*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[oskar]

Spoon you're literally strawmanning yourself here, buddy. Nobody here gives a shit about that douchebag.
Are we done? Do you wanna talk some race realism? But before that I'd like you to either answer or at least acknowledge the one question I've already posed twice.

[spoonitnow]

Spoon you're literally strawmanning yourself here, buddy. Nobody here gives a shit about that douchebag.
Are we done? Do you wanna talk some race realism? But before that I'd like you to either answer or at least acknowledge the one question I've already posed twice.

It's impossible to have a serious conversation with you. However, I will answer one question that you keep pressing on:

But regardless of the why. Let's be more specific: New York is one of the most diverse cities. Let's say you want to make New York less diverse. How would you do that without forcibly relocating people?

You make them want to relocate. You're making this so much more difficult and complicated than it is. You can probably figure out various ways to make someone want to relocate on your own. It does not require a showing of force. Instead, it just requires setting up incentives so that most people behave the way you want them to.

They have Door A, which is to stay. They have Door B, which is to relocate. You make Door B more attractive than Door A by enough of a margin that they walk through Door B. It's simple, and you want to make it complicated, which is why I have difficulty in talking to you on any serious level.

[oskar]

You make them want to relocate. You're making this so much more difficult and complicated than it is. You can probably figure out various ways to make someone want to relocate on your own. It does not require a showing of force. Instead, it just requires setting up incentives so that most people behave the way you want them to.

They have Door A, which is to stay. They have Door B, which is to relocate. You make Door B more attractive than Door A by enough of a margin that they walk through Door B. It's simple, and you want to make it complicated, which is why I have difficulty in talking to you on any serious level.

What type of incentives and how do you fund them? I don't think I'm making this complicated. Moving people from their home is very complicated. Landlords sometimes have to pay out 6-figure sums to remove tenants from a rental when the house gets repurposed. You want to remove families from a city or a country, you bet it's going to be more expensive than that.

[spoonitnow]

What type of incentives and how do you fund them? I don't think I'm making this complicated. Moving people from their home is very complicated. Landlords sometimes have to pay out 6-figure sums to remove tenants from a rental when the house gets repurposed. You want to remove families from a city or a country, you bet it's going to be more expensive than that.

Again, you're making this much more complicated than it is. You're stuck on the idea of moving people instead of realizing that there's also the option of people moving themselves. Another way of framing it is that you're assuming that these people who would be moving do not want to move. Banana gave you one example in post #538.

[oskar]

Again, you're making this much more complicated than it is. You're stuck on the idea of moving people instead of realizing that there's also the option of people moving themselves. Another way of framing it is that you're assuming that these people who would be moving do not want to move. Banana gave you one example in post #538.

If you drive up the price of living, you are are targeting poor people of all ethnic groups. So, yes, this lowers diversity because on average black people in the US have lower economic standings. But you're also targeting poor white people. If you drive out poor people, you're going to see a net positive impact on quality of living in that area, but for one thing you are not targeting the underlying factors why these people have lower economic standings and arguably you are not solving the actual problem of poverty and rather just relocating it.

I think the important question then is why black people have lower economic standings.
My take on this is: let's say you take 100 novice poker players who are able to beat 100NL at 2bb/100. Start out 50 of them with a roll of 1k and 50 of them with a roll of $500. Which group would have a better chance of running their BR up to the point where they can beat variance?
I think this is a fair example because just a couple of generations ago people of color have been actively discriminated against in education and job opportunities, and while this gross injustice no longer exists, the effects of it still trickle down.

[spoonitnow]

If you drive up the price of living, you are are targeting poor people of all ethnic groups. So, yes, this lowers diversity because on average black people in the US have lower economic standings. But you're also targeting poor white people. If you drive out poor people, you're going to see a net positive impact on quality of living in that area, but for one thing you are not targeting the underlying factors why these people have lower economic standings and arguably you are not solving the actual problem of poverty and rather just relocating it.

We aren't trying to solve poverty in the problem you posed. We're trying to maximize the percentage of a particular ethnic group from a specific location as efficiently as possible. Stop moving the goal posts.

I think the important question then is why black people have lower economic standings.
My take on this is: let's say you take 100 novice poker players who are able to beat 100NL at 2bb/100. Start out 50 of them with a roll of 1k and 50 of them with a roll of $500. Which group would have a better chance of running their BR up to the point where they can beat variance?
I think this is a fair example because just a couple of generations ago people of color have been actively discriminated against in education and job opportunities, and while these gross injustice no longer exists, the effects of it still trickle down.

The number one factor to this question is the lack of the nuclear family. The number one predictor of basically every negative outcome in life is not having a present father. (Fun fact: Not having a present mother doesn't have nearly the same level of negative effects.)

[oskar]

We aren't trying to solve poverty in the problem you posed. We're trying to maximize the percentage of a particular ethnic group from a specific location as efficiently as possible. Stop moving the goal posts.

That's fair. I think my point still stands that the method used is still highly ineffective - we're talking about a couple of percentile points, and you're not solving a problem that is caused by diversity and rather by poverty.

The number one factor to this question is the lack of the nuclear family. The number one predictor of basically every negative outcome in life is not having a present father. (Fun fact: Not having a present mother doesn't have nearly the same level of negative effects.)

Why do you think black people are more likely to grow up without a father?

[wufwugy]

If you drive up the price of living, you are are targeting poor people of all ethnic groups.

If that is the effect of a policy, you are right. And I know that's what you meant.

I'm posting this as an add-on, because a frequent derivation of that concept is to do something like build "affordable housing." Here's Scott Sumner explaining how doing the opposite is what helps the poor. As usual, economic effects are counter-intuitive. Where building "unaffordable housing" might look like housing costs are increasing for the poor, it instead reduces the poor's housing costs.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...uld_focus.html

[spoonitnow]

If that is the effect of a policy, you are right. And I know that's what you meant.

I'm posting this as an add-on, because a frequent derivation of that concept is to do something like build "affordable housing." Here's Scott Sumner explaining how doing the opposite is what helps the poor. As usual, economic effects are counter-intuitive. Where building "unaffordable housing" might look like housing costs are increasing for the poor, it instead reduces the poor's housing costs.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...uld_focus.html

You better stop with all of that economics and math and logic and shit.

[wufwugy]

I think the important question then is why black people have lower economic standings.

I know of very few economists who touch this issue, and Thomas Sowell is one of the only who do. He claims that data show blacks had rising standards, and some standards even higher than whites, up until the wide adoption of welfare and similar policies like affirmative action. He accounts how black nuclear family rates survived slavery and Jim Crow and were higher than whites until they plummeted after welfare institution. He discusses how he grew up in a safe and prospering Harlem that today is destitute and crime-ridden.

I can probably source some interviews where he discusses these in more detail if you want.

[BananaStand]

I think the important question then is why black people have lower economic standings

This actually isn't a debate. this question already has an answer.

I'm not sure exactly what the number is, but US economics recognizes a level of income at which a person crosses "the poverty line". For simplicity, I'm going to refer to everyone below that line as "poor", and everyone above that line as "prosperous".

now here are the numbers.

90% of prosperous people share these three cultural traits.
1. They finished high school
2. They did not have a child before age 21.
3. They did not have their first child outside of marriage.

That's it. Do those three things, and you will not be poor. Conversely, 90 percent of poor people are missing one or more of those traits. So if black people are disproportionately poor. the answer probably lies somewhere on that list.

1. The high school graduation rate for black people is 69%. For white people, its' 86%
2. The teenage pregnancy rate among black people is 39 births per 1000. For white people, it's 19. LESS THAN HALF!!
3. 72% of black people are born to unwed mothers, compared to only 26% of white people. ALMOST A THIRD!!

You might say "but schools in black neighborhoods are bad..." FUCK YOU. This analysis makes no distinction for the quality of the school. Every child in America has access to public school. All they have to do is show up.

You might say "but fathers are absent because of racist policing, and mass-incarceration". FUCK YOU. Unless 70+% of black people are being conceived during conjugal visits, this is bullshit. If these guys are fucking....it means they're free men with the ability to work and provide for their family. If they shirk their parental responsibilities by engaging in highly risky illegal activities, that's simply called irresponsibility....not a symptom of white privilege.

So Lincoln freed the slaves 150 years ago, schools are open, and it's legal to buy condoms. Why are black people not prosperous?

It's pretty easy to see, as spoon pointed out, that an emphasis on education and a nuclear family would head off ALL of these problems. However, black culture seems to be rejecting that. I will bet a lung that more than two-thirds of black people who read this post would consider it racist.

But it's not racist. I'm just making a factual observation that black culture is broken.

1. Family failures are cyclical. Bad fathers breed bad fathers. Black fathers simply do not appreciate the impact of their absence since it's so common in their culture.

2. Black music, movies, and TV, are full of "thugs" and "pimps" who are glamorized. Drug dealing, street violence, and disrespect for women is actually GLORIFIED and this shit is fed to black kids all day every day.

3. Black leaders are not addressing the above two issues. Rather they decry any mention of them as racist. And as an alternate message, they are telling black citizens that the system is rigged against them. THIS DESTROYS MOTIVATION!! [Aside: Bernie Sanders is guilty of the same thing]. The Al Sharptons of the world have made a lucrative living making sure that black people grow up believing they will always be oppressed. Consequently, they don't try, and the self-fulfilling prophecy is complete

4. Black culture does not seem to emphasize education as much as other cultures do. Watch the NFL playoffs this weekend. Listen to the post-game interviews with black players. Listen to how bad their command of the english language is. And those guys are all college graduates! Imagine what theses guys would have to do with their lives if they weren't incredibly blessed with athletic talent.

[wufwugy]

3. 72% of black people are born to unwed mothers, compared to only 26% of white people. ALMOST A THIRD!!

This used to be reversed. Blacks used to have higher marriage rates. That was during the lives of our grandparents and back when Harlem was not a ghetto.

Related: Sheriff David Clarke:

[CoccoBill]

90% of prosperous people share these three cultural traits.
1. They finished high school
2. They did not have a child before age 21.
3. They did not have their first child outside of marriage.

That's it. Do those three things, and you will not be poor.

Did you know that the leading cause of drowning is ice cream?