Just playing devils advocate for a moment, so:
To this question I would respond that you can’t actually say that society as a whole is better or worse off without the policies in question because there is no way of knowing where we would be without them.
We could be better off, could be worse.
Its not like we’re running several different models in a virtual environment.
I disagree. I think government policy has a lot to do with societal values. People are sheep and follow the herd. The herd is usually run by those with money and government.
The states leading the pack with “progressive social policies” are absolutely insane.
Good post. I don’t think it’s just one thing. I asked my questions to provoke some thoughts and I see it’s going well.
Many people, including Work, and not just on here, but all over, have said simplistic things or have simplistically narrowed it down only to **one ** thing only.
It is not as simple as:
And as I said these do not account or are hardly or never mentioned when explaining the increase in white social pathologies and imprisonment. Why is that I’ve asked? Why are whites now seeing the same problems that once so many thought were stereotypical of only black communities? Is it just welfare? Is it just opioids? No, it isn’t.
Crack and other drug abuse and lawlessness are only symptoms of bigger problems.
I can’t see how no-fault divorces, “child” support following such divorce, welfare, etc. would harm family units.
Yes, and as I’ve said repeatedly, the breakdown of social institutions and norms that kept anti-social behavior in check.
All tools of the patriarchy, I believe. Or maybe white supremacy, male chauvinism, and other forms of unapproved-bigotry.
It has?
Numerous studies indicate the first anatomically modern humans likely originated from within Africa.
There was a lot of inbreeding, and this doesn’t mean the first anatomically modern humans were necessarily black either.
Just that it appears humans as we know today (not australopithecus afarensis, homo erectus etc), i’m talking about homo sapiens sapiens (sub species of homo sapiens that is the modern human) started off in Africa.
The idea drug abuse is something new to society is a myth. Even before the arrival of oxycontin, MScontin was subject to rampant, ranpant abuse.
Before then, morphine (injected), opium, heroin, alcohol and coke (particuarly the former four) caused huge issues for society.
In the very early 1900s the average American consumed two bottles of hard liquor per week (and the bottles were bigger than they are today). Drugs have always been a problem in America, and prohibition was passed for good reason (even if it doesn’t work).
You are correct in that it’s not the drugs themselves. People are unhappy/desparate in society and therefore resort to drug abuse. This started around the late very early 1900s.
With time however, more potent/destructive substances were synthesised that could be abused by those desparate enough to abuse them. That and treatment was deferred to the criminal justice system as opposed to rehabilitation
The idea that crack was predominantly a black thing is also a myth. At it’s height of use, 30-35% of crack cocaine users were black despite blacks only making up 13% of the population, an over representation for sure as crack was deliberately introduced to black communities… but as of current, young white men are statistically more likely to take up smoking crack relative to black men.
However arrests for possession and prison sentences associated with the use of crack cocaine =/= 90% black (not anymore, this was the 80’s). Crack itself was bad enough, but the mass incarceration mediated even more damage.
If the increase in drug use and overdose could simply be attributed to a breakdown in traditional institutions, I would point to the early 1900s and ask why rates of alcoholism and morphine addiction were as high as they were.
The increase in people dying is due to fentanyl and carfentanil hitting the streets in the USA. If you didn’t have fentanyl and carfentanil, the overdose rates would be way lower…
If I had to take an educated guess I would say it’s because most people are miserable due to a workaholic and expensive country.
This has been the case since the very early 1900s/late 1800s
Australia used to be a blue collar country, and is to an extent (but much less so) now.
Coincidence that at the time Australia had the highest per capita consumption of beer in the world? No…
Now that the standard of living in Australia is totally unaffordable and more destructive drugs have been synthesised Australia apparently has the highest per capita consumption of methamphetamine in the world… misery breeds this dynamic
And ironically we are unhappier than ever despite having access to a higher degree materialistic possessions than ever before
There are KIDS (Australia locked down for AGES during covid) as young as 12-13 getting into meth here.
All workaholic countries have really high rates of alcoholism, and sometimes illicit drug addiction.
People aren’t meant to be grinding out sixteen hour days, then going home to take care of kids… not sleeping and rinse/repeat.
Yes, sometimes people drink just to get a buzz for fun. But that’s different to feeling so shaken up from stress that you need to knock back a 5th just to get to sleep.
That is true but that’s only the tip of the iceberg.
Debunked may be too strong of a word, but definitely not 100% truth standing above everything else.
Now, with results from more advanced dating and genetic analysis techniques, the “Out of Africa” theory is no longer the single most dominant explanation for humanity’s spread across the planet because:
it fails to explain many of the results from genetic analysis, and
Africa is no longer the only source of the oldest human fossils. It is just one of a few strong possible explanations (all of which may be accurate together), and is certainly more nuanced today than it was when first introduced.
There are many plausible scenarios with the most recent being humans are a combination of species that originated in varying places.
Thats why I brought up homo erectus, australopithecus afarensis, homo sapiens (before homo sapiens sapiens etc)
Data currently concludes the first remanants of homo sapiens sapiens (first MODERN humans… not neanderthals etc) originated from southern Africa. This was around 200000 years ago
I’d be interested to hear other theories.
Fossils from prior descendants of humans that were around before we were really characteristically human… I don’t count that. It’s common knowledge these have been found all over the place.
No one said our descendants all came from Africa… there was a lot of inbreeding, and as homo sapiens sapiens were the most intelligent and resourceful, they were the species that wound up surviving whilst the others were purged to extinction.
Some people will still register as 1-2% neanderthal on DNA tests due to inbreeding.
Kid’s/young people/vulnerable people etc have (at least by Shapiro logic) been being ‘groomed’ for years…most people I know still haven’t caught teh gay though.
Also, if the Shapiro types of the World are obviously so anti-LGBT+, why is he raising his kids in a state like California? lol.
Is Shapiro really anti-LGTBQ…or is he like me and tired of it being shoved down society’s throat?
I don’t know how they would go about it exactly. In most cases one can simply look at someone to determine race.
I assume people can determine race by physical anthropological measures, family trees, and DNA testing. That is, if we were to give up the notion that such anthropology is “outdated” and “old fashioned” though no one has explained to me how it is outdated or flawed considering that even uneducated people can tell people’s races or sub-racial categories simply by looking at them in most cases.
It can be legally defined by such measures but it won’t be because to do so would be “like the Nazis” and like old-school Anglo white supremacists. And that would be correct, because thats what they did.
But in this case it would be used to financially benefit people, not to “other” or separate them.
In cases of mixed people, there would have to be a line drawn. For example, what would be the cut off in determining if a mixed race person is to still be considered black. If it’s a person presenting as another race, white for example, would he or she get reparations even though they are 1/8th back, 1/16th, 1/32nd, 1/64th?
Is this in line with what you’re getting at? I admit your post puzzled me a bit.
I think considering he is religious (he appears to be) he likely does not condone homosexual activity or promotion of it (“shoving it down society’s throat”) but has has zero interest in harming homosexuals.
I’m not religious by any means and I also don’t wish any harm on any gay people. They are usually very nice people and productive law-abiding citizens.
I just think it’s disgusting lol, but it’s none of my business who you sleep with nor do I care. Just be a good person.
But, I am also in the boat of not wanting it tossed in my face at every turn and 100% leave my fucking kids alone or we will have problems.
Tower of Terror (love Twilight Zone)
Rise of the Resistance
Family trees are difficult to document and are also recursive. You’re just saying that you are black if your grandparents were black, but that’s not super helpful because now we are just answering the same question but about your grandparents.
As far as DNA, it is also essentially recursive since the racial judgments that it makes are based on the similarity with other DNA that was from a person that identified a certain way. And even then DNA testing is not very consistent.
What do you mean by anthropological measures?
So basically, we are left with what you look like. And that is a very difficult thing to manage, especially around the margins. It also doesn’t really work for the purposes of reparations since it includes recent immigrants who didn’t suffer under slavery, Jim Crow, or redlining.
Assuming that we aren’t basing it on the way that people look, you really can’t create a logically consistent definition of race. (I’d argue the same if we include the way people look, but let’s first agree that if we rule out looks it gets very murky). And that is assuming that we have reliable and accessible records going back generations for common people (we don’t in many cases).