That one is admittedly harder to prove

Post #227,341 by ben_tilly 9/30/05 1:14:08 PM Reply	That one is admittedly harder to prove Certainly there are some economic drives towards crime. For instance black markets create economic incentives for gangs, which creates criminal activity of various kinds. (See the War on Drugs. See previously Prohibition.) However a lot of crime is less organized and is more the result of desperate people leading desperate lives. I don't see there being a compensatory effect saying that if you get rid of people who commit crime now you'll inevitably produce lots more. And having a permanent underclass who knows full well that the color of their skin means that they'll never really get a fair shake in life is a big source of desperate people. If you want statistical evidence that crime is reduced by keeping people who are at risk of becoming criminal from being born, then I'll have to point at the same book that Bennett was criticizing. Freakonomics demonstrated that reductions in crime rates were correlated with legalized abortion previously. It further demonstrated that in neighbouring states which legalized abortion at different times, the one that saw it legalized first saw crime rates start to fall first, which indicates that legalized abortion was a cause of the improvement, and not a coincidence. That suggests to me that aborting people really can reduce the crime rate. Of course, as I've noted multiple times, the end does not justify the means. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #227,349 by drewk 9/30/05 1:39:18 PM Reply	Wouldn't last Suppose a permanent underclass is responsible for a disproportioniate amount of crime, and that it's because they know they're in a permanent underclass. Even if you abort all of them, within two generations someone else will have to be the permanent underclass. There's always a permanent underclass. Prominent physical differences just make it easier to pick one. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #227,374 by ben_tilly 9/30/05 3:51:19 PM Reply	Then show me Canada's permanent underclass I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #227,377 by drewk 9/30/05 3:54:42 PM Reply	I don't know Canadian society that well But I've heard they don't have a great record with their indegenous population. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #227,383 by ben_tilly 9/30/05 4:05:37 PM Reply	They don't but... the indigenous population as a fraction of the overall population is nowhere near blacks as a fraction of the USA. Their corresponding impact on Canadian crime statistics is likewise far less than the impact of blacks on US crime statistics. See, for instance, the comparison between Vancouver and Seattle that I was just talking about. In short I do not see the existence of a large, permanent underclass to be a necessary feature of Western capitalistic democracy. If you disagree, then explain to me why Canada's demographics in this respect are so different than what you see in the USA. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #227,386 by drewk 9/30/05 4:21:08 PM Reply	I'm not talking about capitalism, but about human nature There's always an "us" and a "them". If there are classes in a society, the underclass will have some common characteristic that makes them easy to identify. Race is easy in a pluralistic society. So the U.S. has enormous disparity between the haves and the have-nots, and enough different races to populate plenty of strata in between. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #227,397 by Ashton 9/30/05 5:17:51 PM Reply	Confirmed! 'He who is not One Up is One Down' The gospel according to (author of) [link\|http://hattie-jacques.idoneos.com/\| School for Scoundrels], starring Alistair Simm. A recommended romp on the DVD - Anytime. School for Scoundrels (1959-England) Published: 01 November, 2002 marketplace, click here... \tOur price: $33.95 Buy one from zShops for: $29.95 Sales rank: 12745 \t Average customer rating: He who is not one up is one down! This movie, 5-up! "... the moment when Adam bit into that apple. At which moment, the first loser was born. Yes, the pattern was set. The world was divided not into male and female, that's a mere superficial division of minor importance. No, there is another division, another dichotomy more basic, more profound. At that fateful moment, the world was divided into winners and losers, top men and underdogs. In a word, the one up and the one down." --from Professor Potter's lecture at the College of Lifemanship, Yeovil. Or How To Win Without Actually Cheating. That's the subtitle of School For Scoundrels, this brilliant piece of British comedy from 1960, a title my father saw long ago and which I got him for a Christmas present, with a screenplay by Peter Ustinov no less adapted from three Stephen Potter novels. Poor Henry Palfrey! Clearly, he's constantly in a one-down position to the whole world. In a flashback, we see how despite being an executive in his late uncle's firm, he's dominated by his chief clerk Gloatbridge, who treats him like a non-entity. He literally bumps into the girl of his dreams, April Smith, a stunning but sweet, clean girl who's a brunette version of Betty Grable. However, a rascally, gap-toothed, smooth-talking acquaintance, Raymond Delawney, impresses April with his savoir-faire in wines and food, and even his snazzy Bellini sports car. Palfrey ends up getting a lemon and horribly losing a tennis match, where Delawney replies with a plummy "hard cheese!" every time he misses a point, causing him to lose face in front of April. He thus enrolls in Professor Potter's classes on lifemanship. What is lifemanship? It's "the science of being one up on your opponent at all times. It's the act of making him feel that somewhere, somehow, he's becoming less than you, less desirable, less worthy, less blessed." After graduating in classes of gamesmanship, onemanship, businessmanship, and that most important one, woo-manship, he gets back at those who caused him to lose face, and how! Next time I find somebody's who a life of the party, I'll use Potter's technique in deflating him/her. If Dingle, the gangly student in the class where that technique was demonstrated is familiar, that's Jeremy Lloyd, who would have a bit part jumping up and down in a club in A Hard Day's Night and the co-writer of Are You Being Served? in the 70's, and Allo Allo in the 80's. There are some misogynistic references on the "woo-manship" part, where Potter advises Henry to use a blase attitude to April in one scene. "Leave her alone and she'll come back home wagging her tail." Ouch, but good ones, Prof! Ian Carmichael (Henry) would later be known to American audiences watching PBS's Mystery as Lord Peter Wimsey in the Dorothy Sayers series. Terry-Thomas (Delawney) has another one of his comedic supporting roles, and it's incredible to see how he's suave when with poise, to a point where his frustration causes him to lose his temper. But hands down, veteran Alistair Sim as the impish Potter steals the show with his characteristic expressive eyes, toothy grin, and droll wit. Janette Scott shines as April, showing she could handle adult roles as well as child roles (James Stewart's super-intelligent daughter in No Highway In The Sky). Six years later, she'd have singer Mel Torme as her second of three husbands. Being someone constantly in a one-down position to the world, taking Potter's class would've been better than all those years I wasted in college. If I could do it all over, I'd take those classes and be one-up on everyone. However, Potter leaves the audience with a final warning: "once sincerity rears its ugly head, lifemanship is powerless." Me sincere? From now on, never! This movie is clearly one-up-up-up-up-up! Are You ....?.... Bluish?
Post #227,409 by ben_tilly 9/30/05 6:30:49 PM Reply	Slavery also used to be defended as inevitable... due to human nature. For some reason, you don't see so many people using that defence any more, do you? Whenever I hear a claim that something is inevitable "because of human nature" I always pass it through a BS filter that checks whether the speaker is just saying this because they don't have a real argument and can't imagine things being different than they are. This BS filter is rejecting your argument right now. In part because I lived somewhere where your description fit a lot less than it does in the USA. It is not obvious to me that the underclass must be easily identifiable. It is not obvious to me that race is always going to be the flashpoint. In fact my suspicion is that, in due course of time, increased mobility will result in our all becoming a fairly homogenous mixture of races. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #227,433 by drewk 9/30/05 9:25:07 PM Reply	Where did you see me defending it? Humans are a social animal. They like to be part of a group. For the concept of "group" to have meaning, there has to be the concept of "other". Any disagreement so far? I'd suggest that humans are also lazy. This means they'll take the easiest available way to define "other". In the U.S., that's currently race. It is not obvious to me that race is always going to be the flashpoint. In fact my suspicion is that, in due course of time, increased mobility will result in our all becoming a fairly homogenous mixture of races. And when that happens, race won't be the easiest way to identify the "other". Like Bulworth [link\|http://www.thecontext.com/docs/2933.html\|said], "We've got to keep fucking each other till we're all the same color." === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #227,443 by ben_tilly 9/30/05 10:01:55 PM Reply	"defended" might be the wrong word Though I really meant "defended the existence of", not "defended the practice of". That is, this used to be used about slavery in the form, "Sure, slavery might be a terrible thing for slaves. But it is inevitable that some races are more capable than others, and the more capable ones will subject the less to their will." This doesn't say that slavery is right, just that it is inevitable (and hence trying to get rid of it is useless). You are arguing that there will always be an easily identifiable underclass, and in a pluralistic society the underclass will tend to be defined by race. I am saying that I consider the arguments to be similar in form, and I disagree with the conclusion of both. About your reasoning, there are several gaps. First of all it is quite possible to define the group to which we belong as "all humans" or "all mammals" or some other inclusive category where the "other" is relatively unimportant. Secondly the definition of "us" and "them" does not necessarily lead to defining "them" as intrinsically horrible - consider sports teams for instance. Sure, a Yankees fan might tease a Red Sox fan, but you aren't going to find many Yankees fans who think that Red Sox fans are awful people because they root for the wrong team. Third, the existence of an easily identifiable and identified ethnic underclass does not necessarily lead to that group being depressed into a long-lived underclass situation. For instance in US history the Irish, Italians, Greeks, and many other ethnic groups were once clearly disadvantaged, but then as groups worked their way out of it. (Only to turn on later waves of immigration...) Blacks in the USA are in an unusual situation. They are disadvantaged and remain that way, for generation after generation. Why? My biggest guess as to why is that many blacks feel that they are owed because of a long history of things that have been done to them. And my second biggest guess is that many blacks have no hope that things will improve. When you focus on grievances past - no matter how justified your outrage may be - you don't go about building a better life in the present. And when you don't have hope, you again don't take steps that would let you have a better life in the present. These are twin millstones around any individual or ethnic group that suffers from them. But those are both just my guesses. I don't really know why blacks stay poorly off while other ethnic groups whose objective circumstances start off similar manage to improve their lot. There is some interesting research on this that I saw, which I can't find at the moment. The research found that in a number of countries a sharp distinction can be drawn between minorities whose situation stays the same from generation to generation, and those whose lot improves. When you see both in the same population, the ones who stay poorly off tend to be ones who either didn't choose to be there (eg blacks transported here by slave traders) or ones who didn't choose to be part of the dominant society (eg displaced indigenous people). The ones who do well are immigrants who chose to immigrate. What I found interesting about the research is that when in country A you have 2 ethnic groups, one of which does fine and the other of which is perennially disadvantaged, if members of both emmigrate to country B, then in country B, both do equally well! Apparently changing external expectations about what you can and cannot do can break dynamics of persistent failure. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #227,446 by Ashton 9/30/05 11:05:15 PM Reply	I may have noticed another aspect (of many such discussions.) All these ruminations appear to converge eventually upon ~ What does it mean to be human? (and a perhaps expected corollary: where Social Darwinists mean to focus upon any detail as would fragment any such unifying idea - felt as anathema.) No, I won't attempt answer, either - but I've noticed a theme within many P.K. Dick stories, whatever the main action-plot: As: Blade Runner / Do Androids Dream ... I thought it was Boffo that the protagonist runs off with a 'replicant'! - begging all sorts of questions whether say, 'ersatz memories' can produce a continuity of character / sense of Self? - indistinguisable-enough from the usual genesis. And it is not much of a stretch to compare that plot with MLK's dream of, "little black and white boys/girls holding hands", some.. day.. For the concretized amongst us -- a replicant would be a less formidable hand-holding partner than a ___ [fill in despised ethnicity of a time/place]. In the story: the replicant was a more human(e) partner than - the city-full of "humans" being fled! May we suppose that Dick called that, a minor-QED of sorts? (We Don't 'Know' what 'Makes Us Human' or, since prose is Never really enough) - Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? T. S. Eliot or maybe these two: We know too much, and are convinced of too little. Our literature is a substitute for religion, and so is our religion. We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time. It wasn't just 'communism' all enigma-wrapped in conundrum paper.
Post #227,447 by drewk 9/30/05 11:08:59 PM Reply	Lots of disagreements This doesn't say that slavery is right, just that it is inevitable (and hence trying to get rid of it is useless). No. I think it's fair to say most of us believe death is inevitable. That's not at all the same as saying we shouldn't try to get rid of it. You are arguing that there will always be an easily identifiable underclass, and in a pluralistic society the underclass will tend to be defined by race. No. I'm saying that humans tend to draw distinctions between "us" and "them". I'm also saying that in a society with large disparity among classes -- such as ours today -- there will tend to be one most-disadvantaged group. Finally I'm saying that in these circumstances, obvious racial differences become an easy way to define who gets to play "most-disadvantaged" this generation. First of all it is quite possible to define the group to which we belong as "all humans" or "all mammals" or some other inclusive category where the "other" is relatively unimportant. Quite possible, and in my opinion totally contrary to the way social dynamics really work. Secondly the definition of "us" and "them" does not necessarily lead to defining "them" as intrinsically horrible - consider sports teams for instance. Sure, a Yankees fan might tease a Red Sox fan, but you aren't going to find many Yankees fans who think that Red Sox fans are awful people because they root for the wrong team. You're not much of a sports fan, are you? Go to Philadelphia some time when the Eagles are playing the Steelers, and wear a Steelers jersey to the game. Oh, make sure your insurance is up-to-date. Third, the existence of an easily identifiable and identified ethnic underclass does not necessarily lead to that group being depressed into a long-lived underclass situation. For instance in US history the Irish, Italians, Greeks, and many other ethnic groups were once clearly disadvantaged, but then as groups worked their way out of it. (Only to turn on later waves of immigration...) No. Turning on later waves of immigrants was precisely how they worked their way out of it. My biggest guess as to why is that many blacks feel that they are owed because of a long history of things that have been done to them. And my second biggest guess is that many blacks have no hope that things will improve. While my gut feeling is that both these factors really do contribute, without some data to back it up this is uncomfortably close to saying, "It's all their own fault." What I found interesting about the research is that when in country A you have 2 ethnic groups, one of which does fine and the other of which is perennially disadvantaged, if members of both emmigrate to country B, then in country B, both do equally well! Apparently changing external expectations about what you can and cannot do can break dynamics of persistent failure. I'd like to see the specifics. I suspect any two ethnic groups from most countries would be seen in the U.S. as the same. i.e.: Arabs, Persians, Sikhs and frequently Indians are all commonly lumped together in the U.S. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #227,451 by Another Scott 9/30/05 11:33:40 PM Reply	On that last bit... Remember that Star Trek episode, [link\|http://www.starfleetlibrary.com/tos/tos3/let_that_be_your_last_battlefield.htm\|Let that be your last battlefield]? The one with Bele and Lokai? Well, being able to distinguish differences between ethnic groups is something that we don't seem to be very good at. (At least I'm not.) It's sort of funny because the human brain is so very good at recognizing faces... We have a CNA who's worked for us for nearly a couple of years. She's originally from Ethiopia. Let's call her Missy. For a while we had some additional temporary aids helping out. They were generally originally from Mali or Ghana. Their skills varied. Once Missy was telling us about some difficulty she had with one of the other aids and said under her breath, "Oh, those Africans!" :-/ I think you're right that most Americans (and most people?) would lump broadly similar looking strangers together in their minds. I think all of this helps to demonstrate the truism that discrimination must be taught. That is, kids quickly develop the concepts of Me, Family, and Others. Others gets modified over time (friends, acquaintences, enemies, etc.) and I think it's these modifications that leads to us having knee-jerk reactions to people of certain groups. There's nothing innate about us that makes us fearful of people who look "different" - it's a cultural thing. Cheers, Scott.
Post #227,457 by drewk 10/1/05 12:51:31 AM Reply	I don't know about that I suspect the suspicion of "other" is instinctive. It's just who gets classified as "other" that's taught. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #227,499 by ben_tilly 10/1/05 12:02:24 PM Reply	You might have a point - see "stranger anxiety" I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #227,477 by boxley 10/1/05 9:47:19 AM Reply	ethiopian comment, they are racially distinct she was discussing their racial background not geographic :-) thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #227,500 by ben_tilly 10/1/05 12:18:21 PM Reply	We do have several disagreements First of all I'll grant that I am not a sports fan. It may well be that sports fans are even stupider than I had thought. I disagree on how ethnic groups worked their way up. It wasn't by turning on others, it was by getting a leg up in work and education so that they became better off. Turning on others seems to me to be a side-effect, not a cause, of their improved circumstances. And yeah, what I said is awfully close to saying that it's their fault. Which it isn't of course. But I am saying that I believe that there are specific dynamics within the black community that contribute to the persistence of their problems. Before disagreeing, let's compare blacks and Chinese. Both started in the USA as desperately poor groups, very racially distinct, who were strongly disliked by mainstream society. Both are still racially distinct and there is plenty of racism directed at both. But the Chinese are economically doing a lot better, and are the focus of less crime, than blacks. Why? I don't really know the full answer. But my personal guess is that differences in attitude within the ethnic group are a big contributer. Finally, I can't find the study, so I can't give details. But my recollection is that you're right - after emmigration the fighting ethnic groups wound up in a society that couldn't tell the difference between them. (Though they continued to dislike each other...) Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #227,476 by boxley 10/1/05 9:44:12 AM Reply	go to the nearest reservation.... "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #227,498 by ben_tilly 10/1/05 12:00:12 PM Reply	Granted, but in numbers and societal impact... they aren't nearly as big an issue as blacks are in the USA. Note that I'm leaving out economic impact. The economic impact of the majority ignoring their property rights is insanely large, particularly in British Columbia. But that is a topic for another time. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Welcome to IWETHEY!