Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Tonight on DCUM news, the continuing negative propaganda campaign against non-whites.
Once again there's been another reported incident of a discussion regarding race take a circuitous route right back to the same old antiquated assumptions from the Antebellum Era regarding the ethics and morals of minorities.

I haven't read any negatives about ethics and morals. I *have* read that there is an exceptionally high out-of-wedlock birth rate among blacks, and studies have long established a correlation between unwed mothers and poverty. I believe it is a key reason for the differences in success between whites (30% out-of-wedlock) and blacks (72%).

Well I don't see a whole bunch of black kids going into foster care b/c their parents have died of heroin overdoses either. Worry about yourself. I don't want my taxes dollars to go to your meth problem. How about that.

Huh? The question was raised as to why blacks, as a whole, are less successful than whites, and one element that factors in is the high out-of-wedlock rate (since it correlates with poverty). The white opioid crisis is irrelevant.

WRONG!!! from emancipation up until 1970 a Black woman was more likely to be married than a WHITE WOMAN. From emancipation until the mid 60's the out of wed lock birth rate for Blacks 10-15 percent at MOST yet yet close to 60 percent of American Blacks were stuck in Poverty according to the U.S census. Not to mention that its already been proven that a single white mom as more wealth than a Black intact family. Out of wedlock birth doesn't not explain generational poverty Slavery & Jim Crow does. Those two things while technically "ended" they were NEVER CORRECTED. Its nice you stop "cutting of my leg" but that does not make me equal someone has to give back the leg you cut off

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Tonight on DCUM news, the continuing negative propaganda campaign against non-whites.
Once again there's been another reported incident of a discussion regarding race take a circuitous route right back to the same old antiquated assumptions from the Antebellum Era regarding the ethics and morals of minorities.

I haven't read any negatives about ethics and morals. I *have* read that there is an exceptionally high out-of-wedlock birth rate among blacks, and studies have long established a correlation between unwed mothers and poverty. I believe it is a key reason for the differences in success between whites (30% out-of-wedlock) and blacks (72%).

Well I don't see a whole bunch of black kids going into foster care b/c their parents have died of heroin overdoses either. Worry about yourself. I don't want my taxes dollars to go to your meth problem. How about that.

Huh? The question was raised as to why blacks, as a whole, are less successful than whites, and one element that factors in is the high out-of-wedlock rate (since it correlates with poverty). The white opioid crisis is irrelevant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Tonight on DCUM news, the continuing negative propaganda campaign against non-whites.
Once again there's been another reported incident of a discussion regarding race take a circuitous route right back to the same old antiquated assumptions from the Antebellum Era regarding the ethics and morals of minorities.

I haven't read any negatives about ethics and morals. I *have* read that there is an exceptionally high out-of-wedlock birth rate among blacks, and studies have long established a correlation between unwed mothers and poverty. I believe it is a key reason for the differences in success between whites (30% out-of-wedlock) and blacks (72%).

Well I don't see a whole bunch of black kids going into foster care b/c their parents have died of heroin overdoses either. Worry about yourself. I don't want my taxes dollars to go to your meth problem. How about that.

America was absolutely fine prior to Affirmative Action. Only the most qualified were hired, regardless of race, gender, etc. Universities and corporations discriminate, they only hired the man st qualified. Federal, state, and local governments didn't discriminate when awarding contracts, they only awarded to the most qualified. I have no idea why Affirmative Action exists other than to discriminate against the most qualified humans on the planet, whites and Asians.

Anonymous wrote:

Tonight on DCUM news, the continuing negative propaganda campaign against non-whites.
Once again there's been another reported incident of a discussion regarding race take a circuitous route right back to the same old antiquated assumptions from the Antebellum Era regarding the ethics and morals of minorities.

I haven't read any negatives about ethics and morals. I *have* read that there is an exceptionally high out-of-wedlock birth rate among blacks, and studies have long established a correlation between unwed mothers and poverty. I believe it is a key reason for the differences in success between whites (30% out-of-wedlock) and blacks (72%).

it isn't a minority issue though. bastards happen way more often with whites than they do with jews and asians.

it's an iq/time preference/self control thing.

Tonight on DCUM news, the continuing negative propaganda campaign against non-whites.
Once again there's been another reported incident of a discussion regarding race take a circuitous route right back to the same old antiquated assumptions from the Antebellum Era regarding the ethics and morals of minorities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are skewing statistics and projecting racism.

First of all, it's true that 40% of all births are out-of-wedlock, but the average is brought up by the very high rate among blacks - at close to 75%. Looking at just whites, it's 29%.

Second, where did I ever say that higher out-of-birthrate assumes lesser values and intelligence?? I said that a higher out-of-birthrate is correlated strongly with poverty, higher crime, and poorer educational attainment (both for the single mother and the children.) I never even mentioned intelligence as a factor. I did say that a high out-of-birthrate is indicative of lesser value being placed on mothers and fathers being married, which is just common sense.

And as far as what an employer thinks - that an applicant came from a fatherless household and/or was given a pass on grades - that is why blacks should work to reign in the shameful out-of-wedlock rate (it is a shame!) and support removing race from affirmative action (which based on the survey, more do).

PP here. I haven't skewed anything. Forty percent of births to unwed mothers in the US is fact. The cause of that is up for debate and your argument seems to be that the root cause is values. From there, you'd have to agree that the value of a family with married parents has gone down overall. Right? Are we still on the same page here?

I would posit that there are lot of factors that bring down the value of marriage. Chief among them is the mental, emotional and financial preparation to enter into a long term contract. Fewer people - of all races - have that these days. When you have fewer resources - time and money, to be sure, but a whole lot of other socioeconomic supports that can't really be measured, like social capital - short term objectives like paying bills overwhelm one's ability to think long term. And if you've been married for a while, as I have, you know that long term thinking is prerequisite for long term marriage.

Long term thinking is not something you're born with. It's learned, and the learning requires proof of efficacy (i.e. real life examples) and it requires practice. I include myself among those who would say higher education provides practice. And you have a greater chance at success when there are examples all around you. Without acquiring the skill of long term thinking, mere survival compels your brain to think and act on short term objectives. So yes, I believe more kids, regardless of race or whether or not they have two married parents, should be getting access to higher education. Our economy, our culture, and our long term survival all need long term thinkers.

If our culture valued education, there'd be greater emphasis on long term thinking in general and we'd include robust vocational training in our knowledge capital investments. We don't value education. We sure as hell don't value merit. We'd very much like to keep the caste system we've got, and preserve the right to heap criticism on anyone with the temerity to break out of it. It's proven that poor white kids who get into elite schools also struggle. <<--If you want to eliminate race-based affirmative action, start paying attention to things like this.

And as I keep saying, you just can't do away with race-based affirmative action by making a race-based argument against it. Read your final paragraph above, maybe scratch your head a little bit, and see if you can figure out what I mean. Maybe your long term thinking can free itself of long-held race-based beliefs.

But I kinda doubt it. Which is why race-based affirmative action will go on. It's value is questionable, but there's no question we still need it.

Oh FFS. We all know the reason marriage has declined. Effective birth control - you can now get the milk without marrying the cow. And women's economic power. You don't need a man to take care of you financially

We are talking about marriage in the context of single motherhood - so effective birth control is by definition not a cause. Secondly, the high rate of unwed child births happen to women in relatively poorer areas of the country, and a relatively higher percentage of them require public assistance. This fact also negates the assertion that economic power is what enables unwed motherhood.

Anonymous wrote:

You are skewing statistics and projecting racism.

First of all, it's true that 40% of all births are out-of-wedlock, but the average is brought up by the very high rate among blacks - at close to 75%. Looking at just whites, it's 29%.

Second, where did I ever say that higher out-of-birthrate assumes lesser values and intelligence?? I said that a higher out-of-birthrate is correlated strongly with poverty, higher crime, and poorer educational attainment (both for the single mother and the children.) I never even mentioned intelligence as a factor. I did say that a high out-of-birthrate is indicative of lesser value being placed on mothers and fathers being married, which is just common sense.

And as far as what an employer thinks - that an applicant came from a fatherless household and/or was given a pass on grades - that is why blacks should work to reign in the shameful out-of-wedlock rate (it is a shame!) and support removing race from affirmative action (which based on the survey, more do).

PP here. I haven't skewed anything. Forty percent of births to unwed mothers in the US is fact. The cause of that is up for debate and your argument seems to be that the root cause is values. From there, you'd have to agree that the value of a family with married parents has gone down overall. Right? Are we still on the same page here?

I would posit that there are lot of factors that bring down the value of marriage. Chief among them is the mental, emotional and financial preparation to enter into a long term contract. Fewer people - of all races - have that these days. When you have fewer resources - time and money, to be sure, but a whole lot of other socioeconomic supports that can't really be measured, like social capital - short term objectives like paying bills overwhelm one's ability to think long term. And if you've been married for a while, as I have, you know that long term thinking is prerequisite for long term marriage.

Long term thinking is not something you're born with. It's learned, and the learning requires proof of efficacy (i.e. real life examples) and it requires practice. I include myself among those who would say higher education provides practice. And you have a greater chance at success when there are examples all around you. Without acquiring the skill of long term thinking, mere survival compels your brain to think and act on short term objectives. So yes, I believe more kids, regardless of race or whether or not they have two married parents, should be getting access to higher education. Our economy, our culture, and our long term survival all need long term thinkers.

If our culture valued education, there'd be greater emphasis on long term thinking in general and we'd include robust vocational training in our knowledge capital investments. We don't value education. We sure as hell don't value merit. We'd very much like to keep the caste system we've got, and preserve the right to heap criticism on anyone with the temerity to break out of it. It's proven that poor white kids who get into elite schools also struggle. <<--If you want to eliminate race-based affirmative action, start paying attention to things like this.

And as I keep saying, you just can't do away with race-based affirmative action by making a race-based argument against it. Read your final paragraph above, maybe scratch your head a little bit, and see if you can figure out what I mean. Maybe your long term thinking can free itself of long-held race-based beliefs.

But I kinda doubt it. Which is why race-based affirmative action will go on. It's value is questionable, but there's no question we still need it.

Oh FFS. We all know the reason marriage has declined. Effective birth control - you can now get the milk without marrying the cow. And women's economic power. You don't need a man to take care of you financially

Anonymous wrote:

PP here. I haven't skewed anything. Forty percent of births to unwed mothers in the US is fact. The cause of that is up for debate and your argument seems to be that the root cause is values. From there, you'd have to agree that the value of a family with married parents has gone down overall. Right? Are we still on the same page here?

Children born out of wedlock to single mothers is a rising trend for all races. Macro phenomenons like this have macro causes and indicates a shift in culture. I would argue that the bulk of this change in culture is due to the effects of new feminism and modern liberal/progressive mantra that regard traditional family structures as patriarchal and oppressive to women. Not only is there now little social stigma to single motherhood, but that it is somehow celebrated in certain circles as a sign of strength, rather than an undesirable condition.

For blacks, the situation is far worse due to the problem of mass incarceration that is the result of the war on drugs, and the inclination for black urban leaders to ask for tougher sentencing laws back in the 90's. This has greatly destabilized urban areas to the detriment of AAs and Hispanics alike. The vicious cycle of fathers turned into criminals who then are not there to be role models for their kids leads to glorification of substitute male figures of those in sports/athletics and Hollywood.

Anonymous wrote:
I would posit that there are lot of factors that bring down the value of marriage. Chief among them is the mental, emotional and financial preparation to enter into a long term contract. Fewer people - of all races - have that these days. When you have fewer resources - time and money, to be sure, but a whole lot of other socioeconomic supports that can't really be measured, like social capital - short term objectives like paying bills overwhelm one's ability to think long term. And if you've been married for a while, as I have, you know that long term thinking is prerequisite for long term marriage.

LOL, wat? There is nothing emotionally or financially draining about marriage. Quite contrary, formal monogamous marriage has been the default outcome of people all over the world despite a wide and varying degree of access to resources. Marriage is subject to limits of resources only insofar as the resources are prescribed by culture - dowry, male family providing primary residence, and etc. Even there, there is usually a high degree of flexibility in "trying your best" in these types of situations. People don't need to be rich or have access to resources to get married. I will agree that there is a lot of mental doubt that people have about marriage, which is leading them to marry less - this is a cultural shift, and not due to some basic lack of mental capacity or ability to commit to marriage. The doubt is sown in by people and organizations who espouse the ideals of being free to do anything and being spontaneous, while at the same time deriding traditional marriage as archaic or even detrimental.

Anonymous wrote:
Long term thinking is not something you're born with. It's learned, and the learning requires proof of efficacy (i.e. real life examples) and it requires practice. I include myself among those who would say higher education provides practice. And you have a greater chance at success when there are examples all around you. Without acquiring the skill of long term thinking, mere survival compels your brain to think and act on short term objectives. So yes, I believe more kids, regardless of race or whether or not they have two married parents, should be getting access to higher education. Our economy, our culture, and our long term survival all need long term thinkers.

Once again, I would argue that the evidence does not agree with your ideas here. The poorest villages of remote China, India, and Africa practices monogamous and lifelong marriage as a default path for a person to take. You do not have to be highly educated to make good choices about whether or not marriage is a good idea. Marriage is a cultural manifestation of the monogamous inclinations of humans. It absolutely does not rely on education.

Anonymous wrote:
If our culture valued education, there'd be greater emphasis on long term thinking in general and we'd include robust vocational training in our knowledge capital investments. We don't value education. We sure as hell don't value merit. We'd very much like to keep the caste system we've got, and preserve the right to heap criticism on anyone with the temerity to break out of it. It's proven that poor white kids who get into elite schools also struggle. <<--If you want to eliminate race-based affirmative action, start paying attention to things like this.

But we *DO* value education and merit. I am not aware of a caste system, and I don't know anyone who isn't a fringe personality that would want to put a caste system in place. I know people would disagree with me, but I believe the US has one of the most practical system of education in the world and is one of the key reasons why our economy is so much stronger compared to other landmasses of similar size and population.

Anonymous wrote:And as I keep saying, you just can't do away with race-based affirmative action by making a race-based argument against it. Read your final paragraph above, maybe scratch your head a little bit, and see if you can figure out what I mean. Maybe your long term thinking can free itself of long-held race-based beliefs.

Why not? It was raced based argument that put affirmative action in place. Therefore it would take race-based arguments to eliminate it.

You are skewing statistics and projecting racism.

First of all, it's true that 40% of all births are out-of-wedlock, but the average is brought up by the very high rate among blacks - at close to 75%. Looking at just whites, it's 29%.

Second, where did I ever say that higher out-of-birthrate assumes lesser values and intelligence?? I said that a higher out-of-birthrate is correlated strongly with poverty, higher crime, and poorer educational attainment (both for the single mother and the children.) I never even mentioned intelligence as a factor. I did say that a high out-of-birthrate is indicative of lesser value being placed on mothers and fathers being married, which is just common sense.

And as far as what an employer thinks - that an applicant came from a fatherless household and/or was given a pass on grades - that is why blacks should work to reign in the shameful out-of-wedlock rate (it is a shame!) and support removing race from affirmative action (which based on the survey, more do).

PP here. I haven't skewed anything. Forty percent of births to unwed mothers in the US is fact. The cause of that is up for debate and your argument seems to be that the root cause is values. From there, you'd have to agree that the value of a family with married parents has gone down overall. Right? Are we still on the same page here?

I would posit that there are lot of factors that bring down the value of marriage. Chief among them is the mental, emotional and financial preparation to enter into a long term contract. Fewer people - of all races - have that these days. When you have fewer resources - time and money, to be sure, but a whole lot of other socioeconomic supports that can't really be measured, like social capital - short term objectives like paying bills overwhelm one's ability to think long term. And if you've been married for a while, as I have, you know that long term thinking is prerequisite for long term marriage.

Long term thinking is not something you're born with. It's learned, and the learning requires proof of efficacy (i.e. real life examples) and it requires practice. I include myself among those who would say higher education provides practice. And you have a greater chance at success when there are examples all around you. Without acquiring the skill of long term thinking, mere survival compels your brain to think and act on short term objectives. So yes, I believe more kids, regardless of race or whether or not they have two married parents, should be getting access to higher education. Our economy, our culture, and our long term survival all need long term thinkers.

If our culture valued education, there'd be greater emphasis on long term thinking in general and we'd include robust vocational training in our knowledge capital investments. We don't value education. We sure as hell don't value merit. We'd very much like to keep the caste system we've got, and preserve the right to heap criticism on anyone with the temerity to break out of it. It's proven that poor white kids who get into elite schools also struggle. <<--If you want to eliminate race-based affirmative action, start paying attention to things like this.

And as I keep saying, you just can't do away with race-based affirmative action by making a race-based argument against it. Read your final paragraph above, maybe scratch your head a little bit, and see if you can figure out what I mean. Maybe your long term thinking can free itself of long-held race-based beliefs.

But I kinda doubt it. Which is why race-based affirmative action will go on. It's value is questionable, but there's no question we still need it.