"White trash" vs average black family

[CHRIST_764]

White trash:
Family that lives in a trailer because they cant afford a house, hunts and fishes because they cant afford grocery store meat, uses alot of tobacco products

Unlikely that they smoke meth, still possible 20% of the time

Average black family:

Father is completely absent, nowhere to be found, probably in jail

Mother is living off EBT in government housing

Oldest son is on probation or in jail

Younger son is selling weed and buying glock's

Daughter is a stripper at a nightclub, prostitute on the side

There's no term called "black trash" cause they're all trash LMAOOOO

 

[mr123456]

thats just poor rural white people. white trash is still fucking gross they all are on some type of stimulant (way more then 20%) or are alcoholics and failures with wigger/biracial children. white trash also dont fish or hunt they eat tv dinners and drink mountain dew.

 

[jjjjjjjjhhhhhhkkkkk]

white trash is lowk way worse.

 

[mr123456]

white trash is lowk way worse.

yea i lowk agree with black people they usually never escape the cycle or there surroundings (all their choice btw) with white trash its way more disappointing and disgusting because 90% of the time they have the resources and a good upbringing. but white washed black people who live in the suburbs are way more annoying and just not pleasant to be around.

 

[Deleted member 104869]

Mother is living off EBT

 

[Jensonsahighlander]

end your life you disgusting generalizer so much bigger stuff to think about and this is what you can come up with go start thinking about some important stuff you have no sources to back this up

 

[dogpound]

end your life you disgusting generalizer so much bigger stuff to think about and this is what you can come up with go start thinking about some important stuff you have no sources to back this up

You can tell this guys father isn’t in the picture.

 

[loseratgenes]

White trash:
Family that lives in a trailer because they cant afford a house, hunts and fishes because they cant afford grocery store meat, uses alot of tobacco products

Unlikely that they smoke meth, still possible 20% of the time

Average black family:

Father is completely absent, nowhere to be found, probably in jail

Mother is living off EBT in government housing

Oldest son is on probation or in jail

Younger son is selling weed and buying glock's

Daughter is a stripper at a nightclub, prostitute on the side

There's no term called "black trash" cause they're all trash LMAOOOO

Black fatigue epidemic is broootal

 

[Tenres]

View attachment 4767910
View attachment 4767920

Jfl percent total not relative to their population (per capital) why r u ppl like this kek

 

[Jensonsahighlander]

You can tell this guys father isn’t in the picture.

yours isn’t in the picture for even taking this post seriously if you can’t see any wrong in the stuff he’s saying then even if your father is in the picture he’s just as low iq as you are

if you’re going to make an anti black people post then this entire post was completely stupid because it’s the one thing that sources don’t support at all

 

[dogpound]

yours isn’t in the picture for even taking this post seriously if you can’t see any wrong in the stuff he’s saying then even if your father is in the picture he’s just as low iq as you are

if you’re going to make an anti black people post then this entire post was completely stupid because it’s the one thing that sources don’t support at all

Ok here’s my source you niggers did nothing in life until the great whites came along and forced evolution down your throats if it wasn’t for us you would still be playing in shit and throwing spears at trees.

 

[Foodiepill]

Jfl percent total not relative to their population (per capital) why r u ppl like this kek

it's an iq filter bc only a retard wouldn't be able to understand per capita.

 

[Deleted member 104869]

percent total not relative to their population (per capital) why r u ppl like this kek

You're genuinely retarded if you read my post and instantly thought that was a gotcha, jfl.

No where in my post was I disputing the per capita rate. In fact, more than one in five Black households relied on SNAP, compared to a significantly lower rate among non-Hispanic white households, which literally just shows that Black americans are overrepresented relative to their population share.

https://www.epi.org/blog/cuts-to-snap-benefits-will-disproportionately-harm-families-of-color-and-children/

1. Roughly 1 in 4 Black households receive SNAP
2. Roughly 1 in 13 white households receive SNAP

Black households are overrepresented relative to population share, fine, acknowledged, moving on.

But, if you had any decent neural plasticity, you would know that OP's comment wasn't about "Black people use EBT at a higher rate per capita," retard. It was simply that SNAP is basically a Black program, that it's THEIR thing, the mental image people have when they picture an EBT card. Hence why I posted that.

 

[Deleted member 104869]

it's an iq filter bc only a retard wouldn't be able to understand per capita.

If you're making a statement like this, then YOU don't understand per capita, retard.

It's fucking hilarious for people to say shit like this and then be completely oblivious to the fact that this is just a reflection of poverty rates which then THAT reflects other awful shit like wage gaps, redlining, discriminatory lending, underfunded school districts, and about 150 years of documented policy decisions.

Niggas will always be so quick to say per capita but will never have the brain capacity to understand WHY the per capita gap even exists in the first place

 

[Tenres]

You're genuinely retarded if you read my post and instantly thought that was a gotcha, jfl.

No where in my post was I disputing the per capita rate. In fact, more than one in five Black households relied on SNAP, compared to a significantly lower rate among non-Hispanic white households, which literally just shows that Black americans are overrepresented relative to their population share.

https://www.epi.org/blog/cuts-to-snap-benefits-will-disproportionately-harm-families-of-color-and-children/

View attachment 4768087
View attachment 4768085
View attachment 4768091

1. Roughly 1 in 4 Black households receive SNAP
2. Roughly 1 in 13 white households receive SNAP

Black households are overrepresented relative to population share, fine, acknowledged, moving on.

But, if you had any decent neural plasticity, you would know that OP's comment wasn't about "Black people use EBT at a higher rate per capita," retard. It was simply that SNAP is basically a Black program, that it's THEIR thing, the mental image people have when they picture an EBT card. Hence why I posted that.

Ok so if it's 1 in 4 vs 1 in 13, that's more representative of black families than white families. Also stop seething

 

[Foodiepill]

If you're making a statement like this, then YOU don't understand per capita, retard.

It's fucking hilarious for people to say shit like this and then be completely oblivious to the fact that this is just a reflection of poverty rates which then THAT reflects other awful shit like wage gaps, redlining, discriminatory lending, underfunded school districts, and about 150 years of documented policy decisions.

Niggas will always be so quick to say per capita but will never have the brain capacity to understand WHY the per capita gap even exists in the first place

You sent two pics and didn't say anything regarding those pics. In your pictures you showed that white people make up more snap users than black people. You were responding to, "the mother is living off ebt". Now you're getting pissed bc we called you a retard and said that per capita is the reason for this stereotype about black people. gtfo here and take your malding shitty reasoning with you.

 

[Deleted member 104869]

Ok so if it's 1 in 4 vs 1 in 13, that's more representative of black families than white families.

You... JUST AGREED WITH ME LMFAOO

 

[RichmondBread]

White trash:
Family that lives in a trailer because they cant afford a house, hunts and fishes because they cant afford grocery store meat, uses alot of tobacco products

Unlikely that they smoke meth, still possible 20% of the time

Average black family:

Father is completely absent, nowhere to be found, probably in jail

Mother is living off EBT in government housing

Oldest son is on probation or in jail

Younger son is selling weed and buying glock's

Daughter is a stripper at a nightclub, prostitute on the side

There's no term called "black trash" cause they're all trash LMAOOOO

Also poor Whites are more resourceful. If you go to places in backwoods Appalachia its usually pretty clean and well kept. Some areas are bad, but mostly it's nicer and the crime is lower. They also make their own clothes and grow their own food. Blacks can't live without some form of assistance.

 

[Tenres]

You... JUST AGREED WITH ME LMFAOO

Bro

 

[stonecold trucel]

id rather be the black guy fuck white trash

 

[Deleted member 104869]

You sent two pics and didn't say anything regarding those pics.

The first pic already spoke for itself (if you're that much of a retard and couldn't comprehend the source itself, that's, unfortunately, not my problem), and in the second pic, I quite literally explained what it meant:

So, off rip, you're fucking illiterate yet claiming that other people are retarded.

 

[Starborn]

White trash is life.

Smoke meth everyday and beat on your wife.

 

[Foodiepill]

The first pic already spoke for itself (if you're that much of a retard and couldn't comprehend the source itself, that's, unfortunately, not my problem), and in the second pic, I quite literally explained what it meant:

View attachment 4768198
View attachment 4768187

So, off rip, you're fucking illiterate yet claiming that other people are retarded.

So we've been agreeing this whole fucking time then. Why did you even respond with the two pictures originally?

 

[Deleted member 104869]

So we've been agreeing this whole fucking time then.

We haven't. Repeating this again, I was responding to a cultural stereotype that SNAP is basically a Black program, that it's THEIR thing, the mental image people have when they picture an EBT card. You and terent, for odd fucking reason, decided to include per capita. But the original claim wasn't "Black people use EBT at a higher rate per capita."

I ALSO stated this:

It's fucking hilarious for people to say shit like this and be completely oblivious to the fact that this is just a reflection of poverty rates which then THAT reflects other awful shit like wage gaps, redlining, discriminatory lending, underfunded school districts, and about 150 years of documented policy decisions.

 

[Foodiepill]

We haven't. Repeating this again, I was responding to a cultural stereotype that SNAP is basically a Black program, that it's THEIR thing, the mental image people have when they picture an EBT card. You and terent, for odd fucking reason, decided to include per capita. But the original claim wasn't "Black people use EBT at a higher rate per capita."

I ALSO stated this:

We included per capita, because Black people being overrepresented is the reason for the stereotype and per capita shows that they are overrepresented. Terent and I both assumed that you were trying to prove the stereotype to be incorrect, that's why we responded with our own proof. The original claim you sent the pictures to was a joke about this stereotype and wasn't even meant to be argued against. Your response with poverty rates further proves that this stereotype rings true, unless you are trying to absolve Black people of blame in all of this; which is an entirely different argument.

 

[Deleted member 104869]

further proves that this stereotype rings true,

I don't think you know what you're talking about, jfl.

"The stereotype rings true"... based on what, exactly?

A stereotype, by definition, carries a CLAIM about why the pattern exists. The "Black people and EBT" thing is a claim that basically circulated as a CHARACTER STATEMENT. Laziness, dependency, not wanting to work. Things of that sort. That's the actual content of the stereotype. Per capita rates don't validate that. They just show a disparity exists.

I quite literally proved reasons why the disparity exists.

this is just a reflection of poverty rates which then THAT reflects other awful shit like wage gaps, redlining, discriminatory lending, underfunded school districts, and about 150 years of documented policy decisions.

I feel like I'm repeating myself because you genuinely refuse to read, lmfao.

absolve Black people of blame in all of this

Weird framing that just assumes there's blame to distribute in the first place. Blame for what exactly? Being poorer on average in a country that spent decades legally preventing Black wealth accumulation? Redlining ended in 1968. The racial wealth gap it created, unfortunately, didn't.

The alternative to all of this is just assuming the disparity is self-generated, which would need you to ignore basically EVERYTHING we know about how it got there.

 

[Foodiepill]

The "Black people and EBT" thing is a claim that basically circulated as a CHARACTER STATEMENT. Laziness, dependency, not wanting to work.

This is what I wanted you to say, because my argument was not based around the stereotype being a character statement and I see ebt being a black people thing and black people being lazy as two distinct stereotypes.

oxford definition: a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.

you're right ig, because the original post was implying that black people were lazy and that's why the mother was on ebt. For the record, I do understand that poverty rates and other awful shit did lead to this overrepresentation, but I also think that in the present day, the culture of black people in America contributes greatly.

 

[IronMike]

When you put white trash in vicinity of a black man, they turn into white bois

 

[Deleted member 104869]

This is what I wanted you to say, because my argument was not based around the stereotype being a character statement and I see ebt being a black people thing and black people being lazy as two distinct stereotypes.

oxford definition: a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.

you're right ig, because the original post was implying that black people were lazy and that's why the mother was on ebt. For the record, I do understand that poverty rates and other awful shit did lead to this overrepresentation, but I also think that in the present day, the culture of black people in America contributes greatly.

The culture argument is where I'd push back, but that's a whole separate conversation with a lot more moving parts than this one. Fair enough that you distinguished the two stereotypes, and fair enough conceding the structural side. That's more than most people do on this forum.

 

[shedontluv-U]

White trash:
Family that lives in a trailer because they cant afford a house, hunts and fishes because they cant afford grocery store meat, uses alot of tobacco products

Unlikely that they smoke meth, still possible 20% of the time

Average black family:

Father is completely absent, nowhere to be found, probably in jail

Mother is living off EBT in government housing

Oldest son is on probation or in jail

Younger son is selling weed and buying glock's

Daughter is a stripper at a nightclub, prostitute on the side

There's no term called "black trash" cause they're all trash LMAOOOO

Why they canth afford all that isntheir fault nigga ? If you are a redneck just say it

 

[Tenres]

The culture argument is where I'd push back, but that's a whole separate conversation with a lot more moving parts than this one. Fair enough that you distinguished the two stereotypes, and fair enough conceding the structural side. That's more than most people do on this forum.

I think the genetics are argument is up in the air with a lot of the facts being explainable and influenced by both genes and environment.

The culture thing is def true tho, people do what makes them high status. If that's joining a gang they'll do that, if it's studying they'll study, etc. The values of a culture will direct their behavior

 

[Deleted member 104869]

The values of a culture will direct their behavior

That's fine, but culture itself has causes. You would need to actually engage with what actually produced it.

Where do the status incentives in a given culture come from? They don't generate themselves. Decades of disinvestment in Black neighborhoods, underfunded schools, discriminatory hiring, mass incarceration pulling working-age men out of communities. I can go on. My point is that these things shape what's locally available and what's locally valorized.

A kid in a neighborhood where almost no adults have stable professional careers isn't making a purely cultural choice when he doesn't orient toward one.

Again, I am not saying culture does not shape behavior or that status incentives are not real. I am, however, saying that it's doing a lot of unexplained work.

 

[Tenres]

That's fine, but culture itself has causes. You would need to actually engage with what actually produced it.

Where do the status incentives in a given culture come from? They don't generate themselves. Decades of disinvestment in Black neighborhoods, underfunded schools, discriminatory hiring, mass incarceration pulling working-age men out of communities. I can go on. My point is that these things shape what's locally available and what's locally valorized.

A kid in a neighborhood where almost no adults have stable professional careers isn't making a purely cultural choice when he doesn't orient toward one.

Again, I am not saying culture does not shape behavior or that status incentives are not real. I am, however, saying that it's doing a lot of unexplained work.

Sure value structures are based on what is locally viable for your success. So if you face job or education discrimination, you tend towards valuing hustling or crime, etc. Individuals still have a large impact on how the culture is perpetuated, it could just as easily turn into a productive valuation of your own community, and opening your own businesses etc. Essentially I'd say given the absolute destitution of the black community right now, the fault is not entirely a bad environment but the perpetuation of a bad culture by many people within the community, who could easily shape it differently. It seems to be the case that "black culture" was more productive when they were more explicitly oppressed, modern black people aren't creating black wall street.

 

[Deleted member 104869]

It seems to be the case that "black culture" was more productive when they were more explicitly oppressed, modern black people aren't creating black wall street.

Genuinely one of the worst examples you could've picked for this argument simply due to the fact that the one time concentrated Black wealth existed, it got destroyed by external violence.

Tulsa's Greenwood District was economically productive BECAUSE segregation forced self-containment. Black dollars couldn't leave the community, so they circulated internally and built wealth. How would that be a cultural achievement in ANY way? That would just be a structural condition producing an economic outcome.

And then in 1921 a white mob burned it to the ground with city and state complicity, killed hundreds, and the survivors received zero reparations.

Essentially I'd say given the absolute destitution of the black community right now, the fault is not entirely a bad environment but the perpetuation of a bad culture by many people within the community, who could easily shape it differently.

That's not how cultures actually change. Cultural shifts, at a community scale, happen over generations and would usually need conditions changing first.

Are you seriously telling me that simply telling an abstract collective to just choose better values, even though the concrete conditions that produce those values remain intact, is your argument here??? Come on, lmfao.

 

[Tenres]

Genuinely one of the worst examples you could've picked for this argument simply due to the fact that the one time concentrated Black wealth existed, it got destroyed by external violence.

Tulsa's Greenwood District was economically productive BECAUSE segregation forced self-containment. Black dollars couldn't leave the community, so they circulated internally and built wealth. How would that be a cultural achievement in ANY way? That would just be a structural condition producing an economic outcome.

And then in 1921 a white mob burned it to the ground with city and state complicity, killed hundreds, and the survivors received zero reparations.

View attachment 4770145



That's not how cultures actually change. Cultural shifts, at a community scale, happen over generations and would usually need conditions changing first.

Are you seriously telling me that simply telling an abstract collective to just choose better values, even though the concrete conditions that produce those values remain intact, is your argument here??? Come on, lmfao.

Ok so you agree in a more repressive culture they had a more productive culture.

Response depends on the collective response of the individual. Unless you literally believe in genetic determinism here (i.e., response to environment is determined), then you have to concede on this point. So as I said, your environment will limit what you can do but the collective choices that people in the community will make will create it's culture. The foundations of the community were led by people influenced by Du Bois and Booker T Washington.

Yes, that is completely reasonable. No one is forcing black people to kill, rape, steal, at a vastly higher rate than everyone else. Its reasonable to say that the response to whatever economic conditions you are blaming should not be raping murdering and stealing?

Do you disagree that individuals who rape steal and kill as a result of their economic choices should choose other things to do?

 

[Deleted member 104869]

Ok so you agree in a more repressive culture they had a more productive culture.

No, I don't agree that "more repressive = more productive culture." How the fuck did you get to that conclusion off of what I said?

I said segregation STRUCTURALLY FORCED internal economic circulation. That's a specific mechanism. It would not be a general law that oppression breeds virtue. Greenwood was quite literally built because Black people literally couldn't spend money anywhere else.

Response depends on the collective response of the individual. Unless you literally believe in genetic determinism here (i.e., response to environment is determined), then you have to concede on this point. So as I said, your environment will limit what you can do but the collective choices that people in the community will make will create it's culture. The foundations of the community were led by people influenced by Du Bois and Booker T Washington.

Nobody here argued genetic determinism, so why are you bringing it up? That's a strawman YOU invented so YOU could knock it down.

Since some of us clearly lack any literacy to actually read one another's statements, let me restate my position:

Environment HEAVILY shapes the probability distribution of individual choices across a population. I am not saying individuals are like robots. But when you're explaining a POPULATION-LEVEL pattern, "individuals should just choose better" would simply just be a moral complaint.

Yes, that is completely reasonable. No one is forcing black people to kill, rape, steal, at a vastly higher rate than everyone else. Its reasonable to say that the response to whatever economic conditions you are blaming should not be raping murdering and stealing?

Crime rates DO correlate with poverty and economic deprivation and this is not controversial in criminology AT ALL. Robert Sampson at Harvard has spent decades documenting exactly this across Chicago neighborhoods.

The racial gap in violent crime rates shrinks A LOT when you control for concentrated disadvantage. I wonder why.

"No one is forcing them"

This is completely irrelevant at the analytical level you're supposedly operating at. Cool, I guess?

The foundations of the community were led by people influenced by Du Bois and Booker T Washington.

Do you realize Du Bois spent his entire career arguing that structural racism was the PRIMARY obstacle? That's literally the Washington/Du Bois debate. Washington said self-improvement and Du Bois said WAIT, you cannot self-improvement your way out of systematic political exclusion. Du Bois won that argument, historically speaking.

You're citing Du Bois to make a "fix your culture" argument when the same person you're citing wouldn't have agreed with you, LMFAO.

 

[Centurion_Hunter]

White trash:
Family that lives in a trailer because they cant afford a house, hunts and fishes because they cant afford grocery store meat, uses alot of tobacco products

Unlikely that they smoke meth, still possible 20% of the time

Average black family:

Father is completely absent, nowhere to be found, probably in jail

Mother is living off EBT in government housing

Oldest son is on probation or in jail

Younger son is selling weed and buying glock's

Daughter is a stripper at a nightclub, prostitute on the side

There's no term called "black trash" cause they're all trash LMAOOOO

Reminder that rural appalachia with dirt poor whites is safer than middle income black areas

 

[Tenres]

No, I don't agree that "more repressive = more productive culture." How the fuck did you get to that conclusion off of what I said?

I said segregation STRUCTURALLY FORCED internal economic circulation. That's a specific mechanism. It would not be a general law that oppression breeds virtue. Greenwood was quite literally built because Black people literally couldn't spend money anywhere else.

As long as you agree there was a productive response to a repressive culture, and that there less productive options available that weren't chosen due to the cultural and ideological beliefs of the founder O.W. Gurley, then this sounds like everything I said is inarguable.

Who's citing anything? You can't track any argument wtf.

P1) If multiple responses to X exist, then there is a selective process in which the response to X is chosen
P2) selected responses are chosen based on the values and ideology of the individuals who choose
P3) multiple responses to X exist
C) there is a selective process in which the response to X is chosen based off the values and ideology of the individuals in question

On why there can't only be one possible response:

P1) A response to X can be determined IFF there is only one option or genetic determinism is true (i.e., the response is determined not by lack of options, but by the Constitution of the individuals)
P2) more than one option is available
P3) genetic determinism is not true
C) A response to X can not be determined

I doubt you'll have any sufficient response given that you can't respond to anything substantively, I hope you're young in which case this will be a good learning experience. You did decently.

 

[Deleted member 104869]

As long as you agree there was a productive response to a repressive culture, and that there less productive options available that weren't chosen due to the cultural and ideological beliefs of the founder O.W. Gurley, then this sounds like everything I said is inarguable.

Who's citing anything? You can't track any argument wtf.

P1) If multiple responses to X exist, then there is a selective process in which the response to X is chosen
P2) selected responses are chosen based on the values and ideology of the individuals who choose
P3) multiple responses to X exist
C) there is a selective process in which the response to X is chosen based off the values and ideology of the individuals in question

On why there can't only be one possible response:

P1) A response to X can be determined IFF there is only one option or genetic determinism is true (i.e., the response is determined not by lack of options, but by the Constitution of the individuals)
P2) more than one option is available
P3) genetic determinism is not true
C) A response to X can not be determined

I doubt you'll have any sufficient response given that you can't respond to anything substantively, I hope you're young in which case this will be a good learning experience. You did decently.

A syllogism. Not fucking surprising, jfl.

As long as you agree there was a productive response to a repressive culture, and that there less productive options available that weren't chosen due to the cultural and ideological beliefs of the founder O.W. Gurley, then this sounds like everything I said is inarguable.

This is just restating your conclusion as the premise. You're essentially saying, "if you agree with me, then I'm right." Circular reasoning 101. Fucking retard, lmfao.

P1) If multiple responses to X exist, then there is a selective process in which the response to X is chosen

Ok. This is fine.

P2) selected responses are chosen based on the values and ideology of the individuals who choose

And then you proceed to fuck it all up.

SURE, partially. But values and ideology are themselves shaped by material conditions, social environment, available information, legal constraints, economic incentives, so on and so on. You're just treating individual values as the terminal explanation when they're also variables that need explaining.

P1) A response to X can be determined IFF there is only one option or genetic determinism is true (i.e., the response is determined not by lack of options, but by the Constitution of the individuals)
P2) more than one option is available
P3) genetic determinism is not true
C) A response to X can not be determined

This is actually way fucking worse, lmfao. So, to make sure I'm not strawmanning you here, you're essentially making the point that:

The only way a response could be determined is genetic determinism OR only one option existing.

That's a false dichotomy. Responses can be HEAVILY PROBABILISTICALLY SHAPED by environment without being FULLY DETERMINED.

Saying "poverty makes crime significantly more likely across a population" would not need genetic determinism. It would need statistics. Statistics exist. And which, throughout this entire discussion, you have not engaged with at all. And I'm honestly not surprised.

This was such a boring non-engaging syllogism where the whole thing is just logically formatted, but the load-bearing premise, that values are the terminal cause rather than also being caused, is just asserted and never actually defended.

I doubt you'll have any sufficient response given

Jesus Christ, the preemptive face-saving before I've even replied.

I hope you're young in which case this will be a good learning experience. You did decently.

I absolutely love how you do more talking than actually defending the assertions you make. It's chefs kiss if I had to say. Keep them coming.

 

[Tenres]

This is just restating your conclusion as the premise. You're essentially saying, "if you agree with me, then I'm right." Circular reasoning 101. Fucking retard, lmfao.

This is how any valid argument works, if you agree with the premises you agree with the conclusion. That's not circular at all.

It wouldn't even be circular if I stated "if you agree with my conclusion, you agree with my conclusion", "if x, x" is not circular, it's tautological.

SURE, partially. But values and ideology are themselves shaped by material conditions, social environment, available information, legal constraints, economic incentives, so on and so on. You're just treating individual values as the terminal explanation when they're also variables that need explaining.

Why is this a problem with the premise? If you agree values and ideology determine a selective process of responses to environment X, but thinks it's for w, y, z then we can have that conversation, you still agree with all the premises and conclusion.

The only way a response could be determined is genetic determinism OR only one option existing.

Correct, something is only 100% determined if there's only 1 option and choice is forced (i.e., you have to choose) or you are compelled by your nature to make that choice (e.g., God can't lie due to his nature, something like that).

You still aren't tracking and it might have to do with low IQ or something.

We are talking about whether it's rational to say "x group" should make a more rational response to "y" environmental conditions. My position is that as long as a more productive available choice exists, then it's rational to tell that group to prefer that choice. Your position has to be that they have either no autonomy or very little automony, we can have the empirical conversational later, commit to premises and stop being a fag.

You can't compress cuz low IQ, sad!

 

[2d v2]

White trash:
Family that lives in a trailer because they cant afford a house, hunts and fishes because they cant afford grocery store meat, uses alot of tobacco products

Unlikely that they smoke meth, still possible 20% of the time

Average black family:

Father is completely absent, nowhere to be found, probably in jail

Mother is living off EBT in government housing

Oldest son is on probation or in jail

Younger son is selling weed and buying glock's

Daughter is a stripper at a nightclub, prostitute on the side

There's no term called "black trash" cause they're all trash LMAOOOO

Even though I consider myself a white supremacist, heres a run down of my childhood

My older brother beat me up and threw me around, my uncles told me i looked like a girl which lead to overcompensation during puberty(I did end up ogremaxxing basically)

My older female cousins would dump rabbit shit on me, chase me with dog shit, get naked and chase me, and try to pull my clothes off to make fun of me,


Alcoholism was rampant. opiate use hit a few of them, cocaine use hit a few others. Most of them recovered in alter years.
The family was very chaotic but a few stable figures kept me going.

Thinking about it now I guess I was lucky it wasn't worse. This was a south florida family of irish spanish polocks.

 

[Deleted member 104869]

This is how any valid argument works, if you agree with the premises you agree with the conclusion. That's not circular at all.

Holy genuine shit, your reading comprehension is abysmal.

The issue was never the logical structure itself but that your PREMISE is doing circular work. You're saying "as long as you agree with everything I said, I'm right," which would not be defending the premise but just instead restating it and calling it inarguable. The circularity is in how you're framing the condition for agreement and not in the syllogism's form.

You corrected something I didn't actually say wrong, congrats.

Why is this a problem with the premise? If you agree values and ideology determine a selective process of responses to environment X, but thinks it's for w, y, z then we can have that conversation, you still agree with all the premises and conclusion.

Dude, you're genuinely not reading what I'm writing.

I said values are ALSO caused by the environment. Your response is "muh okay, but if values determine responses, we can talk about what causes values separately." BUT THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT. The second you admit values are downstream of material conditions, you can't turn around and say "the culture is the problem" without explaining why the culture is what it is.

You're segmenting the argument into pieces so you never actually have to confront the full causal chain simultaneously. You're avoiding the argument, but you're so quick to say shit like this:

Muh you still aren't tracking and it might have to do with low IQ or something even though I'm avoiding the argument myself

We are talking about whether it's rational to say "x group" should make a more rational response to "y" environmental conditions. My position is that as long as a more productive available choice exists, then it's rational to tell that group to prefer that choice. Your position has to be that they have either no autonomy or very little automony, we can have the empirical conversational later, commit to premises and stop being a fag.

You're slowly exposing how little you understand what you're arguing.

"my position is that it's RATIONAL to tell a group to prefer a more productive choice."

...okay? Nobody disagreed with that. The question was never whether crime is irrational in some abstract sense. The question was whether the population-level pattern of responses constitutes a cultural failing rather than a predictable output of measurable conditions. Those are completely different questions and you keep sliding between them like they're the same.

Your position has to be that they have either no autonomy or very little automony,

... NO. That's a false binary you're STILL running even after it was already called out.

You can believe individuals have full moral autonomy AND simultaneously recognize that population-level behavioral patterns are primarily explained by structural variables rather than cultural ones. Criminologists do this constantly. It's called not confusing the unit of analysis.

An individual choosing to commit a crime is a moral question. A population showing elevated crime rates is an empirical question with empirical answers, and those answers overwhelmingly point to concentrated poverty. It is not culture.

You haven't engaged with Robert Sampson's research. You haven't engaged with the poverty-crime literature at all.

You can't compress cuz low IQ, sad!

Aww, this is so cute. Little baby calling me low IQ after running a false dichotomy for four consecutive messages after it was explicitly identified

 

[Tenres]

Holy genuine shit, your reading comprehension is abysmal.

The issue was never the logical structure itself but that your PREMISE is doing circular work. You're saying "as long as you agree with everything I said, I'm right," which would not be defending the premise but just instead restating it and calling it inarguable. The circularity is in how you're framing the condition for agreement and not in the syllogism's form.

You corrected something I didn't actually say wrong, congrats.



Dude, you're genuinely not reading what I'm writing.

I said values are ALSO caused by the environment. Your response is "muh okay, but if values determine responses, we can talk about what causes values separately." BUT THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT. The second you admit values are downstream of material conditions, you can't turn around and say "the culture is the problem" without explaining why the culture is what it is.

You're segmenting the argument into pieces so you never actually have to confront the full causal chain simultaneously. You're avoiding the argument, but you're so quick to say shit like this:







You're slowly exposing how little you understand what you're arguing.

"my position is that it's RATIONAL to tell a group to prefer a more productive choice."

...okay? Nobody disagreed with that. The question was never whether crime is irrational in some abstract sense. The question was whether the population-level pattern of responses constitutes a cultural failing rather than a predictable output of measurable conditions. Those are completely different questions and you keep sliding between them like they're the same.



... NO. That's a false binary you're STILL running even after it was already called out.

You can believe individuals have full moral autonomy AND simultaneously recognize that population-level behavioral patterns are primarily explained by structural variables rather than cultural ones. Criminologists do this constantly. It's called not confusing the unit of analysis.

An individual choosing to commit a crime is a moral question. A population showing elevated crime rates is an empirical question with empirical answers, and those answers overwhelmingly point to concentrated poverty. It is not culture.

You haven't engaged with Robert Sampson's research. You haven't engaged with the poverty-crime literature at all.



Aww, this is so cute. Little baby calling me low IQ after running a false dichotomy for four consecutive messages after it was explicitly identified

Alr I beat you on every point because you're a mentally ill retard so I'll just conclude.

My premise was that culture directs behavior and that culture is partly the result of the people in the culture who perpetuate it and choose to emphasize certain parts of it. You agreed that culture directs behavior. You conceded that people do have autonomy over response to material conditions, therefore in shaping culture. You agreed that there IS a selective process to do so that depends on the individual. The only real defense you have against this being a total concession is the point that the values and ideology (the selective process) will itself be determined by the material conditions, but this is already addressed by the autonomy and choice points, even if you want this infinite regress of "material causes" (material meaning economic, environmental, etc. in this case) then you need some deterministic end point, but we both agree that people have autonomy over their response.

Alright that's good. Ggs no re son. You did shit at the end but idk, not the worst here.

NRF, actually this time.

 

[Deleted member 104869]

Alr I beat you on every point because you're a mentally ill retard so I'll just conclude.

My premise was that culture directs behavior and that culture is partly the result of the people in the culture who perpetuate it and choose to emphasize certain parts of it. You agreed that culture directs behavior. You conceded that people do have autonomy over response to material conditions, therefore in shaping culture. You agreed that there IS a selective process to do so that depends on the individual. The only real defense you have against this being a total concession is the point that the values and ideology (the selective process) will itself be determined by the material conditions, but this is already addressed by the autonomy and choice points, even if you want this infinite regress of "material causes" (material meaning economic, environmental, etc. in this case) then you need some deterministic end point, but we both agree that people have autonomy over their response.

Alright that's good. Ggs no re son. You did shit at the end but idk, not the worst here.

NRF, actually this time.

Aww, little baby is running. Don't they just grow up so fast