Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 393 posts

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#381

Post by tptacek »

ambrozk wrote: post #380
tptacek wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Liberals are invested in social theories that reject the importance of fathers in socializing boys? Are you sure you're not getting this stuff from Youtube, and kind of winding yourself up? Stable two-parent households, high education, and liberalism are all correlated.

I think there are a significant number of liberals, and not just crazy people on the internet, who think this. A data point: a while ago, I fell down a rabbit hole arguing with social justice people online who maintained that the notion that fatherlessness in the black community was problematic was a "myth." They justified their claim on the basis of a US government report which indicated that single black fathers sp…

I wrote this terribly, let me try again.

I believe children are better off being raised by two parents than by one.

I might also bristle in a discussion about crime and poverty if someone parachuted in and said that the real problem was single-parent families. I'd perceive it as an instance of the just-world fallacy. Things are much more complicated than that.

If I tried to express that by arguing that two parents were not in fact valuable for children, I'd be overplaying my hand. I'd be wrong. But I'd be wrong in the service of pushing back against the just-world fallacy, not in valorizing single parenthood.

I think you'd have a hard time finding a lot of liberals who, outside of charged discussions about crime and poverty, would argue that children don't benefit from having two parents in their lives.

For posterity, the previous iteration:

It's not hard to find situations where people will push back on two-parent households, because many of these discussions boil down (or are perceived to boiling down) to a just-world argument in which the fact that, holding income equal, a randomly selected Black family will live in a neighborhood with people making many tens of thousands of dollars left than a white family at the same income level. They're not right when they make those arguments; they're overstating their claim, fathers are important, two parents are beneficial, &c. But that's not really what they're arguing.

And then there are people who believe, I don't know, fathers are somehow malign? A single parent is better than two? But that's a fringe belief.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#382

Post by ambrozk »

tptacek wrote: post #375
rayiner wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect that what's happening here is that you've mistaken the notion that people have itchy trigger fingers about people trash-talking single moms (they do) with the idea that people widely believe "single mom" is an optimal child rearing arrangement (they do not). I think they are so afraid of being accused of "trash-talking single moms," or alienating the academics and activists, that they won't advocate in th…

It's easy to find Democrats talking about the importance of fatherhood, and that's backed up by public policy: for instance, a goal of Paid Family Leave is ensuring that fathers have time with new children, not just mothers. It's harder to find Democrats extolling the virtues of two-parent families. But that's no surprise: "two-parent family" is coded right-wing, and politically involves not just the importance of ki…

A lot of what you said is reasonable, but I think you're really stretching your argument when you say that 1) liberals refrain from advocating for the "two-parent family" because to do so would imply pushing back on workplace equity and benefits for single parents, and 2) support for fathers' inclusion in paid family leave is proof that liberals care about two-parent families. I think you are seriously underplaying a very real strain in left-wing thought, which views the "traditional family" with extreme suspicion, and associates exhortations for couples to marry before they have kids, to stay together for the sake of the kids, and so on, as essentially patriarchal, religious encroachments on personal liberty.

Since you want hard poll evidence, I browsed Gallup and found a poll:

41% of Republicans vs. 61% of Democrats think having kids outside of marriage is "morally acceptable". [1]

61% of Republicans vs. 73% of Democrats think divorce is acceptable. [1]

Interestingly, you can look at [2] and see that these issues fall pretty neatly into OP's argument about "luxury beliefs". For instance, on the "having kids outside of marriage" issue, only 38% of black Democrats think it is morally acceptable, but 64% of non-black Democrats think it is morally acceptable. The black vs. non-black numbers for sex outside of marriage are 46% to 68%. Given the prevalence of exactly these behaviors in the black community relative to the white community, I think that this constitutes pretty hard evidence that OP's "luxury beliefs" hypothesis has a lot going for it.

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/137357/Four-Moral-Issues-Sharpl...

[2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/112807/Blacks-Conservative-Repu...

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#383

Post by [deleted] »

ambrozk wrote: post #382
tptacek wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to find Democrats talking about the importance of fatherhood, and that's backed up by public policy: for instance, a goal of Paid Family Leave is ensuring that fathers have time with new children, not just mothers. It's harder to find Democrats extolling the virtues of two-parent families. But that's no surprise: "two-parent family" is coded right-wing, and politically involves not just the importance of ki…

A lot of what you said is reasonable, but I think you're really stretching your argument when you say that 1) liberals refrain from advocating for the "two-parent family" because to do so would imply pushing back on workplace equity and benefits for single parents, and 2) support for fathers' inclusion in paid family leave is proof that liberals care about two-parent families. I think you are seriously underplaying a…

[deleted]

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#384

Post by magicalist »

ambrozk wrote: post #382
tptacek wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to find Democrats talking about the importance of fatherhood, and that's backed up by public policy: for instance, a goal of Paid Family Leave is ensuring that fathers have time with new children, not just mothers. It's harder to find Democrats extolling the virtues of two-parent families. But that's no surprise: "two-parent family" is coded right-wing, and politically involves not just the importance of ki…

A lot of what you said is reasonable, but I think you're really stretching your argument when you say that 1) liberals refrain from advocating for the "two-parent family" because to do so would imply pushing back on workplace equity and benefits for single parents, and 2) support for fathers' inclusion in paid family leave is proof that liberals care about two-parent families. I think you are seriously underplaying a…

> having kids outside of marriage is "morally acceptable"

> divorce is acceptable

is not evidence for

> views the "traditional family" with extreme suspicion

68% of democrats find embryonic stem cell research morally acceptable...clearly they view "traditional procreation" with extreme suspicion!

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#385

Post by ambrozk »

magicalist wrote: post #384
ambrozk wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of what you said is reasonable, but I think you're really stretching your argument when you say that 1) liberals refrain from advocating for the "two-parent family" because to do so would imply pushing back on workplace equity and benefits for single parents, and 2) support for fathers' inclusion in paid family leave is proof that liberals care about two-parent families. I think you are seriously underplaying a…

> having kids outside of marriage is "morally acceptable" > divorce is acceptable is not evidence for > views the "traditional family" with extreme suspicion 68% of democrats find embryonic stem cell research morally acceptable...clearly they view "traditional procreation" with extreme suspicion!

I said 'a strain in left-wing thought views the "traditional family" with extreme suspicion.' I didn't say "the majority of Democrats". The polls in question demonstrate that Democrats (though only the white ones) are proportionally more likely than Republicans to make statements in tension with a desire for 2-parent households. OP asked for hard data to back up the hypothesis that Republicans are stronger in their political commitments to 2-parent households than Democrats, and I tried to produce something like that. If you have more compelling data that points in the opposite direction, by all means post it.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#386

Post by magicalist »

ambrozk wrote: post #385
magicalist wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> having kids outside of marriage is "morally acceptable" > divorce is acceptable is not evidence for > views the "traditional family" with extreme suspicion 68% of democrats find embryonic stem cell research morally acceptable...clearly they view "traditional procreation" with extreme suspicion!

I said 'a strain in left-wing thought views the "traditional family" with extreme suspicion.' I didn't say "the majority of Democrats". The polls in question demonstrate that Democrats (though only the white ones) are proportionally more likely than Republicans to make statements in tension with a desire for 2-parent households. OP asked for hard data to back up the hypothesis that Republicans are stronger in their p…

> If you have more compelling data that points in the opposite direction, by all means post it

A non sequitur does not change the onus here. I don't need data to point out that what you're stating doesn't follow.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#387

Post by tptacek »

ambrozk wrote: post #385
magicalist wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> having kids outside of marriage is "morally acceptable" > divorce is acceptable is not evidence for > views the "traditional family" with extreme suspicion 68% of democrats find embryonic stem cell research morally acceptable...clearly they view "traditional procreation" with extreme suspicion!

I said 'a strain in left-wing thought views the "traditional family" with extreme suspicion.' I didn't say "the majority of Democrats". The polls in question demonstrate that Democrats (though only the white ones) are proportionally more likely than Republicans to make statements in tension with a desire for 2-parent households. OP asked for hard data to back up the hypothesis that Republicans are stronger in their p…

But you haven't provided any evidence. Your data point is that more Democrats than Republicans think having a child out of wedlock is morally acceptable. I think having a child out of wedlock is morally acceptable. Raising children is praiseworthy no matter what. But I absolutely do believe that children benefit from having two parents as well. The ambiguity here is central to my complaint about what Rayiner is trying to say.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#388

Post by belter »

Etherlord87 wrote: post #353
belter wrote: post #139

Fought Experiment: Lets say law enforcement was given the task to examine the affairs of 100, randomly selected, poor/medium income households and 100, randomly selected, very wealthy households. Statistically, where would they find the most amount of criminal activity? Has any similar research been done, and would you care to share the data?

I'm surprised by the reactions to your comment, because the first thing I thought was "obviously the very wealthy households, because of drugs present".

And your analysis is corroborated by waste sewage analysis around areas like Wall Street :-)

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#389

Post by abenga »

whatshisface wrote: post #293
nootropicat wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes I never understood this tactic. If you really want citizen support (which is required), you need to show that all citizens are subject to this type of injustice. If leaders just say one group is affected and don't show that all citizens are affected, you won't get change as fast, if at all. It all makes sense if you start from a cynical assumption that the real point of most political activism is exclusively to…

Your drug legalization proposals might have the side effects of increasing the number of people who start taking those drugs. People respond to incentives and you can't both say that restrictions aren't making drugs harder to find and that they're driving addicts to dangerous substitutes.

Aren't there countries that have decriminalized drug use? Have those policies resulted in a higher amount of drug abuse? They haven't.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#390

Post by ryanmarsh »

Maursault wrote: post #370
ryanmarsh wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think the NRA would be all over this: a legal gun owner killed in his home by police? Nope In the gun community the NRA is generally seen has having failed gun owners. There are many cases similar to Amir Locke's. One in particular is Duncan Lemp.

> In the gun community the NRA is generally seen has having failed gun owners. NRA accomplished some wicked and absurd goals (one might not think it possible if it hadn't already happened) and I think by proxy accomplished a huge one through Justice Scalia which significantly, drastically and fundamentally changed the meaning of the 2nd Amendment from a selfless right to stand guard against tyranny to an intensely an…

> NRA accomplished some wicked and absurd goals

Perhaps by the standards of those outside the gun community. For our agenda they've been a failure. The modest policy successes, by our measure, have been obtained in-spite of them.

I don't expect you to agree with our agenda, but don't forget that we define our agenda. All the NRA did was water it down.

Post reply on HN