holy sh*t!

[JohnRoberts]

Given the adversarial situation between minority communities and police, does it not make sense that they would not appeal to the leviathan and instead resolve disputes on their own?

No, that does not make sense. Racial division has been promoted for partisan or personal advantage. BLM was a grift exploiting white guilt. The millions they raised were spent on mansions and themselves.

The motivated reasoning / confabulating both from the left and right isn't helpful, this is a structural issue.

One structural issue is politics... Politics argues that there is "systemic racism" in a attempt to manipulate one minority into believing that they are victims dependent on politicians for help. That same politics defunded and demoralized the police. The subsequent breakdown of law and order is the expected result.

Why and how do you think people become gang members in the first place?

I'd love to hear your analysis of gang culture in America...

Chicago is considered the most gang-occupied city in the United States, with 150,000 gang-affiliated denizens, representing more than 70 gangs. Gang warfare and retaliation is common in Chicago. Gangs were responsible for 61% of the homicides in Chicago in 2011.

But even that is changing, not for the better as recent political trends make policing harder. Vicious gangs from south America have been more active in the US thanks to an open southern border.

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Why and how do you think people become gang members in the first place?

By the undermining of values and destruction of the nuclear family. Males need strong role models and fathers in the home. Why did the gang problem explode in the 1960s?

 

[Matador]

Oh, neat! Do we get to hear about welfare queens driving Cadillacs, and "strapping young bucks" buying t-bone steaks with food stamps again?

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Oh, neat! Do we get to hear about welfare queens driving Cadillacs, and "strapping young bucks" buying t-bone steaks with food stamps again?

Diversion. Association fallacy. Do you deny that children raised with no father figure present are more prone to having trouble (including involvement in gangs or crime) as teens and adults than those raised in a traditional two-parent family?

edit to add (and there's plenty more like this)

https://www.mnpsych.org/index.php?o...log&view=entry&category=industry%20news&id=54

 

[Matador]

Do you deny that children raised with no father figure present are more prone to having trouble (including involvement in gangs or crime) as teens and adults than those raised in a traditional two-parent family?

Yes. I deny it. Burden of proof is on the accuser. Define 'father figure'. Define 'present'. Define 'trouble'. Define 'involvement'. Define 'traditional two-parent family'. Define 'strong male', define 'undermining' and define 'values'. Define 'nuclear family'.

And after so many years spent around loud guitar amps, my high-frequency hearing isn't what it used to be, so I may not be able to clearly hear whistling-type noises...please clearly define the target demographic being implied to which all of these suppositions apply.

 

[living sounds]

By the undermining of values and destruction of the nuclear family. Males need strong role models and fathers in the home. Why did the gang problem explode in the 1960s?

Well, why did that change then?

Let me point you to this thread, it makes things a lot clearer:

https://groupdiy.com/threads/heres-what-is-really-going-on-in-the-world.84240/

 

[AnalogPackrat]

The demographic is children raised in single parent homes. Maybe you need to detune your resonant filter.

I posted a link to a paper with data. There are plenty out there. If you are so averse to common words and phrases one wonders how you expect to communicate.

Traditional family: mother, father, child(ren)

Nuclear family: man, woman, child(ren)

Father figure: father, step-father, uncle, grandfather, etc. who is present day-to-day in the home and provides support, guidance, discipline, etc. to minors in the home.

Present: not absent

Trouble: behavioral issues, psychological problems, drug/alcohol use, gang affiliation, criminal activity

Strong male: a man who is able to take responsibility for his actions, his family, and is a reliable and responsible member of society.

Values: self-control, responsibility, reliability, supporting, present, loving, working

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Well, why did that change then?

There are many theories and likely many contributing causes, most of which are not global in nature, IMO.

Let me point you to this thread, it makes things a lot clearer:

https://groupdiy.com/threads/heres-what-is-really-going-on-in-the-world.84240/

I already saw that and downloaded it. Will read it after I finish the Faulkner novel I'm currently reading.

 

[Recording Engineer]

BLM was a grift exploiting white guilt. The millions they raised were spent on mansions and themselves.

To call BLM a grift and not ever calling Trump a grifter, I can’t take it seriously.

Actually, the investigations of the Antioch, CA Police Department is what BLM is all about. This proves the point that it’s certainly not about just a few bad apples (like a few that were leading BLM). To think that this is a one-off situation would be absurd.

https://abc7news.com/amp/antioch-po...ndal-racist-texts-chief-steven-ford/13235836/

 

[Matador]

You have shifted the goal posts. Your post was:

Do you deny that children raised with no father figure present

and now it's:

The demographic is children raised in single parent homes.

Single father households suffer many of the same problems as single mother households. It turns out more resources is better than less resources, generally. To that I would agree, despite the fact that it wasn't the point you were hinting.

And since present fathers is so important, I'm guessing that two-father households must be twice as effective in instilling self-control, responsibility, reliability, supporting, presence, loving, working, etc, eh?

What does this have to do with gang violence beginning in the 1960's?

 

[JohnRoberts]

To call BLM a grift and not ever calling Trump a grifter, I can’t take it seriously.

so don't... BLM raised close to $100M with most of that money unaccounted for. Trump didn't even accept a salary while president.

Trump was a real estate developer.... maybe one click less shady than a used car salesman, but a legal business.

Actually, the investigations of the Antioch, CA Police Department is what BLM is all about.

there were multiple incendiary social media triggers, that were then used to raise money. What did BLM do to reform the police? Defunding them just causes chaos.

This proves the point that it’s certainly not about just a few bad apples (like a few that were leading BLM). To think that this is a one-off situation would be absurd.

https://abc7news.com/amp/antioch-po...ndal-racist-texts-chief-steven-ford/13235836/

Straw man argument. I never said it was an isolated one off incident... but I strongly disagree that all police are racist and that the US suffers from systemic racism. This is a divisive argument for gaining political power, or in the case of BLM for personal wealth.

JR

 

[Recording Engineer]

there were multiple incendiary social media triggers, that were then used to raise money.

Agreed.

What did BLM do to reform the police? Defunding them just causes chaos.

Straw man argument. I never said it was an isolated one off incident... but I strongly disagree that all police are racist and that the US suffers from systemic racism. This is a divisive argument for gaining political power, or in the case of BLM for personal wealth.

Never said you did. It was just a preemptive response for any who might.

I don’t disagree that there were leaders in BLM that ruined it for everyone, but the idea as a whole has some merit and should not be fully dismissed.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

You have shifted the goal posts. Your post was:



and now it's:

90% of gang members are male. The big problem is not absent mothers, though that is also problematic in different ways (and for female children).

Single father households suffer many of the same problems as single mother households.

Yes, but not when it comes to male children and gangs. Single father households are not nearly as common as single mothers. Also, thank you for agreeing that the lack of nuclear family or traditional family structure is a big problem.

It turns out more resources is better than less resources, generally. To that I would agree, despite the fact that it wasn't the point you were hinting.

Resources are secondary to parenting, support, values, discipline, etc.

And since present fathers is so important, I'm guessing that two-father households must be twice as effective in instilling self-control, responsibility, reliability, supporting, presence, loving, working, etc, eh?

Not in my opinion, because a mother's influence is also important. But that is another diversion away from the discussion about the importance of family structure and the support it in child-rearing.

What does this have to do with gang violence beginning in the 1960's?

Read the published literature and the stats on juvenile and youth crime. Fatherless male children are over-represented in gangs and criminal offenses. The increase in single parent homes really started to increase in the 60s.

 

[Matador]

Also, thank you for agreeing that the lack of nuclear family or traditional family structure is a big problem.

Yawn. Try harder.

FAMILY STRUCTURE AND GANG INVOLVEMENT

The first hypothesis predicted that as family disruption increases from 1 (living with both parents) to 4 (living with someone other than parents, step-parents or grand-parents) the level of gang involvement would also increase. For the total sample, the change in the percentage of respondents living with "both natural parents" (1) to "other" (4) was in the predicted direction but the change was very slight. 65.1% of those living with both parents were uninvolved with gangs as were 65.1% of those living with either a mother or a father. 60.6% of those living with a grandparent or step parent, and 56.4% of those in other living arrangements were also uninvolved in gangs. For youth that were categorized as highly involved 25.5% lived with both natural parents, 24.5% lived in a single parent home, 32.4% lived with grandparents or step-parents and 34.2% lived with someone else.

These patterns do follow what was predicted, but there is very little association between these two variables. The difference between highly involved gang members who lived with both their natural parents and those that were raised in the "other" category was only 11%. This general lack of correlation is brought out in the fact that the correlation coefficient for the total sample was a very small .05. It is fairly safe to conclude from these results that family structure is not an important factor in gang involvement for the total sample.

Other social, economic and cultural factors include: (1) a family history of gang involvement, (some experts suggest that 50% of present gang members had at least one family member who is or was involved in a gang); (2) living in a community where gang involvement is a community norm -- everyone does it, (it is part of the culture and social fabric of the community and adults and older teens become role models for younger children); (3) being part of a family with a limited view of the world and a lack of awareness of opportunities outside the neighborhood (because of ethnic or social isolation, attachment to family rules, beliefs, and expectations); (4) cultural barriers and prejudices (that often produce an "us against them" mentality, and may keep a person from attempting to join the workplace); (5) lack of employment possibilities and education, (because of low reading or writing or other workplace skills); (6) media glorification of gangs (as seen in movies, on TV, in magazines, and heard on music videos, compact discs and tapes); and (7) safety and protection from other gangs (in many inner cities, barrios, neighborhoods, and schools, violence, or the threat of violence, is a real fact of life).

Family problems and parenting difficulties can increase the risk of kids joining gangs. Many kids who join gangs come from middle-class families with two biological parents at home. However, many of these youth come from homes that are deeply troubled.

Since there are clearly gang members who have both parents, then your theory is bunk, because always remember:

Anyone with a passing knowledge of logic knows that it only takes one counterexample to disprove a theorem/statement. All of the supporting examples mean nothing compared to a single counterexample.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Yawn. Try harder.

Read more.

Since there are clearly gang members who have both parents, then your theory is bunk, because always remember:

That strawman was not what I posted. Try harder to employ logic and reasoning instead of chains of fallacies.
https://fatherhoodfactor.com/us-fatherless-statistics/
https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/a...ween-single-parent-families-and-crime/265860/

 

[boji]

 

[fallout]

Define 'father figure'. Define 'present'. Define 'trouble'. Define 'involvement'. Define 'traditional two-parent family'. Define 'strong male', define 'undermining' and define 'values'. Define 'nuclear family'.

And I ask you to define 'LOGIC'.

"Common sense is not so common." - Voltaire

 

[boji]

DOJ on family life, delinquency and crime, 1993
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/140517NCJRS.pdf

 

[Matador]

Your first link doesn't even try to prove causality. #correlationisnotcausation #liesdamnliesandstatistics

https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/a...ween-single-parent-families-and-crime/265860/

Holy shit (thread title!!!), did you just link to the Atlantic? I can safely discard that in its entirety, because:

Are the writers at The Atlantic any more knowledgeable about banking? It's just a stupid opinion rag.
...
And that is a great example of why I refuse to trust anything "reported" by The Atlantic (and other similar outlets).

I-said-a-source-was-shit-but-now-I'm-quoting-it fallacy.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Your first link doesn't even try to prove causality. #correlationisnotcausation #liesdamnliesandstatistics

What is your brilliant explanation for the data? Go ahead and tell us.

Holy shit (thread title!!!), did you just link to the Atlantic? I can safely discard that in its entirety, because:



I-said-a-source-was-shit-but-now-I'm-quoting-it fallacy.

I included that link thinking you might find the source more palatable, but apparently your "logic" is immune to everything. Other sources were also linked by me and others. Did you read them?