Red State Violence Is Out of Control

[el3so]

The destruction of the nuclear family is another.

The nuclear family is a construct that came into being early 20C. To cling to it and to impose it as a lifestyle is short-sighted.

People can cling to whatever the fück they want IMO in a world with legal and safe birth control. Medical science marches on: fertility, gene stuff, neonatology, whatever else involves the pooping out of new humans.

English speaking countries since the 13th Century.

The 1200s? Wasn't England ruled by some king not even speaking English back then? Anglo-Normand seems like a fancy, face-saving way of saying French dialect.
Kurt is a champion of/for free speech, you want to call a spade a spade, you should.
But it's silly point to try to make, like blaming video games or "gang culture" for violent crime among black adolescents from whatever is a non-offensive term for poor background while that stuff has always been marketed at middle-class teens from households with disposable income.

[ROB]

Meh, he wants to go back to the 50s.

When women and blacks knew their place.

[Tarkan]

English speaking countries since the 13th Century.

The 1200s? Wasn't England ruled by some king not even speaking English back then? Anglo-Normand seems like a fancy, face-saving way of saying French dialect.

Surely you aren't this obtuse. But just in case.

The nuclear family was the norm in England by the 13th century. Obviously, the English spoken then is not the English spoken now. Nonetheless, that family structure was carried forward to the English colonies in America. Where it was the norm in Canada and the 13 Colonies. In other words, Seek's' assertion is total bullshit.

But it's silly point to try to make, like blaming video games or "gang culture" for violent crime among black adolescents from whatever is a non-offensive term for poor background while that stuff has always been marketed at middle-class teens from households with disposable income.

Except in gross demographic terms, it's pretty easy to demonstrate the effect of not having a father in the household does - regardless of ethnicity. Long story short, it's bad.

The biggest predictor of childhood poverty is being raised in a single mother household.

[sparrow]

^Alright. I'll bite. What does your nuclear household look like?

[Tarkan]

^Alright. I'll bite. What does your nuclear household look like?

Father, mother, kids. Dual income is fine, stay at home dad is fine, single income working father is fine.

Statistically, the best outcome for kids (at least in the US) is generated when mother and father cohabitate and raise the kids together, followed by divorced parents that have joint custody and raise the kids together, followed by single fathers with sole custody, and rounding out the bottom, single mothers with sole custody.

Now, I'm not saying women shouldn't be allowed to raise kids by themselves.

I am saying our social welfare system should be re-engineered so it doesn't incentivize single motherhood in lower income populations because there are a lot of negative secondary and tertiary effects that arise from it.

[Michael]

I read some book by some guy a few years back. It was called "The World's Most Dangerous Places." As I recall, he included the USA on the list as one of the most dangerous on the planet. Some things never change and I'm guessing it may have even moved up a notch since then.

[ROB]

"incentivise" lol

[ReptilianKittenEater]

There has always been evil on this planet

[ROB]

There has always been evil on this planet

Sure, but most have been banned leaving this board quite boring.

[el3so]

English speaking countries since the 13th Century.

Wasn't England ruled by some king not even speaking English back then? Anglo-Normand seems like a fancy, face-saving way of saying French dialect.

Surely you aren't this obtuse.

Indulge me, I am but a foreign hick from a non-English speaking country, I can't quite grasp this alien concept of people forming monogamous marital bonds and raising their own children, in my culture they just used to fuck any woman that catches your fancy and send whatever offspring originates into the wilderness to be raised by wolves. Same with that Dutch colony of New Amsterdam, they never bothered with weddings, they held a weekly orgy and had women and men live in separate villages.

Pretty fucking rich seeing how the whole CoE thing started because one of their kings wasn't allowed to get divorced by theological authorities residing in a non-English speaking country. So they started their own church, with blackjack and hookers and crap food. Oh and nuclear families.

Kids have been getting born out of some form of wedlock since time immemorial the whole planet wide, unnatural acts are of course quite natural and white people in Utah gave up polygamy later than most native Americans did.

Except in gross demographic terms, it's pretty easy to demonstrate the effect of not having a father in the household does - regardless of ethnicity. Long story short, it's bad.

My spider senses tell me you'd have a vocal opinion even or especially if the kid was getting raised by two dads or two moms, right?
Not the crime angle but some other reductionist blaming the victim argument, avoiding self-reflection.

I am saying our social welfare system should be re-engineered so it doesn't incentivize single motherhood in lower income populations because there are a lot of negative secondary and tertiary effects that arise from it.

Ah yes, "welfare queens". QED.

I don't get paid to care about crime in the USA. If I were trying to explain it, I'd look at the economic system and national history. The abundance of firearms seems more of an effect than a cause. Dunno if those are the correct terms, they are easy to mix up ;-)

[Tarkan]

English speaking countries since the 13th Century.

Wasn't England ruled by some king not even speaking English back then? Anglo-Normand seems like a fancy, face-saving way of saying French dialect.

Surely you aren't this obtuse.

Indulge me, I am but a foreign hick from a non-English speaking country, I can't quite grasp this alien concept of people forming monogamous marital bonds and raising their own children, in my culture they just used to fuck any woman that catches your fancy and send whatever offspring originates into the wilderness to be raised by wolves. Same with that Dutch colony of New Amsterdam, they never bothered with weddings, they held a weekly orgy and had women and men live in separate villages.

Pretty fucking rich seeing how the whole CoE thing started because one of their kings wasn't allowed to get divorced by theological authorities residing in a non-English speaking country. So they started their own church, with blackjack and hookers and crap food. Oh and nuclear families.

Kids have been getting born out of some form of wedlock since time immemorial the whole planet wide, unnatural acts are of course quite natural and white people in Utah gave up polygamy later than most native Americans did.

Mormon polygamy (allegedly - I'm not Mormon) started because men died early and often on the frontier, which often left women and their children destitute. Additionally, there's the life that royalty lived (with de-facto harems), and the life the average person lived. It's like Western women complaining about equality and how men have it easier than women by looking at men like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates, rather than the plumber with his hands up to his shoulders covered in shit every day.

My spider senses tell me you'd have a vocal opinion even or especially if the kid was getting raised by two dads or two moms, right?

You seem to be expressing some sort of moral outrage based on a current ideological purity test. I'm not advocating from a "conservative moral" position here. My moral position is that individual liberty is the highest value (at least in the spectrum of things we are talking about). Therefore, if people want to divorce, never marry, engage in sodomy and the lash, snort coke until their nasal bones dissolve, have 10 kids out of wedlock, whatever, that's their choice. But a society built upon social degeneracy and hedonism is probably not the healthiest society. Anecdotally, I would even say that the more choices given to women, the less healthy society gets, generation over generation (give choices, some women will choose not to have children, some women that have children will only have 1, women who do have children will delay having children until after education and career, etc, leading to demographic decline - which you see happening in Europe, Japan, South Korea, and to a lesser extent, the US). Again, from a moral perspective, women should be free to choose the life they want to live. From a societal perspective, there might be some long term negative outcomes from that freedom.

So anyway, back on your question of a kid being raised by two days or two moms. Qualitatively, the outcomes are still better than being raised by a single mom. About the only outcomes worse than being raised by a single mom are being raised by a single adoptive mom, or being raised in a group home. And for the record, I was raised by a single mom and I turned out sorta ok. I went to school with a black kid who grew up in a single mother household in the south side of Fort Worth (not a great neighborhood), and went to Harvard and is now a marketing exec in Chicago. Single motherhood isn't a death sentence, but it's an aggregate statistical category that has worse outcomes for kids than the ones that grew up in nuclear families and/or families where the father was present and active in their lives.

Not the crime angle but some other reductionist blaming the victim argument, avoiding self-reflection.

Have no idea what your point is here, but I don't think I'm victim blaming here.

Ah yes, "welfare queens". QED.

Ah yes, let's pretend that multi-generational welfare doesn't exist.

I don't get paid to care about crime in the USA. If I were trying to explain it, I'd look at the economic system and national history. The abundance of firearms seems more of an effect than a cause. Dunno if those are the correct terms, they are easy to mix up ;-)

I haven't claimed that firearms are a cause of crime.

[seektravelinfo]

This post should be retitled:

TARKAN ENUMERATES: AMERICAN BLACKS ARE BAD, AMERICAN WOMEN ARE BAD & HOW HE ONCE HAD A BLACK FRIEND


Meanwhile, I thought this was a pretty good article and btw David Brooks is a conservative:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ke/605536/

[el3so]

Mormon polygamy started because men died early and often on the frontier which often left women and their children destitute.

As opposed to all those non-Mormon men on the frontier living long lives on easy street, their women and children assured of comfy state pensions by Uncle Sugar? ;-)

My spider senses tell me you'd have a vocal opinion even or especially if the kid was getting raised by two dads or two moms, right?

You seem to be expressing some sort of moral outrage based on a current ideological purity test.

Nah, I'm too weary for morals or ideology and too messy for purity tests.
But you can't expect to throw out lobs like

Father, mother, kids. Dual income, stay at home, single income. Statistically, outcome generated when mother and father cohabitate and raise kids together, divorced parents joint custody raise kids together, single fathers sole custody, single mothers sole custody.

and not expect "But what if it's two fathers, kids or two mothers, kids, sharing one household, double income, raising the kids together?" Seeing the legal hoops and costs involved in places they are legally allowed to, odds of them providing a stable home are better than average, esp seeing how short and little it takes to get your average teen knocked up. But that's just anecdotal, dunno if anyone ran the numbers on it.

I'm not advocating from a "conservative moral" position here.
one sentence later
But a society built upon social degeneracy and hedonism is probably not the healthiest society.

Never change.

a marketing exec in Chicago.

This is were I would make a crude remark about crack-dealers contributing more to society but seeing how you are sharing personal information, I wish your friend all the best and good fortune.

some other reductionist blaming the victim argument, avoiding self-reflection.

Ah yes, "welfare queens". QED.

Ah yes, let's pretend that multi-generational welfare doesn't exist.

Guess what, it isn't limited to blacks, the USA or single moms. Even in places without state or other forms of welfare, there is generational poverty. One of the UK dudes posted something about the final safe target being poor white folks here a long time ago, it wasn't because of their skin colour but because of the skin colour of the other poor people.

The abundance of firearms seems more of an effect than a cause. Dunno if those are the correct terms, they are easy to mix up ;-)

I haven't claimed that firearms are a cause of crime.

No, I did. I posited they may be more an effect rather than a cause.
Because it would be a silly point to try to make that violent crime doesn't exist in countries outside of today's United States or in groups other than coloured adolescents or children of single parents. But dollars to donuts, it probably won't be rich people's kids doing the dirt.