|
PiCroft posted:He blames the complex issues plaguing Black America solely on fatherless households and posited that the government should intervene somehow to encourage fathers staying with their families (which isn't a bad idea in itself).
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:The government should intervene to encourage black fathers staying with their families by not locking so many up for bullshit reasons. I agree, I was pointing out in a poorly-worded way that not having black families broken up in the first place would be ideal, such as ending the bullshit war on drugs.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:Peter Hadfield (Potholer54) is fantastic, although his focus has turned mostly to climate change idiots than creation science idiots. at least that's a better use of his time.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
PiCroft posted:He blames the complex issues plaguing Black America solely on fatherless households and posited that the government should intervene somehow to encourage fathers staying with their families (which isn't a bad idea in itself). this issue isn't as simple as portrayed - often the father is involved in the lives of children despite them being part of a "single parent" household. fathers can informally support their children (as in, not court mandated payments) or even sporadically cohabitate without being part of the household, and even an unmarried cohabitating couple may not count the father as part of the household legally. when you see stats like "X% of poor children live with single mothers" keep in mind that more often than not that means there's no legally defined nuclear family in place, not that the father is completely absent from the children's lives. i know a young couple who just had a child but because of the job market (they're both employed in low wage jobs) it made more financial sense for them to remain unmarried, so the mother could claim her child on medicare and not go into massive debt just to give birth. they plan to marry eventually once there is not a substantial financial penalty to doing so. until then, she's legally a single mom boner confessor fucked around with this message at 17:25 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Also, the US Government literally does support Fatherhood and incentivizes it @https://www.fatherhood.gov/ National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse was started in 2005, then Congress defunded it almost immediately until the Obama restarted it in 2010.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Forceholy posted:Only if the Reddit brass gave a gently caress. There are anti-hate subreddits that have been calling for the prosecution and prohibition on hate speech on Reddit for ages and they are met with silence from the administration. I don't care how many tennis players the founders marry; Their silence is advocacy for these groups. They're pretty much tacitly advocating for those people now; "bash the fash" gets you reddit's equivalent of a hell-banning for inciting violence, but then you can find actual calls for murder and shootings in all the lovely alt-right subs
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Vriess posted:Also, the US Government literally does support Fatherhood and incentivizes it @https://www.fatherhood.gov/ the federal government is large enough to act at cross purposes. HHS can set up a pro fatherhood blog and support fatherhood programs while the IRS continues to enact outdated tax policies that encourage single parenting at low incomes and the DOJ maintains programs which disproportionately incarcerate low income men
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
why do so many youtube atheists seem to understand almost nothing about what they're criticizing? Like, poo poo you would learn by reading a book or two or taking the most basic world religions course in college. especially people who use the "the bible has been rearranged and was written by humans, not god  " as a crutch, like ecumenical councils and redaction criticism weren't a thing
Low Desert Punk fucked around with this message at 19:26 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
quote is not edit
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Because contrary to popular belief, atheism does not make you smart or knowledgeable. There's a common trend among youtube "intellectuals" which is that they appear to believe that objective truth is defined by what smart people think.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
The thing about teal dear is that you know he commissioned his avatar from someone who draws furry porn. Just look at his face, that's someone who's practiced the "bored arrogance at being railed from behind by a 10-foot futa werehedgehog" look to a T. Oh I hope he drew it himself, that would reveal so much.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because contrary to popular belief, atheism does not make you smart or knowledgeable. the rational/skeptic community has always been hobbled by the mensa effect
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:the rational/skeptic community has always been hobbled by the mensa effect It's way harder to grow and learn when there's no one above you criticizing you. When you can just rant about whatever and ignore anyone who disagrees, it's easy to think you're a super-genius. After all, if you were wrong, then surely someone smart would be able to convince you that you were wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Also when there is the entire world above you criticizing you but your brain is too broke to notice.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
You mean The Cathedral 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
You guys might be overthinking this. It's easy to call yourself a rational if you are trying to debunk these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az8k0uzQ6sA Besides, do theologians have any real say in politics? Why get into all the pedantry over a being that does not exist if you can more easily debunk some idiots who's beliefs might actually affect policy. I'm doing that white knight thing again. I understand why this makes them subpar "intellectuals" but you have to argue better for why it's such a bad thing that they go for low hanging fruit. Make better roasts guys. Midig fucked around with this message at 22:00 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
The issue is that they don't spend their time trying to take down dangerous religion-proximal politicians. They spend their time using their avowed "rationality" to make peepee doodoo argument against actual academic subjects that are quite important to assisting the agency of the people the crazy religion harping politicians are often trying to oppress. They are on the wrong side, merely for a seemingly different reason.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
the whole blaming black "culture" for them getting shat on is so annoying with that poo poo about fatherless children. for one, like someone else stated we created it by decimating an entire generation of men by throwing them into prison for nothing crimes which then fucks over generation after generation after generation. for two, as boner confessor pointed out just saying a child is raised by a single mother is misleading - in fact, if i remember correctly black unmarried fathers are part of the day to day upbringing of their children more than any other racial group in that category. none of these people ever look down to root causes it's always looking at the very surface and declaring that the reason.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:if i remember correctly black unmarried fathers are part of the day to day upbringing of their children more than any other racial group in that category. i remember that too but i can't find the study. it wasn't like excessively higher than other groups but by and large across the board about 60% of "fatherless" children had their biological fathers involved in their lives somehow the problem is middle class rules of propriety being applied to the poor. if you're middle class you date around, maybe you have a whoopsie abortion or two, eventually you settle down with a partner you choose and you decide to have 1.5 kids if you're poor you dont generally have those options. the boyfriend you had at age 20 is the guy who comes around to take his kids to basketball practice at age 29, but he's not like your husband or anything. in fact a number of poor women who have kids from multiple fathers say their biggest motivating factor for remaining single is because they haven't found a man they've wanted to marry yet, and stay married to. middle class people can much more easily duck the responsibilities of the "wild oats" phase of slutting around that pretty much every young adult does in our secular society, but if you're a poor woman trying to do the right thing by raising two kids with different dads suddenly you're a villain who should be punished for being irresponsible. as we slowly restrict access to reproductive care and abortions from the poor we're basically criminalizing sexual behavior for people of low incomes
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i remember that too but i can't find the study. it wasn't like excessively higher than other groups but by and large across the board about 60% of "fatherless" children had their biological fathers involved in their lives somehow https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr071.pdf Here you go.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i remember that too but i can't find the study. it wasn't like excessively higher than other groups but by and large across the board about 60% of "fatherless" children had their biological fathers involved in their lives somehow I'm looking for the study - it's a comparison between different racial/ethnic groups? I have this one comparing different groups of Black fathers, their relationship to the criminal justice system and their fatherhood involvement: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10522158.2017.1283653 Maybe it's this one? https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9140/a75bcccc5b4c00a0f1b077a56597130ae983.pdf Oh, right above me, thank you! That's the same study in the second I posted as well. WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 23:28 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Low Desert Punk posted:why do so many youtube atheists seem to understand almost nothing about what they're criticizing? Like, poo poo you would learn by reading a book or two or taking the most basic world religions course in college. Some Christian's, primarily Evangelicals, believe the Bible to be divinely inspired and directly from the mind of a perfect god. The need for revision and change implies imperfection. Obviously this criticism only applies to a specific kind of Christian theist and it's usually used in an overly broad manner, but there are times when it's valid.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:the whole blaming black "culture" for them getting shat on is so annoying with that poo poo about fatherless children. for one, like someone else stated we created it by decimating an entire generation of men by throwing them into prison for nothing crimes which then fucks over generation after generation after generation. for two, as boner confessor pointed out just saying a child is raised by a single mother is misleading - in fact, if i remember correctly black unmarried fathers are part of the day to day upbringing of their children more than any other racial group in that category. I haven't watched many of these but a lot of them just seem to be grasping for excuses to back up prejudices whilst being blind or downplaying systemic flaws that contribute. It's easy to say most black men are criminals because it's on the news, there's so many black gangsters in TV/film and look at these incarceration rates. Then there's no scrutiny into the effects of poverty, the quality of the education system, racism in law enforcement which I imagine is from a belief in meritocracy/"my own life is difficult but I'm not a criminal".
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
that's exactly it. i got into it once with a few sargon acolytes after i mocked him in some twitter thread (keep in mind one of these guys mockingly retweeted me telling him scientific racism has been a joke since before his parents were born). they're effective with ignorant people because they often use real statistics but don't give you the whole picture. one of those dudes linked how even correcting for income level, black students score poorer on the SATs than their white counterparts. not even getting into whether there would be prejudice in the school system in terms of attention between black and white students, they probably don't know or purposely left out that a black family making 100k is more likely than not living among white families making 30k. so they aren't going to the same schools as their income equals - they're going to much shittier schools in comparison. it's like how conspiracy theories flourish - you give someone who isn't that well read on that particular subject some statistic or fact but don't give it the full context. also those dudes are the biggest snowflakes ever, every one of them blocks me.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
It's fun to see their reactions when a respectable study shows the opposite, like the UK study that working class white boys are the worst performing in education at age 16. It's never to look at the performance of upper-middle class white boys and consider an economic factor, and it's definitely never to pull the same poo poo as they would were it girls or the 'race realism' if it were any other ethnic group and claim that there was some biological or genetic factor in the bad performance of white males. Nope, this time around it's definitely the feminist anti-white reverse racist Cultural Marxists who are to blame. But just this time.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
The "funny" thing is that all the complaints about black people performing worse due to "personal responsibility", if taken to their logical conclusion, are essentially claims that black people are genetically inferior to whites. Because if you deny that their outcomes are the result of the environments and conditions imposed on them historically, literally the only other possible conclusion is "they're naturally worse" which equates to "because they're genetically inferior." Like, the only two options here are "they behave a certain way due to being exposed to different conditions than whites" or "they behave in a certain way because they are literally genetically predisposed to do so"; there's no third option. I don't know if a lot of the people saying this sort of stuff even realize what their opinions directly imply. There isn't really any grey area between a literal Nazi "some races are inherently inferior to others" view and acknowledging that different outcomes are the result of people being exposed to different circumstances outside of their control.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Midig posted:Besides, do theologians have any real say in politics? Why get into all the pedantry over a being that does not exist if you can more easily debunk some idiots who's beliefs might actually affect policy. Are you loving kidding me with this? Look at the number of abortion clinics closing in red states and come back here and claim that theologians don't have any say in politics.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Are you loving kidding me with this? I mean depending on what you define as "theology" that still isn't necessarily the case. Like I would tend to view stuff like abortion as being primarily an issue of ill-defined "traditionalism", a desire to control others, a desire to punish the "undeserving". It's something you see throughout a lot of politics even in areas that are kind of divorced from any obvious religious affiliation. Obviously abortion specifically is very tied up with religion but it so closely follows the same trend that I rather doubt you would see it cease to be taboo even if you lived in a substantially less religious society. You see the same thing in people who want punitive justice, in people who want to dismantle welfare, in people who hate immigration. The running theme is that people want people who aren't them to suffer. I'm inclined to think they derive some kind of quasi-sexual gratification from it from the way they go on about it, but whatever the reason is the trend seems pretty noticeable. I suppose I would tend to view that form of religion as largely a symptom of a political problem, rather than the other way around. Politics having a say in theology, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I don't know if a lot of the people saying this sort of stuff even realize what their opinions directly imply. There isn't really any grey area between a literal Nazi "some races are inherently inferior to others" view and acknowledging that different outcomes are the result of people being exposed to different circumstances outside of their control. Plenty of people do actually think that black people are genetically inferior, they just see it as facts and not racism, because racists are bad people and they can't possibly be a bad person
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
Low Desert Punk posted:Plenty of people do actually think that black people are genetically inferior, they just see it as facts and not racism, because racists are bad people and they can't possibly be a bad person Aka. the "I call it like I see it" defence.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Are you loving kidding me with this? You seem to conflate normal believers and people who actually understand the Bible (theologians, historians, philosophers). There are way more believers and we live in a democracy where politicians make policy to appeal to their constituency. Public opinion has way more sway in politics than intellectual arguments behind the scenes. Low hanging fruit has way more companions on the same branch. Appealing to genuine intellectuals is overrated. Midig fucked around with this message at 20:19 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
it's a good thing trump did away with the johnson amendment.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Generally, these guys never made videos debunking creationism to convince creationists of the error of their ways. They made videos debunking and mocking creationism so other atheists would pat them on the back and tell them how great they were for exposing the lies of creationism. They were always losers looking for a circle-jerk to tell them how much better they are than other people. So the leap from easy targets like creationists to harder but much more widely hated targets like feminists, non-whites, trans people, etc was pretty straight forward. This is a bit of an over simplification, of course, but I think it gets to the crux of why so many of these types were part of internet atheist/rationalist/skeptic communities before they went completely off the deep end. A lot of their personal interest in those communities was the ego stroke they got from being apart of them. That is not to say they are faking it, they were probably racist/sexist/whateverist before it just didn't become a focus of their identity and youtube projects till they found out it was an easy way to get validation and money. For example: I think Thunderf00t was genuinely shocked to discover people actually believed sexual harassment was a real issue but now hating feminism and the like has basically become his entire world view and way of earning a living.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I don't know if a lot of the people saying this sort of stuff even realize what their opinions directly imply. There isn't really any grey area between a literal Nazi "some races are inherently inferior to others" view and acknowledging that different outcomes are the result of people being exposed to different circumstances outside of their control. I would say there is a difference between judging a person based on their color and wanting to literately exterminate races because they are a sickness of the societal organism. I think the problem with trying to remove ideas of personal responsibility from actions is that it leads to a situation where you cannot really blame anyone for anything. Racist white hicks voting Trump? Their situation and opinions are formed by society, so are they also free from personal responsibility from where they are? I can accept that, but i think most people wouldn't...
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
White Rock posted:I would say there is a difference between judging a person based on their color and wanting to literately exterminate races because they are a sickness of the societal organism. Nobody is talking about removing the concept of personal responsibility from literally every situation, so I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
White Rock posted:I would say there is a difference between judging a person based on their color and wanting to literately exterminate races because they are a sickness of the societal organism. I was referring specifically to the Nazi view that different races differ genetically in some way that makes them behave differently or be less intelligent. On an individual level I would agree that it makes sense to hold people accountable for the bad things they specifically do, but on a societal level I would actually say that it makes no sense to just assume that (for example) Trump's election is the result of a bunch of people spontaneously becoming more evil or whatever. There are reasons trends happen at the level of large populations, and if you want those trends to change you have to change the circumstances that lead to them. If you see a difference between two large populations of people, the only two possible reasons are 1. the populations are literally biologically different, which influences their behavior or 2. environment/conditions lead to the difference in behavior. So if someone denies the latter they're directly implying the former. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:47 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
What's some entertaining critical videos apart from Hbomberguy?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faefeilGwrQ e: it just ended but my god Pittsburgh Lambic fucked around with this message at 03:10 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
lol, loving hell e: "We like Christina Hoff Sommers" yeah, no poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
I wonder what the lack of editorial control will lead Milo to do now that he's out of Breitbart and has been made an even greater martyr-darling to the idiot right. Pretty nice gothic lettering on that Milo logo at the event there. Quite teutonic. Not at all suspiciously reminiscent of a famously national socialist typesetting during a certain time period.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 09:25
|
|
