Black crime rates.

[Colorforms]

The claim you made was about how the US poor compared to other countries. The link provided no evidence on that subject, and didn't, in fact, mention any other countries in any way. Try to think clearly.

Ask and ye shall receive:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/08/how-poor-are-americas-poor-examining-the-plague-of-poverty-in-america

American poor are far better off than in almost every other country.

 

[marvin martian]

As I said, if there's something particularly screwed up about the American character, why is that? What went wrong here, exactly, that didn't go wrong in all those many other countries that have much fewer crimes than us? Remember, the median murder rate in OECD countries is barely over 1/5 of what we have here. I can point to all sorts of policy differences between the US and what is usual in other OECD nations (other than fellow murderous outlier Mexico), and I suppose our poor character might result from those policy differences. But I'm curious what your theory is.

I like how you're finally forthcoming about your socialist/collectivist views through your now constant use of the term OECD. It's more honesty than I've come to expect from progreSSives...

 

[Arkady]

You can't even recognize that the flat billed baseball hat, baggy tops, and the pants waistline below the underwear is an exercise in infantilizing oneself. These are grown ass men pretending they are wearing an older brother's hand me downs. What do you think by now this subliminal brainwashing is doing to creating opportunities. See exhibit 1 below of the Brown family demanding to 'burn this bitch' down. Note a grown man's ass hanging out like a child's. And in fact acting like one. You're clueless.

I'll leave the fashion criticism to others. As I said, I'm just not that shallow. I prefer to focus on substance.

 

[Arkady]

Ask and ye shall receive:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/08/how-poor-are-americas-poor-examining-the-plague-of-poverty-in-america

American poor are far better off than in almost every other country.

That's more on topic, and more interesting. Certainly the poor of America are better off than most third-worlders. That's not typically the standard I judge against, though. It strikes me a bit like saying "the Raiders are a good football team compared to Division III college squads." What I'd like to have a better idea about, in examining the question at hand (why the US underclass has such high crime rates compared to the underclass in other wealthy nations), is how the US underclass compares to the underclass of other wealthy nations in terms of various indicators of well-being. I'd expect (based on the Heritage numbers and prior readings) that the US poor rates well in average housing space. However, that's just one factor and not a terribly interesting one (mostly just reflective of the degree of urbanization). I'd be more interested in nutrition, health, education, personal safety, etc.

 

[Arkady]

I like how you're finally forthcoming about your socialist/collectivist views through your now constant use of the term OECD. It's more honesty than I've come to expect from progreSSives...

Were you unfamiliar with the OECD? This has nothing to do with socialism or collectivism. It's simply a collection of 34 of the most economically developed countries, for which we have good data for making comparisons of this sort. There's nothing remotely new about me referencing OECD data. Here's an example from July 2012:

https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/the-budgetary-habits-of-fiscally-responsible-nations.31644/#post-451786

 

[marvin martian]

Were you unfamiliar with the OECD?

Obviously not, as I accurately identified it for what it is.

 

[Arkady]

Obviously not, as I accurately identified it for what it is.

Actually, your apparent unfamiliarity with what it is was what made me ask. You seem to be under some sort of a delusion that it's some sort of socialist/collectivist group.

 

[marvin martian]

Actually, your apparent unfamiliarity with what it is was what made me ask. You seem to be under some sort of a delusion that it's some sort of socialist/collectivist group.

It is, in the same mold as the UN. From your perspective deep, deep inside the collectivist mindset, I can understand how you misperceived it. No problem...

 

[fairsheet]

It's not about whether my perspective makes me feel good or bad. It's about whether it's consistent with the real-world evidence. It is. The contrary idea, which your rhetoric tried to put on even footing, is inconsistent with the real-world evidence. It may make you feel like a level-headed non-partisan to treat truth and lies as both worthy of the same regard, but it does nothing to advance our understanding of the issues. There's something going on, and our goal should be to figure out what it is, rather than to urge people to treat the competing explanations as equally valid.



The aesthetics of fashion choices don't interest me terribly much. I'm just not a very shallow person. If a guy wants to wear his trousers up around his nipples, or hang them low at the hips, it's all the same to me. In the present context, it's simply immaterial. What we're suffering from, right now, is a shortage of opportunity, and although a kid who wears his waist wherever tight-ass old white guys think it should be worn may have a competitive edge over some other kid who makes a different fashion choice, that doesn't do a damned thing to create a net increase in opportunities; it just possibly changes which of two individuals will get a job and which will get a rejection letter. If we want a net improvement, we need to focus on expanding opportunities, not self-congratulatory scolding of minorities over superficial crap like the cut of their pants.
'
You brought up the pants. If you didn't want to talk about them, you should have made some other argument. But if what you're saying is that the pants are just a broader symbol of a willingness to conform to the cultural standards of those in power, then my point is the same: yes, that may assist an individual in winning one of the very limited number of opportunities away from another individual, but it doesn't create a net increase in opportunities. That's where a serious person's focus should lie.

I'm not about presenting myself as non-partisan. I'm about presenting as practical - you know, actually making progress. A good example might be that 60 years ago, dogs and firehouses on the teevee helped to advance the cause of civil rights. Nowadays, rioting, shoplifting, and torching cars down in Ferguson, helps set the cause back. Times change.

 

[fairsheet]

Ask and ye shall receive:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/08/how-poor-are-americas-poor-examining-the-plague-of-poverty-in-america

American poor are far better off than in almost every other country.

This is certainly going to sound like it's out in left field but......The sports yakkers on the radio were talking about my Seahawk's propensity (this year) for defensive penalties. I think one of the guys had a good point. He described some of those penalties (the aggressive ones, not the stupid mental ones) as "shrinkage". Retailers, warehouses, and docks know what that is. The jock-talker's point was that a few of these penalties are simply the price the Seahawks pay, for having a good defense.

"Shrinkage" (of the stealing sort) is never acceptable under any terms or conditions. Everything should be done to push it down to a practical minimum. BUT...when we get to comparing the plight of poor Americans to the plights of others, we have to account for "shrinkage" - in terms of juxtaposing the good with the bad.

 

[Arkady]

I'm not about presenting myself as non-partisan. I'm about presenting as practical - you know, actually making progress. A good example might be that 60 years ago, dogs and firehouses on the teevee helped to advance the cause of civil rights. Nowadays, rioting, shoplifting, and torching cars down in Ferguson, helps set the cause back. Times change.

I tend to agree. But it's worth noting that only a very small share of protestors are rioters, and yet they're the ones who get the attention.

 

[Barbella]

Thanks.

It is truly sad for me to see so many women, and some men as well, who feel as if, who act as if others, are somehow "lesser" or "lower" human beings if they elect to be with their kids as they grow rather than trying to work outside the home.
As if those who go out to earn money to purchase "stuff" for the kids they will see far less of, and have less opportunity to mold, educate and influence their values in life are more "valuable" mothers or fathers.

When we were kids, we sure as hell didn't have a lot of "stuff", but we had a mother who was there when we got home from school, and we had security in our family unit of father, mother, and children. Stuff didn't matter much...

Still doesn't to me.

 

[resident_evil]

I'll leave the fashion criticism to others. As I said, I'm just not that shallow. I prefer to focus on substance.

You've just been smacked with substance and missed it. lol.

 

[Arkady]

You've just been smacked with substance and missed it. lol.

If fashion criticism is your thing, have fun with it.

 

[freyasman]

Yes, I realize you chose to emphasize the supremacy of your "argument", over that of the other. Since my point was that too many of us choose that tack, you absolutely DID affirm my point. As good as your perspective may make you feel, I don't think it helps advance the cause of the class of people we're discussing.

Put as simply as possible*, a young black man shouldn't be arrested for "sagging". On the other hand his parents, mother, or adult influences should be telling him to pull up his pants.

*Try to skip making this about pants and look for the subtext.

True story from about a week ago; several family members from nearby towns converged here for the holidays. A few members came by my place before we all headed off to a get-together, and as they came through my front door, I greeted, shook hands, and hugged them as I hadn't seen many of them in weeks or months..... and I also sternly told one niece to "Pull your pants up, girl. You look like you're on your way to Missouri to set something on fire....". About 2/3rds of those present busted out laughing, and the rest gave me that "I can't believe you said that.... " look.

 

[resident_evil]

If fashion criticism is your thing, have fun with it.

Did you pull off the finger snapping figure Z and twirl as you posted that. <snark>

 

[Arkady]

Did you pull off the finger snapping figure Z and twirl as you posted that. <snark>

Nah. I leave that to fashion critics, like those who get all flustered by trousers with waistlines they disapprove of.

 

[resident_evil]

Nah. I leave that to fashion critics, like those who get all flustered by trousers with waistlines they disapprove of.

I bet you wear skinny jeans. lol.

Infantilizing yourself goes beyond just fashion to include behavior. These are things that can be observed. I'd also bet you'd make a lousy Sherlock Holmes styled detective with your petty prejudices like these.

 

[fairsheet]

True story from about a week ago; several family members from nearby towns converged here for the holidays. A few members came by my place before we all headed off to a get-together, and as they came through my front door, I greeted, shook hands, and hugged them as I hadn't seen many of them in weeks or months..... and I also sternly told one niece to "Pull your pants up, girl. You look like you're on your way to Missouri to set something on fire....". About 2/3rds of those present busted out laughing, and the rest gave me that "I can't believe you said that.... " look.

We had to - as politely as possible - teach our son-in-law to take his cap off at the dinner table. Thankfully, he took it really well and now none of his sons wears a hat inside either! It's probably a good thing I don't live in cowboy hat country, because I'm always a little taken aback to see men my age and older, wearing their hats indoors.

 

[fairsheet]

I bet you wear skinny jeans. lol.

Infantilizing yourself goes beyond just fashion to include behavior. These are things that can be observed. I'd also bet you'd make a lousy Sherlock Holmes styled detective with your petty prejudices like these.

I try to make it less off a fashion thing than sort of a signal that these kids aren't really prepared to work. I mean, how can you work and hustle, if one hand's always tied up with holding up your pants?