poverty is all due to discrimination.  The issue is how to we approach resolving it?  Whatever the cause, poverty is poverty, so let's solve poverty in a color-blind way, because a color-blind approach can still solve a problem created by color based discrimination.

Education, and a value of education is one of the key starting points.  Not just higher education, but also skills, and trades education that can create marketable skills, and paths out of poverty.  That is a multi generational problem, because you need parents, and kids involved in that process.  

That is one prong of a multi prong attack on poverty that needs to take place.

[GRHorn 105]

On 2/25/2021 at 3:41 PM, David Dennison said:

The legacy of African slavery is the biggest issue this country faces and nothing else comes close. 

Wrong. 
 

On 2/25/2021 at 3:45 PM, SydneyCarton said:

Eh, I'm pretty sure that the biggest issue this country faces is the systemic and widespread attacks on Democracy currently taking place, the outcome of which might preclude anyone in this country from being able to even tackle how to remedy the legacy of slavery. 

Wrong too. 
 

Probably time for a new thread honestly. Don’t want to hijack this one. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

Wrong too. 
 
Probably time for a new thread honestly. Don’t want to hijack this one. 

God, you are shitty.

[GRHorn 105]

8 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

10 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Wrong too. 
 
Probably time for a new thread honestly. Don’t want to hijack this one. 

God, you are shitty.

Didn’t realize I had posted anything that inflammatory. A little touchy it seems 

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

5 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Didn’t realize I had posted anything that inflammatory. A little touchy it seems 

 

It wasn’t inflammatory, just worthless.  

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

12 hours ago, tantric superman said:

If people follow what I propose then it won't "plague" the country, even though there will always be disparities that remain, with the idea that we at some point get to a point where disparities are based on choice and not discrimination.

My post outlined a way to resolve economic disparities in a color blind way and then on top of that stressed that lingering vestiges of discrimination should still be addressed.  I don't expect all issues to vanish on a particular day, but I think this is how we can actually begin addressing them.  I think addressing economic disparity via racial preferences is an inefficient way to address economic disparity. 

There are structural differences between white poverty and black poverty in terms of how isolated from greater society one group is compared to the other. And that difference has a tremendous impact in the social mobility of poor blacks. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/12/black-poverty-differs-from-white-poverty/

The poverty that poor African Americans experience is often different from the poverty of poor whites. It's more isolating and concentrated. It extends out the door of a family's home and occupies the entire neighborhood around it, touching the streets, the schools, the grocery stores.

A poor black family, in short, is much more likely than a poor white one to live in a neighborhood where many other families are poor, too, creating what sociologists call the "double burden" of poverty. The difference is stark in most major metropolitan areas, according to recent data analyzed by Rutgers University's Paul Jargowsky in a new report for the Century Foundation.

In five-year American Community Survey data from 2009-2013, more than a third of all poor African Americans in metropolitan Chicago live in high-poverty census tracts (where the poverty rate is above 40 percent). That number has gotten worse since 2000. And it's about 10 times higher than for poor whites.

In St. Louis, 29.5 percent of poor African Americans live in concentrated poverty. Among poor whites, just 1.6 percent do. Poor whites, in most major metropolitan areas, are spread out. Poor African Americans are not:

This data point — the share of poor people living in deeply poor places — gets at an important element of poverty that's obscured by citywide poverty rates. "The concentration of poverty is really about the spatial organization of poverty," Jargowsky writes. It captures how we've designed communities to pen poverty in, restricting many poor African Americans in particular to a limited number of neighborhoods

 

"The term ‘concentration’ does in some way suggest that poor people are moving from all over the place into these neighborhoods, and they become teeming slums like at the turn of the century," Jargowsky says. "But it’s actually the opposite: People are moving out to the older suburbs, and people in the older suburbs are moving to the newer suburbs."

Concentrated poverty is getting worse because poor people — especially poor African Americans — are increasingly left behind. And a number of forces drive this pattern, including systemic discrimination, policies that have historically concentrated public housing and modern zoning laws that keep the poor out of wealthier communities.

There's also a psychological element that comes into play when people live in such a highly dense concentration of impoverishment. The scarcity mindset is much more prevalent in these conditions as opposed to rural poverty where the fact that you're living amongst other poor isn't as readily apparent and thus doesn't provoke the same sense of desperation. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/24/poor-whites-live-in-richer-neighborhoods-than-middle-class-blacks-and-latinos/

Poor whites tend to live in more affluent neighborhoods than do middle- class blacks and Latinos, a situation that leaves those minorities more likely to contend with weaker schools, higher crime and greater social problems, according to a new study.

The new research by scholars at the Stanford Graduate School of Education found that the gap separating black and Hispanic neighborhoods from white ones persists up and down the income ladder. A black household with an annual income of $50,000 lives on average in a neighborhood where the median income is under $43,000. But whites with the same income live in neighborhoods where the median income is almost $53,000—about 25 percent higher.

Meanwhile, white families with an annual income of just $13,000 on average live in neighborhoods where the median income is $45,000—slightly higher than the precincts occupied by middle-class blacks and just below that of middle-class Hispanics. The same dynamic holds for households that making $100,000 annually.

 

[Neonmoon 38127]

That’s a really good point and often overlooked. It’s the same reasons parents don’t want their kids hanging out with the wrong crowd. The people that surround you matter. If they’re doing great, it pushes you to do better. If they’re not doing great, it can drag you down. 

[tantric superman 4667]

3 hours ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

There are structural differences between white poverty and black poverty in terms of how isolated from greater society one group is compared to the other. And that difference has a tremendous impact in the social mobility of poor blacks. 

The whole basis of my point is...SO?  I don't think it takes any rocket scientist to realize that each group, indeed each person, has a different history and cause for their poverty.  Knowing this may help us better understand the efficacy of our planned solution for poverty, but it doesn't go the fundamental point - can we solve poverty (and will the Constitution allow us to solve poverty) by giving preferential treatment to certain groups based on certain characteristics like ethnicity?  And if they do, is it wise policy to target solutions that way. 

I think if we create expansive opportunity programs based purely on economic need, we will have room to discuss smaller targeted programs based on each groups unique history.  And that may not go anywhere, but at least there might be a chance. 

[David Dennison 18658]

11 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

The whole basis of my point is...SO?  I don't think it takes any rocket scientist to realize that each group, indeed each person, has a different history and cause for their poverty.  Knowing this may help us better understand the efficacy of our planned solution for poverty, but it doesn't go the fundamental point - can we solve poverty (and will the Constitution allow us to solve poverty) by giving preferential treatment to certain groups based on certain characteristics like ethnicity?  And if they do, is it wise policy to target solutions that way. 

I think if we create expansive opportunity programs based purely on economic need, we will have room to discuss smaller targeted programs based on each groups unique history.  And that may not go anywhere, but at least there might be a chance. 

Of course we can solve poverty. Give the poor money.

[David Dennison 18658]

15 hours ago, tantric superman said:

I don't think these disparities aren't serious issues.  I just don't think they are as serious as some other existential threats, as well as the general idiocracy affecting a large swath of our population.

That general idiocracy is rooted in racism.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Of course we can solve poverty. Give the poor money.

Yeah brilliant concept.  Always solve a problem by just throwing money at it. 

[tantric superman 4667]

24 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That general idiocracy is rooted in racism.

Will drop a footnote.

[ChiTownDoc 21101]

46 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Of course we can solve poverty. Give the poor money.

I know you don’t mean to oversimplify like that but I’ll point out giving money without education rarely turns out well.  The old teach a man to fish vs giving him fish.  A combination is obviously best.  
 

edit: in America we teach black folks how to fish then set them up at a fishing hole with no fish.  Then ask them wtf is wrong w them.  

Edited February 28, 2021 by ChiTownDoc

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Of course we can solve poverty. Give the poor money.

Yeah brilliant concept.  Always solve a problem by just throwing money at it. 

[ChiTownDoc 21101]

12 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah brilliant concept.  Always solve a problem by just throwing money at it. 

You can say that again...

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

15 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I know you don’t mean to oversimplify like that but I’ll point out giving money without education rarely turns out well.  The old teach a man to fish vs giving him fish.  A combination is obviously best.  
 

edit: in America we teach black folks how to fish then set them up at a fishing hole with no fish.  Then ask them wtf is wrong w them.  

“

Or, consider the educational achievement gap. Anti-racism advocates, in effect, are daring you to notice that some groups send their children to elite colleges and universities in outsized numbers compared to other groups due to the fact that their academic preparation is magnitudes higher and better and finer. They are daring you to declare such excellence to be an admirable achievement. One isn’t born knowing these things. One acquires such intellectual mastery through effort. Why are some youngsters acquiring these skills and others not? That is a very deep and interesting question, one which I am quite prepared to entertain. But the simple retort, “racism”, is laughable—as if such disparities have nothing to do with behavior, with cultural patterns, with what peer groups value, with how people spend their time, with what they identify as being critical to their own self-respect. Anyone actually believing such nonsense is a fool, I maintain.

Asians are said, sardonically, according to the politically correct script, to be a “model minority.” Well, as a matter of fact, a pretty compelling case can be made that “culture” is critical to their success. Read Jennifer Lee and Min Zhou’s book, The Asian American Achievement Paradox. They have interviewed Asian families in Southern California, trying to learn how these kids get into Dartmouth and Columbia and Cornell with such high rates. They find that these families exhibit cultural patterns, embrace values, adopt practices, engage in behavior, and follow disciplines that orient them in such a way as to facilitate the achievements of their children. It defies common sense, as well as the evidence, to assert that they do not or, conversely, to assert that the paucity of African Americans performing near the top of the intellectual spectrum—I am talking here about academic excellence, and about the low relative numbers of blacks who exhibit it—has nothing to do with the behavior of black people; that this outcome is due to institutional forces alone. That, quite frankly, is an absurdity. No serious person could believe it.”

Glenn Loury 

[fattyflattie 4636]

23 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I know you don’t mean to oversimplify like that but I’ll point out giving money without education rarely turns out well.

It’s impossible to convey anything other than macro thoughts when limited to 1 liners. 

[David Dennison 18658]

18 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah brilliant concept.  Always solve a problem by just throwing money at it. 

Yes. You solve poverty by giving poor people money.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

On 2/27/2021 at 9:49 AM, David Dennison said:

And incarceration rates, arrest rates

The first unspeakable truth: Downplaying behavioral disparities by race is actually a “bluff”

Socially mediated behavioral issues lie at the root of today’s racial inequality problem. They are real and must be faced squarely if we are to grasp why racial disparities persist. This is a painful necessity. Activists on the Left of American politics claim that “white supremacy,” “implicit bias,” and old-fashioned “anti-black racism” are sufficient to account for black disadvantage. But this is a bluff that relies on “cancel culture” to be sustained. Those making such arguments are, in effect, daring you to disagree with them. They are threatening to “cancel” you if you do not accept their account: You must be a “racist”; you must believe something is intrinsically wrong with black people if you do not attribute pathological behavior among them to systemic injustice. You must think blacks are inferior, for how else could one explain the disparities? “Blaming the victim” is the offense they will convict you of, if you’re lucky.

I claim this is a dare; a debater’s trick. Because, at the end of the day, what are those folks saying when they declare that “mass incarceration” is “racism”—that the high number of blacks in jails is, self-evidently, a sign of racial antipathy? To respond, “No. It’s mainly a sign of anti-social behavior by criminals who happen to be black,” one risks being dismissed as a moral reprobate. This is so, even if the speaker is black. Just ask Justice Clarence Thomas. Nobody wants to be cancelled.

But we should all want to stay in touch with reality. Common sense and much evidence suggest that, on the whole, people are not being arrested, convicted, and sentenced because of their race. Those in prison are, in the main, those who have broken the law—who have hurt others, or stolen things, or otherwise violated the basic behavioral norms which make civil society possible. Seeing prisons as a racist conspiracy to confine black people is an absurd proposition. No serious person could believe it. Not really. Indeed, it is self-evident that those taking lives on the streets of St. Louis, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Chicago are, to a man, behaving despicably. Moreover, those bearing the cost of such pathology, almost exclusively, are other blacks. An ideology that ascribes this violent behavior to racism is laughable. Of course, this is an unspeakable truth—but no writer or social critic, of whatever race, should be cancelled for saying so.
 

Glenn Loury

[David Dennison 18658]

1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

The first unspeakable truth: Downplaying behavioral disparities by race is actually a “bluff”

Socially mediated behavioral issues lie at the root of today’s racial inequality problem. They are real and must be faced squarely if we are to grasp why racial disparities persist. This is a painful necessity. Activists on the Left of American politics claim that “white supremacy,” “implicit bias,” and old-fashioned “anti-black racism” are sufficient to account for black disadvantage. But this is a bluff that relies on “cancel culture” to be sustained. Those making such arguments are, in effect, daring you to disagree with them. They are threatening to “cancel” you if you do not accept their account: You must be a “racist”; you must believe something is intrinsically wrong with black people if you do not attribute pathological behavior among them to systemic injustice. You must think blacks are inferior, for how else could one explain the disparities? “Blaming the victim” is the offense they will convict you of, if you’re lucky.

I claim this is a dare; a debater’s trick. Because, at the end of the day, what are those folks saying when they declare that “mass incarceration” is “racism”—that the high number of blacks in jails is, self-evidently, a sign of racial antipathy? To respond, “No. It’s mainly a sign of anti-social behavior by criminals who happen to be black,” one risks being dismissed as a moral reprobate. This is so, even if the speaker is black. Just ask Justice Clarence Thomas. Nobody wants to be cancelled.

But we should all want to stay in touch with reality. Common sense and much evidence suggest that, on the whole, people are not being arrested, convicted, and sentenced because of their race. Those in prison are, in the main, those who have broken the law—who have hurt others, or stolen things, or otherwise violated the basic behavioral norms which make civil society possible. Seeing prisons as a racist conspiracy to confine black people is an absurd proposition. No serious person could believe it. Not really. Indeed, it is self-evident that those taking lives on the streets of St. Louis, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Chicago are, to a man, behaving despicably. Moreover, those bearing the cost of such pathology, almost exclusively, are other blacks. An ideology that ascribes this violent behavior to racism is laughable. Of course, this is an unspeakable truth—but no writer or social critic, of whatever race, should be cancelled for saying so.
 

Glenn Loury

Why do disparities between black and white exist in the United States?

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

The whole basis of my point is...SO?  I don't think it takes any rocket scientist to realize that each group, indeed each person, has a different history and cause for their poverty.  Knowing this may help us better understand the efficacy of our planned solution for poverty, but it doesn't go the fundamental point - can we solve poverty (and will the Constitution allow us to solve poverty) by giving preferential treatment to certain groups based on certain characteristics like ethnicity?  And if they do, is it wise policy to target solutions that way. 

I think if we create expansive opportunity programs based purely on economic need, we will have room to discuss smaller targeted programs based on each groups unique history.  And that may not go anywhere, but at least there might be a chance. 

Given the role that government played in entrenching black poverty it stands to reason that the government should play a role in rectifying it. All these black people didn't choose to isolate themselves from greater society by happenstance. They don't live in the exact same zip codes that were redlined 100 years ago because they like the view. It was the result of purposeful policies and actions that fortified this condition. People love to talk about the measures to rectify past actions as social engineering as if we're messing with some sort of natural order of things. Somehow those very same people don't view those past discriminatory efforts to create this current condition as the original instance of social engineering that put us where we are today.

A good example I always like to reference is the difference in trajectories of institutions like banks. Take for instance the bank of Italy and how it compared to black banks that existed prior to the 30s and the establishment of the federal housing administration. Over the coming decades one category of banks received the lagniappe of an onslaught of federally subsidized loan inventory while another category of banks (black banks) were not only barred from participating in that market, but still competing with other banks that could. Prior to this policy of ""social engineering" black banks were indistinguishable from banks created by European immigrants in terms of their portfolios and impact in their communities, but afterwards the effect was demonstrable. Home loans the steel and ship workers of Pittsburg were suddenly qualified for were not available to the black doctors, educators, and lawyers of Atlanta. Mind you, all this was taking place as black migrants from the south came to the north looking work. As blacks arrived in mass they not only suffered from the restriction of housing inventory as whites were being subsidized with home loans. They suffered under a perverse set of constraints that saw them paying more to RENT their dilapidated housing in densely populated slums than their white counterparts were paying to OWN their newly subsidized homes. And let's not even get into the centers for commerce those housing loans created as businesses sprang up to cater to all these newly subsidized housing subdivisions, creating even more loan inventory for the banks that serviced them. How does this not qualify as social engineering when one group of people are forbidden from taking part while another flourishes through government subsidization?  Oh by the way, that Bank of Italy that I mentioned at the beginning of my rant is now called Bank of America. 

Edited February 28, 2021 by Catdaddyhorn

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

On 2/27/2021 at 9:49 AM, David Dennison said:

infant mortality rates, life expectancy, etc., etc.

Nor does anybody actually believe that 70 percent of African American babies being born to a woman without a husband is (1) a good thing or (2) due to anti-black racism. People say this, but they don’t believe it. They are bluffing—daring you to observe that the 21st-century failures of African Americans to take full advantage of the opportunities created by the 20th century’s revolution of civil rights are palpable and damning. These failures are being denied at every turn, and these denials are sustained by a threat to “cancel” dissenters for being “racists.” This position is simply not tenable. The end of Jim Crow segregation and the advent of the era of equal rights was transformative for blacks. And now—a half-century down the line—we still have these disparities. This is a shameful blight on our society, I agree. But the plain fact of the matter is that some considerable responsibility for this sorry state of affairs lies with black people ourselves. Dare we Americans acknowledge this?

Glenn Loury

https://quillette.com/2021/02/10/unspeakable-truths-about-racial-inequality-in-america/

 

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Nor does anybody actually believe that 70 percent of African American babies being born to a woman without a husband is (1) a good thing or (2) due to anti-black racism. People say this, but they don’t believe it. They are bluffing—daring you to observe that the 21st-century failures of African Americans to take full advantage of the opportunities created by the 20th century’s revolution of civil rights are palpable and damning. These failures are being denied at every turn, and these denials are sustained by a threat to “cancel” dissenters for being “racists.” This position is simply not tenable. The end of Jim Crow segregation and the advent of the era of equal rights was transformative for blacks. And now—a half-century down the line—we still have these disparities. This is a shameful blight on our society, I agree. But the plain fact of the matter is that some considerable responsibility for this sorry state of affairs lies with black people ourselves. Dare we Americans acknowledge this?

Glenn Loury

https://quillette.com/2021/02/10/unspeakable-truths-about-racial-inequality-in-america/

 

I see Glenn Loury has now replaced Thomas Sowell. I was wondering what yall were gonna do when he passed. 

[David Dennison 18658]

2 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Nor does anybody actually believe that 70 percent of African American babies being born to a woman without a husband is (1) a good thing or (2) due to anti-black racism. People say this, but they don’t believe it. They are bluffing—daring you to observe that the 21st-century failures of African Americans to take full advantage of the opportunities created by the 20th century’s revolution of civil rights are palpable and damning. These failures are being denied at every turn, and these denials are sustained by a threat to “cancel” dissenters for being “racists.” This position is simply not tenable. The end of Jim Crow segregation and the advent of the era of equal rights was transformative for blacks. And now—a half-century down the line—we still have these disparities. This is a shameful blight on our society, I agree. But the plain fact of the matter is that some considerable responsibility for this sorry state of affairs lies with black people ourselves. Dare we Americans acknowledge this?

Glenn Loury

https://quillette.com/2021/02/10/unspeakable-truths-about-racial-inequality-in-america/

 

Why do the disparities exist?

[fattyflattie 4636]

Yes. You solve poverty by giving poor people money.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tantric superman 4667]

27 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Why do disparities between black and white exist in the United States?

How the hell does ChickenSandwich know why disparities exist, he doesn't even know how a can opener works?

 

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

50 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

The first unspeakable truth: Downplaying behavioral disparities by race is actually a “bluff”

Socially mediated behavioral issues lie at the root of today’s racial inequality problem. They are real and must be faced squarely if we are to grasp why racial disparities persist. This is a painful necessity. Activists on the Left of American politics claim that “white supremacy,” “implicit bias,” and old-fashioned “anti-black racism” are sufficient to account for black disadvantage. But this is a bluff that relies on “cancel culture” to be sustained. Those making such arguments are, in effect, daring you to disagree with them. They are threatening to “cancel” you if you do not accept their account: You must be a “racist”; you must believe something is intrinsically wrong with black people if you do not attribute pathological behavior among them to systemic injustice. You must think blacks are inferior, for how else could one explain the disparities? “Blaming the victim” is the offense they will convict you of, if you’re lucky.

I claim this is a dare; a debater’s trick. Because, at the end of the day, what are those folks saying when they declare that “mass incarceration” is “racism”—that the high number of blacks in jails is, self-evidently, a sign of racial antipathy? To respond, “No. It’s mainly a sign of anti-social behavior by criminals who happen to be black,” one risks being dismissed as a moral reprobate. This is so, even if the speaker is black. Just ask Justice Clarence Thomas. Nobody wants to be cancelled.

But we should all want to stay in touch with reality. Common sense and much evidence suggest that, on the whole, people are not being arrested, convicted, and sentenced because of their race. Those in prison are, in the main, those who have broken the law—who have hurt others, or stolen things, or otherwise violated the basic behavioral norms which make civil society possible. Seeing prisons as a racist conspiracy to confine black people is an absurd proposition. No serious person could believe it. Not really. Indeed, it is self-evident that those taking lives on the streets of St. Louis, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Chicago are, to a man, behaving despicably. Moreover, those bearing the cost of such pathology, almost exclusively, are other blacks. An ideology that ascribes this violent behavior to racism is laughable. Of course, this is an unspeakable truth—but no writer or social critic, of whatever race, should be cancelled for saying so.
 

Glenn Loury

The fact that he never attempts to resolve the question of why such a disparate group of people, living in different geographies, whose only commonalities are a shared history of oppression would exhibit a similar set behaviors tells me he has no interest in finding a reason beyond the surface of his own political dogma.  Do they all share the same brain? Are they all fervent subscribers of victimology? Or are there other factors at play that they're responding to? Do we have any behavioral science available that engages on this topic? How bout sciences like behavioral economics? Is there any available data on criminogenic risk factors that helps to distill these issues? Or is it just a simple matter of the serendipity that results when one attempts to explain any and all human conditions by the specific tenets that align with a certain political orthodoxy? 

Edited February 28, 2021 by Catdaddyhorn

[YChang 3430]

1 hour ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Asians are said, sardonically, according to the politically correct script, to be a “model minority.” Well, as a matter of fact, a pretty compelling case can be made that “culture” is critical to their success. Read Jennifer Lee and Min Zhou’s book, The Asian American Achievement Paradox. They have interviewed Asian families in Southern California, trying to learn how these kids get into Dartmouth and Columbia and Cornell with such high rates. They find that these families exhibit cultural patterns, embrace values, adopt practices, engage in behavior, and follow disciplines that orient them in such a way as to facilitate the achievements of their children. It defies common sense, as well as the evidence, to assert that they do not or, conversely, to assert that the paucity of African Americans performing near the top of the intellectual spectrum—I am talking here about academic excellence, and about the low relative numbers of blacks who exhibit it—has nothing to do with the behavior of black people; that this outcome is due to institutional forces alone. That, quite frankly, is an absurdity. No serious person could believe it.”

 

Speaking as a first gen Chinese American, fuck the model minority myth. Are there cultural factors and family dynamics at play? Hell yes. It CAN be a good thing. But like with anything in life, there's also a flip side to what's seen as a strong suit. It's also the same cultural dynamics that tells us to go work hard and keep our mouths shut when we see injustices or just work harder, so what if there's inequalities out there.

 

Also the myth let's people (capital P, not you) apply a blanket assumption about expected behaviors from Asians. 

Edited February 28, 2021 by YChang

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Yes N0. You don't solve poverty by giving poor people money.

Sorry, but you're just friggin' wrong, and the reasons why should be obvious, but You won't see them. It's a similar concept to the super star, college athlete who comes from a poor family makes millions in the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL only to be broke before he even leaves the league.  Lack of education typically is one of the root causes of that issue.  All of those leagues have in house financial advisors for kids who all of a sudden have money, and are there to teach/guide them on how to handle it.

 

[Asithappens 974]

I'm an NPR fan (and also listen to it too much) and find it annoying that the amount of "hard" news is often times eclipsed by stories on gay/trans/colored minorities, or should that be "minorities of color"? 

I recall some NPR show (can't remember which one) which talked about another show that wanted to increase NPR's exposure to, iirc, blacks. But the problem was that very few blacks then listened to that show. I'm not saying that NPR needs to be all white/straight/male all the time, but I would like more detailed stories on foreign policy, economics, etc. And by that I mean more stories on Morning Edition and ATC.

[TwiceHorn 31280]

5 hours ago, David Dennison said:

That general idiocracy is rooted in racism.

I believe there is a high correlation between idiocracy and racism, but racism is not a root cause of it.  Stupid comes first every time.

[956 Worldwide 34443]

On 2/28/2021 at 1:25 PM, Catdaddyhorn said:

There are structural differences between white poverty and black poverty in terms of how isolated from greater society one group is compared to the other. And that difference has a tremendous impact in the social mobility of poor blacks. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/12/black-poverty-differs-from-white-poverty/

The poverty that poor African Americans experience is often different from the poverty of poor whites. It's more isolating and concentrated. It extends out the door of a family's home and occupies the entire neighborhood around it, touching the streets, the schools, the grocery stores.

A poor black family, in short, is much more likely than a poor white one to live in a neighborhood where many other families are poor, too, creating what sociologists call the "double burden" of poverty. The difference is stark in most major metropolitan areas, according to recent data analyzed by Rutgers University's Paul Jargowsky in a new report for the Century Foundation.

In five-year American Community Survey data from 2009-2013, more than a third of all poor African Americans in metropolitan Chicago live in high-poverty census tracts (where the poverty rate is above 40 percent). That number has gotten worse since 2000. And it's about 10 times higher than for poor whites.

In St. Louis, 29.5 percent of poor African Americans live in concentrated poverty. Among poor whites, just 1.6 percent do. Poor whites, in most major metropolitan areas, are spread out. Poor African Americans are not:

This data point — the share of poor people living in deeply poor places — gets at an important element of poverty that's obscured by citywide poverty rates. "The concentration of poverty is really about the spatial organization of poverty," Jargowsky writes. It captures how we've designed communities to pen poverty in, restricting many poor African Americans in particular to a limited number of neighborhoods

 

"The term ‘concentration’ does in some way suggest that poor people are moving from all over the place into these neighborhoods, and they become teeming slums like at the turn of the century," Jargowsky says. "But it’s actually the opposite: People are moving out to the older suburbs, and people in the older suburbs are moving to the newer suburbs."

Concentrated poverty is getting worse because poor people — especially poor African Americans — are increasingly left behind. And a number of forces drive this pattern, including systemic discrimination, policies that have historically concentrated public housing and modern zoning laws that keep the poor out of wealthier communities.

There's also a psychological element that comes into play when people live in such a highly dense concentration of impoverishment. The scarcity mindset is much more prevalent in these conditions as opposed to rural poverty where the fact that you're living amongst other poor isn't as readily apparent and thus doesn't provoke the same sense of desperation. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/24/poor-whites-live-in-richer-neighborhoods-than-middle-class-blacks-and-latinos/

Poor whites tend to live in more affluent neighborhoods than do middle- class blacks and Latinos, a situation that leaves those minorities more likely to contend with weaker schools, higher crime and greater social problems, according to a new study.

The new research by scholars at the Stanford Graduate School of Education found that the gap separating black and Hispanic neighborhoods from white ones persists up and down the income ladder. A black household with an annual income of $50,000 lives on average in a neighborhood where the median income is under $43,000. But whites with the same income live in neighborhoods where the median income is almost $53,000—about 25 percent higher.

Meanwhile, white families with an annual income of just $13,000 on average live in neighborhoods where the median income is $45,000—slightly higher than the precincts occupied by middle-class blacks and just below that of middle-class Hispanics. The same dynamic holds for households that making $100,000 annually.

 

I don't question the numbers around these analysis, but I think the jump of "rural poverty does not cause the same type of desperation that urban poverty does" is just that.  A jump.  I think there's plenty of alternative evidence (like the exploding levels of addiction) that show that folks living in "The Big White Ghetto" are experiencing plenty of desperation.  All of the following things can be simultaneously true: 

1. Poverty disproportionally effects members of certain minority racial/ethnic groups in the United States

2. Members of certain minority racial/ethnic groups in the United States face additional structural and institutional barriers that makes climbing out of  poverty more difficult for them, and makes their position relatively more precarious once they have emerged from poverty.

3.  There are huge numbers of poverty-stricken white people who also face serious challenges to climbing out of poverty and who suffer from the associated social ills that accompany poverty. 

99 percent of poverty in this country is caused by racial/ethnic discrimination? No way.  Not even close.  

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

52 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I don't question the numbers around these analysis, but I think the jump of "rural poverty does not cause the same type of desperation that urban poverty does" is just that.  A jump.  I think there's plenty of alternative evidence (like the exploding levels of addiction) that show that folks living in "The Big White Ghetto" are experiencing plenty of desperation.  All of the following things can be simultaneously true: 

1. Poverty disproportionally effects members of certain minority racial/ethnic groups in the United States

2. Members of certain minority racial/ethnic groups in the United States face additional structural and institutional barriers that makes climbing out of  poverty more difficult for them, and makes their position relatively more precarious once they have emerged from poverty.

3.  There are huge numbers of poverty-stricken white people who also face serious challenges to climbing out of poverty and who suffer from the associated social ills that accompany poverty. 

99 percent of poverty in this country is caused by racial/ethnic discrimination? No way.  Not even close.  

Obviously, poverty in general causes despair and desperation. No one's arguing that it doesn't. My point was to distill some of the differences between the two. Simply put, there's an elevated sense of insecurity and mistrust for your fellow man one feels when they are 1) impoverished and 2) packed into a small area like sardines with other similarly situated people. Let's eliminate the 1st condition and just look at the differences between the general social interactions between people in a rural area vs a densely populated area. Distrust is a heightened character trait for people in the more densely populated areas regardless of their socio-economic status. Why would it be wrong to think that the additional factor of poverty isn't an extra strain on that distrust? Go to any country in the world and crime tracks with increased population density, especially in impoverished areas. That added component of the constant fear of bodily harm is an extra psychological trauma unto itself. I don't think it's wrong for me to suggest that there's a difference in the affect on the population when one suffers from both the disease of poverty and they're in a densely populated area vs one that doesn't have that second issue to contend with. Maybe there's another word than desperation to describe this social condition.  Maybe it's just the difference in potential confrontations due to added population I don't know, but there is a difference. 

Edited March 1, 2021 by Catdaddyhorn

[TwiceHorn 31280]

14 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Obviously, poverty in general causes despair and desperation. No one's arguing that it doesn't. My point was to distill some of the differences between the two. Simply put, there's an elevated sense of insecurity and mistrust for your fellow man one feels when they are 1) impoverished and 2) packed into a small area like sardines with other similarly situated people. Let's eliminate the 1st condition and just look at the differences between the general social interactions between people in a rural area vs a densely populated area. Distrust is a heightened character trait for people in the more densely populated areas regardless of their socio-economic status. Why would it be wrong to think that the additional factor of poverty isn't an extra strain on that distrust? Go to any country in the world and crime tracks with increased population density, especially in impoverished areas. That added component of the constant fear of bodily harm is an extra psychological trauma unto itself. I don't think it's wrong for me to suggest that there's a difference in the affect on the population when one suffers from both the disease of poverty and they're in a densely populated area vs one that doesn't have that second issue to contend with. Maybe there's another word than desperation to describe this social condition.  Maybe it's just the difference in potential confrontations due to added population I don't know, but there is a difference. 

A phenomenon that has been pointed out that may be more of a correlation than anything else is that the "black ghettos" that were destroyed in favor of subsidized housing had a greater sense of community and were by and large safer neighborhoods than the projects that replaced them.

I have little doubt that the environment in which poverty exists -- pockets among relative affluence or for as far as the eye can see -- influences the ability to escape it, and the level of community support.  I might think that rural poverty at one time was a more favorable condition than urban, but that is probably converging at this point.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A phenomenon that has been pointed out that may be more of a correlation than anything else is that the "black ghettos" that were destroyed in favor of subsidized housing had a greater sense of community and were by and large safer neighborhoods than the projects that replaced them.

I have little doubt that the environment in which poverty exists -- pockets among relative affluence or for as far as the eye can see -- influences the ability to escape it, and the level of community support.  I might think that rural poverty at one time was a more favorable condition than urban, but that is probably converging at this point.

Cabrini Green was the perfect example of attempts at social engineering that created more issues than it ever solved (PRO TIP:  It didn't solve shit, but made a bunch of social warriors feel good about themselves).  Those failed high density, no privacy, no green space, tower developments also go hand in hand with the great society, and its failures to do much of anything to attempted.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Onboard 2.0

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

11 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Cabrini Green was the perfect example of attempts at social engineering that created more issues than it ever solved (PRO TIP:  It didn't solve shit, but made a bunch of social warriors feel good about themselves).  Those failed high density, no privacy, no green space, tower developments also go hand in hand with the great society, and its failures to do much of anything to attempted.

The day conservatives begin using terms like social engineering to describe the racist policies that caused the problems to begin with will be the day that I might actually believe their takes are made in good faith. 

Edited March 1, 2021 by Catdaddyhorn

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

The day conservatives begin using terms like social engineering to describe the racist policies that caused the problems to begin with will be the day that I might actually believe their takes are made in good faith. 

Well.... it's your lucky day then, because I'm doing it right now.   Racisms roots have nothing to do with which party or political philosophy one ascribes to.  Racism comes from racists who inhabited/inhabit both sides of the political spectrum, and all parts of the country, in every walk of life, and socio economic position. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Catdaddy's posts are very good and cool.

[bad_teammate 13132]

17 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Sorry, but you're just friggin' wrong, and the reasons why should be obvious, but You won't see them. It's a similar concept to the super star, college athlete who comes from a poor family makes millions in the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL only to be broke before he even leaves the league.  Lack of education typically is one of the root causes of that issue.  All of those leagues have in house financial advisors for kids who all of a sudden have money, and are there to teach/guide them on how to handle it.

If only there was some kind of option other than A - Do Nothing and B - Hand Black Americans Million-Dollar Checks.

[956 Worldwide 34443]

58 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Obviously, poverty in general causes despair and desperation. No one's arguing that it doesn't. My point was to distill some of the differences between the two. Simply put, there's an elevated sense of insecurity and mistrust for your fellow man one feels when they are 1) impoverished and 2) packed into a small area like sardines with other similarly situated people. Let's eliminate the 1st condition and just look at the differences between the general social interactions between people in a rural area vs a densely populated area. Distrust is a heightened character trait for people in the more densely populated areas regardless of their socio-economic status. Why would it be wrong to think that the additional factor of poverty isn't an extra strain on that distrust? Go to any country in the world and crime tracks with increased population density, especially in impoverished areas. That added component of the constant fear of bodily harm is an extra psychological trauma unto itself. I don't think it's wrong for me to suggest that there's a difference in the affect on the population when one suffers from both the disease of poverty and they're in a densely populated area vs one that doesn't have that second issue to contend with. Maybe there's another word than desperation to describe this social condition.  Maybe it's just the difference in potential confrontations due to added population I don't know, but there is a difference. 

For the past several years, there have been marked increases in rural crime and violent crime rates, particularly in areas where incomes are depressed and there's high jobless rates.  In 2018, rural violent crime rates spiked above the national average (as well as incarceration rates) while at the same time a lot of major metro areas are below the national average.  Add in the opioid and meth epidemic, dwindling police budgets as the tax base hollows out, and lower levels of mental health support--- and what you see in a lot of what is rural white America would be called 'urban blight' elsewhere.  (And yeah-- it's racist to talk about what is happening in these places as a 'public health crisis' but calling it 'urban blight' where the people are minorities.  But maybe the solution is to talk about all of it as a public health and economic crisis?) 

 

This will obviously be different when you plunge into a neighborhood level analysis-- but it's still worth pointing out.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

If only there was some kind of option other than A - Do Nothing and B - Hand Black Americans Million-Dollar Checks.

There are, but lots of posters here have blatantly said just throw more money at the issue, which will do nothing but kick the can further down the road. I see typical issues in our own city.

We have a democratic mayor who wants to spend hundreds of millions on a new sports arena while the city school buildings are literally falling down on kids heads, administrators are paid the highest salaries in the state, and the graduation rate is less than 76%.  I've said it so many times on this site, education is THE path from poverty, but requires that families be bought into the issue.

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

7 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

For the past several years, there have been marked increases in rural crime and violent crime rates, particularly in areas where incomes are depressed and there's high jobless rates.  In 2018, rural violent crime rates spiked above the national average (as well as incarceration rates) while at the same time a lot of major metro areas are below the national average.  Add in the opioid and meth epidemic, dwindling police budgets as the tax base hollows out, and lower levels of mental health support--- and what you see in a lot of what is rural white America would be called 'urban blight' elsewhere.  (And yeah-- it's racist to talk about what is happening in these places as a 'public health crisis' but calling it 'urban blight' where the people are minorities.  But maybe the solution is to talk about all of it as a public health and economic crisis?) 

 

This will obviously be different when you plunge into a neighborhood level analysis-- but it's still worth pointing out.

You're correct and it's a stark indicator of how severe the poverty levels have become in rural areas over the last decade plus. Don't mistake my historical view on this topic for an acute analysis on what's happening now. Things have changed drastically in the last 10 to 15 years. 

Edited March 1, 2021 by Catdaddyhorn

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

There are, but lots of posters here have blatantly said just throw more money at the issue, which will do nothing but kick the can further down the road. I see typical issues in our own city.

I am one of those posters. We should just give poor people money directly.

Quote

We have a democratic mayor who wants to spend hundreds of millions on a new sports arena while the city school buildings are literally falling down on kids heads, administrators are paid the highest salaries in the state, and the graduation rate is less than 76%.  I've said it so many times on this site, education is THE path from poverty, but requires that families be bought into the issue.

So you want to throw money at the problem by increasing funding for education?

Education only matters if there's a clear path to a good-paying job. And education can only be successful if the home life of the student is financially secure. We have to guarantee both of those things.

[Nivek 16859]

There are, but lots of posters here have blatantly said just throw more money at the issue, which will do nothing but kick the can further down the road. I see typical issues in our own city.
We have a democratic mayor who wants to spend hundreds of millions on a new sports arena while the city school buildings are literally falling down on kids heads, administrators are paid the highest salaries in the state, and the graduation rate is less than 76%.  I've said it so many times on this site, education is THE path from poverty, but requires that families be bought into the issue.

Blaming teachers and parents is a simple easy target. I think my kids teachers are great, they work hard, but sometimes are not put into the best position to succeed. I believe the administrators try their best, but they are working within a system that has some flaws, including lack of resources/materials.

[tantric superman 4667]

48 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

There are, but lots of posters here have blatantly said just throw more money at the issue

The problem is that "throw money at an issue" is just a loaded, and unhelpful phrase.

If you mean spending stupidly on ineffectual programs, sure, that applies to everything.  Literally every financial exchange in the world.

I throw money at grocery stores to feed my children.  If I buy healthy food, I am still "throwing money" at the grocery store, but I'm not throwing it in the same way I would if I bought nothing but Ramen and coca-cola.

If we are doing to improve anything, we are almost certainly going to throw some money at it.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

15 minutes ago, Nivek said:

 

 

Blaming teachers and parents is a simple easy target. I think my kids teachers are great, they work hard, but sometimes are not put into the best position to succeed. I believe the administrators try their best, but they are working within a system that has some flaws, including lack of resources/materials.

 

 

Blaming teachers ?  when did I do that ? My general comment was that education is paramount in ones life to determine potential success or failure, and yeah I will blame parents as they're the ones who create the value of education in a family.  My comments about our cities specific situation was a mayor overseeing a failing school system, and valuing a sports arena over trying to improve the crumbling schools in his jurisdiction.

Having said that it's hard to push education as a parent when you're working several jobs to just cover rent and put food on the table, don't have a history of valuing education. And the system in place in many locations put minorities in horrible learning situations so it's a systemic issue as well of course.  How we break that cycle is a difficult question.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

The problem is that "throw money at an issue" is just a loaded, and unhelpful phrase.

If you mean spending stupidly on ineffectual programs, sure, that applies to everything.  Literally every financial exchange in the world.

I throw money at grocery stores to feed my children.  If I buy healthy food, I am still "throwing money" at the grocery store, but I'm not throwing it in the same way I would if I bought nothing but Ramen and coca-cola.

If we are doing to improve anything, we are almost certainly going to throw some money at it.

The comment "just give the impoverished more money" as was stated by a previous poster does nothing to help break the cycle of systemic poverty.  That is my point.