1.5 Million Missing Black Men • Hacker News Board

Re: 1.5 Million Missing Black Men

#291

Post by Snesker » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 1:04 AM UTC

PopsiclePete wrote: post #133

ars wrote: post #44

Historically this was solved by polygamy. (The cause of the missing men back then was usually war and travel danger on business expeditions.) Polygamy is still occurring, except without the official status of wife. Makes me wonder if the benefits of outlawing polygamy in the US might not outweigh the harm - especially because it happens anyway.

I know a few happily married couples in "open" relationships. Poly or whatever you wanna call it. And I know a few unhappy, obviously sexless couples in traditional marriages as well. For me, marriage is both an outdated and terrifying prospect. The thought of being with one woman for the rest of my life, sexually, is off-putting. So instead of doing what many others do - cheat, get caught, divorce, repeat - I just c…

Sex isn't a 'need', get over yourself.

Re: 1.5 Million Missing Black Men

#292

Post by omonra » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 1:06 AM UTC

haberman wrote: post #287

omonra wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm personally not convinced why the three points you raised are affecting blacks more than anybody else. Ie - they are all unquantifiable things with no clear bearing on blacks vs poor whites or other disadvantaged groups. Yes we have hard figures - such as the murder rate ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/murder-rate-for... ): The homicide rate for black male victims was 31.67 per 100,000. In compariso…

> I'm personally not convinced why the three points you raised are affecting blacks more than anybody else. Here's the thing: even if I never convince you of that, all you have to be convinced of is these things are a problem and should be fixed. Hopefully you believe that obvious conflicts of interest should not exist? Hopefully you believe that cops should not shoot unarmed people in the back while they are running…

Hold on a sec. There are 2 separate issues we have:

1. I completely agree that the issues you raised ARE a problem and should be fixed. 100% with you.

2. At the same time I don't think they are the culprit that's responsible for large black crime rate (with attendant thousands dead and 1m+ in prison).

Re: 1.5 Million Missing Black Men

#293

Post by pacifist » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 1:15 AM UTC

omonra wrote: post #279

stickfigure wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be perfectly happy to accept a massive reduction in organized crime, even if it doesn't end. Crime is not perfectly fungible. There just isn't another victimless crime available with this kind of popularity and profitability.

I'm all for decriminalizing drugs, no argument from me on that. However Portugal homicide rate went up by 40% after they did it ( https://fullfact.org/factchecks/Portugal_decriminalisation_d... ). So not sure it's the silver bullet people expet.

Here's another take on it:

[1]A widely repeated claim is that, as a result of Portugal’s decriminalisation policy, drug-related homicides increased 40% between 2001 and 2006. But this claim is based on a misrepresentation of the evidence. The 40% increase (from 105 to 148) was for all homicides, defined as any 'intentional killing of a person, including murder, manslaughter, euthanasia and infanticide' – they were not 'drug-related’

[1] http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-...

Re: 1.5 Million Missing Black Men

#294

Post by dropit_sphere » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 1:27 AM UTC

Snesker wrote: post #291

PopsiclePete wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a few happily married couples in "open" relationships. Poly or whatever you wanna call it. And I know a few unhappy, obviously sexless couples in traditional marriages as well. For me, marriage is both an outdated and terrifying prospect. The thought of being with one woman for the rest of my life, sexually, is off-putting. So instead of doing what many others do - cheat, get caught, divorce, repeat - I just c…

Sex isn't a 'need', get over yourself.

While this is technically true, it's stated a little too glibly considering that we're talking about life-or-death (over the long term) evolutionary drives here.

Re: 1.5 Million Missing Black Men

#295

Post by dmix » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 1:31 AM UTC

discreteevent wrote: post #228

dmix wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rank these middle eastern countries as the origin nationality of most jihadists. High: Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt (most members of the original Al-Qaeda and current leader were Egyptian, and then there are Sinai groups) Medium (mostly just financing since they have low populations and high income): United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain. Low: Turkey (?), Jordan, Kuwait, Om…

Iran high? I wasn't aware of that. Could I ask what you are basing that on. Do you mean Iranian militias which are effectively the army and doing things which could be said to protect their country (as with US soldiers in all kinds of places they probably shouldn't be). If so I don't think that comes under the heading "angry young jihadis"

Iran has backed many jihadist groups. Two examples: Hamas, they are a group against Isreal which receives support from Iran. Iran also backed the Shiite "Mahdi army" during the Iraq war which fought a jihad against American/coalition forces, and today are still involved in a 'defensive jihad' against IS.

There are other examples. Jihad has been fought by both Sunni and Shiite groups. But more so by Sunni groups such as IS and AQ - who have tended to have more of a global objective against the west. While Iran and Shiite groups (such as in Syria/Lebanon) are mostly interested in local power grabs to keep spreading their Islamic Revolution outside of Iran.

I highly recommend this New Yorker piece on Iran and their secret proxy wars:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/30/the-shadow-comm...

Re: 1.5 Million Missing Black Men

#296

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 1:58 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #285

anigbrowl wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works well and the babies come out really cute. All right, let's run this scenario forward in time. You meet a nice black lady, you fall in love, get married, and have a son. Now, while I hope things will be better in future, chances are that many structural racial disparities will still exist 10, 15, 20 years from now, though hopefully to a lesser degree. So your hypothetical son comes to you in the year 2030 and…

I think you've lost the thread. The problem I described as solved was "I can't get a date that matches my extremely specific qualifications". And yes, if that was my son's problem, I'd tell him to either lift and be awesome or accept being forever alone. As for requiring some specific experience to be a good parent, I find the idea a bit ridiculous. There are a variety of problems I haven't experienced and likely can…

Hmmm. Original article talks about the difficulty of black women finding partners of their own race for family formation. You observe that a solution to this has been legal since 1967 (obviously referring to Loving v. Virginia) and that the potentially resulting babies are cute. I suggest that this is not such a simple issue, because the babies in question would still have to deal with structural racism later in life.

Now you switch to saying that the problem was black women saying "I can't get a date that matches my extremely specific qualifications". So finding a life partner is now just a matter of getting a date, and preferring someone of your own race is now an 'extremely specific qualification'...and you think I've lost the thread?

And yes, if that was my son's problem, I'd tell him to either lift and be awesome or accept being forever alone.

The hypothetical problem I presented was 'Dad, quite a lot of people express hostility towards me on the basis that I'm black. Help me out.' as opposed to 'I can't get a date that matches my extremely specific qualifications.' While the latter problem could be an instance of the former, they're far from being identical. You'll forgive me if I don't go the effort of providing Venn diagrams to support this claim.

As for requiring some specific experience to be a good parent, I find the idea a bit ridiculous.

That's not what I'm suggesting, and is wholly an invention on your part. What I said was that you don't seem to have through through the sort of problems that your offspring would be likely to encounter; my thesis is that this lack of apparent concern would be a major disincentive to marriage for a lot of black women insofar as they're looking beyond their short-term personal desire and thinking about things like family formation...as discussed in the original article.

Re: 1.5 Million Missing Black Men

#297

Post by foldr » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 2:22 AM UTC

dmix wrote: post #200

foldr wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's missing the point. The question is what percentage of the countries in the Middle East are producing significant numbers of "jihdists".

I would rank these middle eastern countries as the origin nationality of most jihadists. High: Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt (most members of the original Al-Qaeda and current leader were Egyptian, and then there are Sinai groups) Medium (mostly just financing since they have low populations and high income): United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain. Low: Turkey (?), Jordan, Kuwait, Om…

>These are obviously based on nationalities of jihadists, not based on percentages of populations whom become jihadists - which I suspect you are confusing my comment as implying.

You asked why many Middle Eastern countries produce "so many" jihadists, implying that the majority of these countries are producing a high number. Thus, it makes no sense to respond by listing examples of terrorists or terrorist groups originating in Middle Eastern countries, since one could give similar examples for more or less any European country or for the USA. We have our homegrown terrorists too (both Islamic and otherwise).

Re: 1.5 Million Missing Black Men

#298

Post by foldr » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 2:22 AM UTC

juliangregorian wrote: post #219

foldr wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's missing the point. The question is what percentage of the countries in the Middle East are producing significant numbers of "jihdists".

I guess you don't want it to be the case, but the answer really is "most of them". Exceptions would be Israel (if you consider Palestine separately), UAE, Kuwait.

Sources?

Re: 1.5 Million Missing Black Men

#299

Post by johnny22 » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 2:44 AM UTC

marincounty wrote: post #275

haliou wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember a debate about high achieving black women "marrying down" (with school dropout black guys on low income) or "marrying out" with white guys. Attitude seems to be changing for the better anyway. Here's also an article [0] on the subject that cause quite a stir back in 2011. [0]: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/29/137499303/author-tells-black-w...

I read that article, and articles like it. They all leave out one thing, and I'll get hammered for stating this, and it's only my hummable opinion. As much as people want to to homogenize the sexes, their are differences in factors that determine desirability. Powerful women(degrees, income, position in society, etc.) are judged differently in my surrounding(I said in my surroundings, antidotal, don't kill me); than…

I don't know about power, but ambition is pretty important to me.

Re: 1.5 Million Missing Black Men

#300

Post by pbhjpbhj » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 2:50 AM UTC

burkaman wrote: post #271

innguest wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're a Cultural Marxism peddler. I am white and I think I am in the very same group as blacks and all other races, namely the group called "individuals". All we need to do is fight for individual rights and teach people respect is earned on an individual basis. Nothing can be assumed from group membership in real life; every leftist would agree with this statement, yet you want to make laws based on group membershi…

> Nothing can be assumed based on group membership. Whoever does is the true racist. Yeah exactly, and there are tons of these people, and at the moment they tend to have a lot more money and power than the people they make assumptions about. Promoting individual rights doesn't do enough, because we've had such a long history of not promoting them. You have to acknowledge race in order to fight the racists of the wor…

>You have to acknowledge race in order to fight the racists of the world. //

Can you give a solid example? I can't see how labelling someone "race X" allows you to fight against unequal opportunities or other discrimination or prejudice.