Honest Conversation in America about Race

[BigBallinStalin]

Tzor, what evidence do you have that urban poverty is caused by liberal progressive policies?

Mets, what evidence do you have that urban poverty is reduced by liberal progressive policies?

(Control for confirmation bias--e.g. don't only run to your favorite liberal websites and 'think' tanks which affirm your beliefs).

[Metsfanmax]

Tzor, what evidence do you have that urban poverty is caused by liberal progressive policies?

Mets, what evidence do you have that urban poverty is reduced by liberal progressive policies?

(Control for confirmation bias--e.g. don't only run to your favorite liberal websites and 'think' tanks which affirm your beliefs).

I don't have any evidence for or against, because I haven't spent much time reading about it. Hence the request. However, thank you for the undergraduate lesson in how to properly engage in research. It is very welcome. Please feel free to add your condescension in on a more regular basis, as I enjoy it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Tzor, what evidence do you have that urban poverty is caused by liberal progressive policies?

Mets, what evidence do you have that urban poverty is reduced by liberal progressive policies?

(Control for confirmation bias--e.g. don't only run to your favorite liberal websites and 'think' tanks which affirm your beliefs).

I don't have any evidence for or against, because I haven't spent much time reading about it. Hence the request. However, thank you for the undergraduate lesson in how to properly engage in research. It is very welcome. Please feel free to add your condescension in on a more regular basis, as I enjoy it.

That's great to hear! Have any of your past posts supported any kind of progressive policy?

[Metsfanmax]

Tzor, what evidence do you have that urban poverty is caused by liberal progressive policies?

Mets, what evidence do you have that urban poverty is reduced by liberal progressive policies?

(Control for confirmation bias--e.g. don't only run to your favorite liberal websites and 'think' tanks which affirm your beliefs).

I don't have any evidence for or against, because I haven't spent much time reading about it. Hence the request. However, thank you for the undergraduate lesson in how to properly engage in research. It is very welcome. Please feel free to add your condescension in on a more regular basis, as I enjoy it.

That's great to hear! Have any of your past posts supported any kind of progressive policy?

Why is this relevant? Someone made an interesting claim and I asked them to provide evidence for that claim. Then you came in here and asked me about my own opinion on the issue. But this is not about my opinion; I am interested in what tzor has to say, so I would like to have a conversation with him. There is no reason to turn this into an interrogation of Mets, and you were not invited to do so, so please leave.

[BigBallinStalin]

Tzor, what evidence do you have that urban poverty is caused by liberal progressive policies?

Mets, what evidence do you have that urban poverty is reduced by liberal progressive policies?

(Control for confirmation bias--e.g. don't only run to your favorite liberal websites and 'think' tanks which affirm your beliefs).

I don't have any evidence for or against, because I haven't spent much time reading about it. Hence the request. However, thank you for the undergraduate lesson in how to properly engage in research. It is very welcome. Please feel free to add your condescension in on a more regular basis, as I enjoy it.

That's great to hear! Have any of your past posts supported any kind of progressive policy?

Why is this relevant? Someone made an interesting claim and I asked them to provide evidence for that claim. Then you came in here and asked me about my own opinion on the issue. But this is not about my opinion; I am interested in what tzor has to say, so I would like to have a conversation with him. There is no reason to turn this into an interrogation of Mets, and you were not invited to do so, so please leave.

I'm just showing the path toward your possible hypocrisy in order to prevent you from lapsing into your "holier than thou" attitude.

[Metsfanmax]

Tzor, what evidence do you have that urban poverty is caused by liberal progressive policies?

Mets, what evidence do you have that urban poverty is reduced by liberal progressive policies?

(Control for confirmation bias--e.g. don't only run to your favorite liberal websites and 'think' tanks which affirm your beliefs).

I don't have any evidence for or against, because I haven't spent much time reading about it. Hence the request. However, thank you for the undergraduate lesson in how to properly engage in research. It is very welcome. Please feel free to add your condescension in on a more regular basis, as I enjoy it.

That's great to hear! Have any of your past posts supported any kind of progressive policy?

Why is this relevant? Someone made an interesting claim and I asked them to provide evidence for that claim. Then you came in here and asked me about my own opinion on the issue. But this is not about my opinion; I am interested in what tzor has to say, so I would like to have a conversation with him. There is no reason to turn this into an interrogation of Mets, and you were not invited to do so, so please leave.

I'm just showing the path toward your possible hypocrisy in order to prevent you from lapsing into your "holier than thou" attitude.

What possible hypocrisy? My question towards tzor was an honest question, not a rhetorical one: I want to know if what he is saying is supported, so that I can update my views on the Democratic Party and/or progressive policies accordingly. I know this may be unfamiliar to you, as you apparently know everything and so the concept of actually learning something from someone else is foreign to you. So stop being a dick, and exit the conversation. That is all I am going to say to you.

[Phatscotty]

Well Mets, evidence is one thing, but we can also work with what we know to be true. What do we know to be true? Liberal Democrats of which I put those who prioritize race and see everything through the lens of race firmly into the Progressive camp, that doesn't make it so, but hopefully you could concede that point easily. They have governed/ruled/run virtually every predominantly black city in America, and it has been that way for generations. We don't know exactly how Progressive each variable was or might have been or wasn't, but we do know very few Conservatives (not just Republican in name only/lefty Republican like Romney or Schwarzinegger/non partisans) have had a chance to ever make a real or significant impact or a change of any kind.

What positive and what negative results have we seen from ultimate Democrat rule over all the Fergusons for generations? income equality gap? incarceration gap? police brutality? upward economic mobility? unemployment? contribution to their city/society? pick your own issues. Hell, cherry pick them.

[Metsfanmax]

Well Mets, evidence is one thing, but we can also work with what we know to be true. What do we know to be true? Liberal Democrats of which I put those who prioritize race and see everything through the lens of race firmly into the Progressive camp, that doesn't make it so, but hopefully you could concede that point easily. They have governed/ruled/run virtually every predominantly black city in America, and it has been that way for generations. We don't know exactly how Progressive each variable was or might have been or wasn't, but we do know very few Conservatives (not just Republican in name only/lefty Republican like Romney or Schwarzinegger/non partisans) have had a chance to ever make a real or significant impact or a change of any kind.

What positive and what negative results have we seen from ultimate Democrat rule over all the Fergusons for generations? income equality gap? incarceration gap? police brutality? upward economic mobility? unemployment? contribution to their city/society? pick your own issues. Hell, cherry pick them.

The problem is that for any one of those, or all of them, you could be involved in the fallacy of correlation without causation. Maybe the trend of urban black communities was going to go the way it did regardless of who really was in charge. We don't have the counterfactual of knowing what would have happened if Republicans ran those cities, so we can't say whether it would be worse or better. However, I think if you wanted to start with this, you could compare examples of cities that started and ended with similar demographics in two time periods, and compare how relevant variables (employment, crime, etc.) changed because of different political approaches. It would be far from perfect, but it would be a start.

[Phatscotty]

Well Mets, evidence is one thing, but we can also work with what we know to be true. What do we know to be true? Liberal Democrats of which I put those who prioritize race and see everything through the lens of race firmly into the Progressive camp, that doesn't make it so, but hopefully you could concede that point easily. They have governed/ruled/run virtually every predominantly black city in America, and it has been that way for generations. We don't know exactly how Progressive each variable was or might have been or wasn't, but we do know very few Conservatives (not just Republican in name only/lefty Republican like Romney or Schwarzinegger/non partisans) have had a chance to ever make a real or significant impact or a change of any kind.

What positive and what negative results have we seen from ultimate Democrat rule over all the Fergusons for generations? income equality gap? incarceration gap? police brutality? upward economic mobility? unemployment? contribution to their city/society? pick your own issues. Hell, cherry pick them.

The problem is that for any one of those, or all of them, you could be involved in the fallacy of correlation without causation. Maybe the trend of urban black communities was going to go the way it did regardless of who really was in charge. We don't have the counterfactual of knowing what would have happened if Republicans ran those cities, so we can't say whether it would be worse or better. However, I think if you wanted to start with this, you could compare examples of cities that started and ended with similar demographics in two time periods, and compare how relevant variables (employment, crime, etc.) changed because of different political approaches. It would be far from perfect, but it would be a start.

Don't worry about me (impossible I know!), I simply pointed out Democrats/Liberals/Progressives have owned the current situation for generations, and I simply asked you to give your take on the positives said policies have had in the communities/populations of the topic matter. I don't care at all nor did I suggest we speculate about what Republicans might have done. I didn't ask you anything about Republicans at all. I plainly asked you about Democrat domination of the situation and the results.

Try to focus Mets.

[Metsfanmax]

Well Mets, evidence is one thing, but we can also work with what we know to be true. What do we know to be true? Liberal Democrats of which I put those who prioritize race and see everything through the lens of race firmly into the Progressive camp, that doesn't make it so, but hopefully you could concede that point easily. They have governed/ruled/run virtually every predominantly black city in America, and it has been that way for generations. We don't know exactly how Progressive each variable was or might have been or wasn't, but we do know very few Conservatives (not just Republican in name only/lefty Republican like Romney or Schwarzinegger/non partisans) have had a chance to ever make a real or significant impact or a change of any kind.

What positive and what negative results have we seen from ultimate Democrat rule over all the Fergusons for generations? income equality gap? incarceration gap? police brutality? upward economic mobility? unemployment? contribution to their city/society? pick your own issues. Hell, cherry pick them.

The problem is that for any one of those, or all of them, you could be involved in the fallacy of correlation without causation. Maybe the trend of urban black communities was going to go the way it did regardless of who really was in charge. We don't have the counterfactual of knowing what would have happened if Republicans ran those cities, so we can't say whether it would be worse or better. However, I think if you wanted to start with this, you could compare examples of cities that started and ended with similar demographics in two time periods, and compare how relevant variables (employment, crime, etc.) changed because of different political approaches. It would be far from perfect, but it would be a start.

Don't worry about me (impossible I know!), I simply pointed out Democrats/Liberals/Progressives have owned the current situation for generations, and I simply asked you to give your take on the positives said policies have had in the communities/populations of the topic matter. I don't care at all nor did I suggest we speculate about what Republicans might have done. I didn't ask you anything about Republicans at all. I plainly asked you about Democrat domination of the situation and the results.

Try to focus Mets.

And I plainly stated that I don't know what impacts Democrats have had on the situation, because correlation is not causation. You need to keep saying that to yourself until you understand it.

[Phatscotty]

Well Mets, evidence is one thing, but we can also work with what we know to be true. What do we know to be true? Liberal Democrats of which I put those who prioritize race and see everything through the lens of race firmly into the Progressive camp, that doesn't make it so, but hopefully you could concede that point easily. They have governed/ruled/run virtually every predominantly black city in America, and it has been that way for generations. We don't know exactly how Progressive each variable was or might have been or wasn't, but we do know very few Conservatives (not just Republican in name only/lefty Republican like Romney or Schwarzinegger/non partisans) have had a chance to ever make a real or significant impact or a change of any kind.

What positive and what negative results have we seen from ultimate Democrat rule over all the Fergusons for generations? income equality gap? incarceration gap? police brutality? upward economic mobility? unemployment? contribution to their city/society? pick your own issues. Hell, cherry pick them.

The problem is that for any one of those, or all of them, you could be involved in the fallacy of correlation without causation. Maybe the trend of urban black communities was going to go the way it did regardless of who really was in charge. We don't have the counterfactual of knowing what would have happened if Republicans ran those cities, so we can't say whether it would be worse or better. However, I think if you wanted to start with this, you could compare examples of cities that started and ended with similar demographics in two time periods, and compare how relevant variables (employment, crime, etc.) changed because of different political approaches. It would be far from perfect, but it would be a start.

Don't worry about me (impossible I know!), I simply pointed out Democrats/Liberals/Progressives have owned the current situation for generations, and I simply asked you to give your take on the positives said policies have had in the communities/populations of the topic matter. I don't care at all nor did I suggest we speculate about what Republicans might have done. I didn't ask you anything about Republicans at all. I plainly asked you about Democrat domination of the situation and the results.

Try to focus Mets.

And I plainly stated that I don't know what impacts Democrats have had on the situation, because correlation is not causation.

correlation is not causation, nor did I say it was. Hey, a dog is not a cat! But I can tell you I like dogs more than cats. You are really something special aren't ya? I asked your opinion. I could easily say that because of tax cuts, people have more money in their pockets. Because of drug testing for welfare, taxpayers are less and less enabling drug addicts destroying their lives. You have all the opinions in the world, ready to declare what policies are hurtful, what philosophy and way of life will set back the clock on progress, what is hate based (everything!) you are even able to know people's true inner motives despite never having met them as you so often do. But when it comes to pointing out something positive about your own values and what you believe in and asked to give your opinion and name a single thing in the entire country, you go straight for your infamous dodge correlation/causation life-jacket to protect you from even having to give an opinion.

Seems like you are unable to even say if Progress has been made or not, probably not even be able to talk about what Progress is? Well, anyways, keep pushing for Progress and by all means continue to make negative assertions about everything you don't like in the name of not being able to say anything positive about what you do like.

[Metsfanmax]

correlation is not causation, nor did I say it was. Hey, a dog is not a cat! But I can tell you I like dogs more than cats. You are really something special aren't ya? I asked your opinion.

I don't have an opinion. When you haven't read any research on a topic, the correct thing to do is to have no opinion on it, not to pick one out of your ass. I asked tzor for his data so that I can start to form an opinion. Why is everyone deciding to give me a hard time about that?

I could easily say that because of tax cuts, people have more money in their pockets.

You easily say a lot of things. That's why basically no one here actually gives a shit what you talk about. Your posts would be a lot more valuable if you only talked about the things you know about and have evidence for. But since you seem to have an opinion on basically everything under the Sun, none of us can separate the signal from the noise.

[Phatscotty]

correlation is not causation, nor did I say it was. Hey, a dog is not a cat! But I can tell you I like dogs more than cats. You are really something special aren't ya? I asked your opinion.

I don't have an opinion. When you haven't read any research on a topic, the correct thing to do is to have no opinion on it, not to pick one out of your ass. I asked tzor for his data so that I can start to form an opinion. Why is everyone deciding to give me a hard time about that?

I could easily say that because of tax cuts, people have more money in their pockets.

You easily say a lot of things. That's why basically no one here actually gives a shit what you talk about.

interesting opinion, coming from the guy who spends far more time than anyone else rewording, twisting, and derailing my posts...... If my posts are so worthless, why do you spend so much time on them, and respond to virtually every single post I make?

check mate, mate

[Metsfanmax]

If my posts are so worthless, why do you .. respond

Joke answer: because humans are stupid.



Serious answer: because you provide a great case study for why people shouldn't talk out of their ass, and by pointing it out maybe people will be less inclined to be like you.

[thegreekdog]

I would like to respond to the Mets' question with a correlation response (rather than a causation response). Many very urban-poor cities in the United States have had, at least since the 1950s or 1960s, liberal and progressive mayors and city councils. Let's just take Detroit, which we can all agree is a city with a large poverty problem (among many other problems).

Detroit has had Democratic mayors since 1962.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Detroit

Detroit questions left unanswered (by me anyway):
- Were the Democratic mayors liberal progressives?
- Did Democratic mayors (or city council members) institute liberal/progressive policies?
- Did those liberal/progressive policies cause the issues with Detroit?
- What were the other factors?

Politicians don't operate in a vacuum (although many may propose that we throw them in a vacuum), but I suspect that one would find little evidence that liberal/progressive policies, acting alone, raise people out of poverty.

[mrswdk]

I don't think Mets was making any claim that liberal progressive* policies raise people out of poverty.

*whatever that means

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't think Mets was making any claim that liberal progressive* policies raise people out of poverty.

*whatever that means

Yeah, it's a bit vague, but it's basically government welfare programs and regulation (e.g. consumer credit 'protection'), and they're usually always implemented at a national level.

Progressivism refers to the US of the late 1890s, when regulation was arising. Then throughout the early 1900s and up to the 1930s, it exacerbates, and expands into welfare programs (e.g. see FDR and Hoover's "New" Deal).

In short, it's moderate national socialism (which conservatives also tend to support, so "liberal" progressive is a bit misleading).

[thegreekdog]

I'm blanking on the series of novels, but I just read them. In those books, the Earth government classifies people in one of two ways. The first (deemed better) way is that you work and do your thing and get paid, etc. The second (deemed not as good) way is that you live off the government.

In any event, I don't know what liberal/progressive means based on what tzor or Mets were saying. What I'm saying is that maybe there is a reason Detroit is in the shitter and maybe that has to do with the local government of Detroit over the past 50 years (I tend to think it has to do with lots of other things too, but whatevs).

[Metsfanmax]

I would like to respond to the Mets' question with a correlation response (rather than a causation response). Many very urban-poor cities in the United States have had, at least since the 1950s or 1960s, liberal and progressive mayors and city councils. Let's just take Detroit, which we can all agree is a city with a large poverty problem (among many other problems).

Detroit has had Democratic mayors since 1962.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Detroit

Detroit questions left unanswered (by me anyway):
- Were the Democratic mayors liberal progressives?
- Did Democratic mayors (or city council members) institute liberal/progressive policies?
- Did those liberal/progressive policies cause the issues with Detroit?
- What were the other factors?

Politicians don't operate in a vacuum (although many may propose that we throw them in a vacuum), but I suspect that one would find little evidence that liberal/progressive policies, acting alone, raise people out of poverty.

The sense in which we define progressive is important here. As BBS correctly points out, both Republicans and Democrats generally support things like Social Security. Democrats are more likely to support straight welfare payments (TANF, and AFDC before that), while Republicans are more likely to object. However, it is obvious that welfare payments aren't actually enough to lift people out of poverty. AFDC created incentives to work off the books (or to not work at all), and even then many people who did work didn't hit the poverty level even when supplemented with it. TANF gives people an incentive to work, but that means anyone who doesn't have a real job is out of luck. So to call such welfare payments progressive is kind of an abuse of the word -- they are shadows of things that progressives might do if given free reign, but they're weak enough so that they can get through the actual Congress we have.

So the problem here is that someone without any intellectual honesty could blame certain problems on progressive policies, even though the policies in question were only very watered down versions of things progressives would actually do.

[thegreekdog]

I would like to respond to the Mets' question with a correlation response (rather than a causation response). Many very urban-poor cities in the United States have had, at least since the 1950s or 1960s, liberal and progressive mayors and city councils. Let's just take Detroit, which we can all agree is a city with a large poverty problem (among many other problems).

Detroit has had Democratic mayors since 1962.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Detroit

Detroit questions left unanswered (by me anyway):
- Were the Democratic mayors liberal progressives?
- Did Democratic mayors (or city council members) institute liberal/progressive policies?
- Did those liberal/progressive policies cause the issues with Detroit?
- What were the other factors?

Politicians don't operate in a vacuum (although many may propose that we throw them in a vacuum), but I suspect that one would find little evidence that liberal/progressive policies, acting alone, raise people out of poverty.

The sense in which we define progressive is important here. As BBS correctly points out, both Republicans and Democrats generally support things like Social Security. Democrats are more likely to support straight welfare payments (TANF, and AFDC before that), while Republicans are more likely to object. However, it is obvious that welfare payments aren't actually enough to lift people out of poverty. AFDC created incentives to work off the books (or to not work at all), and even then many people who did work didn't hit the poverty level even when supplemented with it. TANF gives people an incentive to work, but that means anyone who doesn't have a real job is out of luck. So to call such welfare payments progressive is kind of an abuse of the word -- they are shadows of things that progressives might do if given free reign, but they're weak enough so that they can get through the actual Congress we have.

So the problem here is that someone without any intellectual honesty could blame certain problems on progressive policies, even though the policies in question were only very watered down versions of things progressives would actually do.

Is it kind of like how people blame certain problems on capitalism, even though capitalism does not exist without "progressive policies"?

I don't disagree with you, although I would argue that "progressive" politicians seem to have a vested interest in making sure watered-down progressive policies remain ineffective (either to implement more watered-down progressive policies or to keep interested party constituents happy).

[Metsfanmax]

I would like to respond to the Mets' question with a correlation response (rather than a causation response). Many very urban-poor cities in the United States have had, at least since the 1950s or 1960s, liberal and progressive mayors and city councils. Let's just take Detroit, which we can all agree is a city with a large poverty problem (among many other problems).

Detroit has had Democratic mayors since 1962.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Detroit

Detroit questions left unanswered (by me anyway):
- Were the Democratic mayors liberal progressives?
- Did Democratic mayors (or city council members) institute liberal/progressive policies?
- Did those liberal/progressive policies cause the issues with Detroit?
- What were the other factors?

Politicians don't operate in a vacuum (although many may propose that we throw them in a vacuum), but I suspect that one would find little evidence that liberal/progressive policies, acting alone, raise people out of poverty.

The sense in which we define progressive is important here. As BBS correctly points out, both Republicans and Democrats generally support things like Social Security. Democrats are more likely to support straight welfare payments (TANF, and AFDC before that), while Republicans are more likely to object. However, it is obvious that welfare payments aren't actually enough to lift people out of poverty. AFDC created incentives to work off the books (or to not work at all), and even then many people who did work didn't hit the poverty level even when supplemented with it. TANF gives people an incentive to work, but that means anyone who doesn't have a real job is out of luck. So to call such welfare payments progressive is kind of an abuse of the word -- they are shadows of things that progressives might do if given free reign, but they're weak enough so that they can get through the actual Congress we have.

So the problem here is that someone without any intellectual honesty could blame certain problems on progressive policies, even though the policies in question were only very watered down versions of things progressives would actually do.

Is it kind of like how people blame certain problems on capitalism, even though capitalism does not exist without "progressive policies"?

I don't disagree with you, although I would argue that "progressive" politicians seem to have a vested interest in making sure watered-down progressive policies remain ineffective (either to implement more watered-down progressive policies or to keep interested party constituents happy).

I'm trying to avoid No True Scotsman here, but I would say that there aren't many extant Democrats who are truly progressive. Maybe some people who call themselves that because they use similar, but watered down policy ideas.

[tzor]

Tzor, what evidence do you have that urban poverty is caused by liberal progressive policies?

Detroit Comes First For Poverty in the United States

All of these cities are known for their progressive liberal policies. Cities with conservative policies are not on the list.

[tzor]

I don't think Mets was making any claim that liberal progressive* policies raise people out of poverty.

*whatever that means

You should try to use Google more. It is your friend. It will show you the way to Wikipedia. It might not be the best, but it's better than nothing.,

Progressivism


BULLY!

[Metsfanmax]

Tzor, what evidence do you have that urban poverty is caused by liberal progressive policies?

Detroit Comes First For Poverty in the United States

All of these cities are known for their progressive liberal policies. Cities with conservative policies are not on the list.

Perhaps I am just woefully ignorant of what goes on in my country, but I've never heard Brownsville, TX, Dayton, OH, and Gainesville, FL as being bastions of progressivism in city politics. Even Gainesville is well known for having very liberal university students and residents, but this is the same city that has been called out for criminalization of the homeless. (Apparently there's a ranking for the "meanest" cities in the country, judged by the laws against homelessness, and even Berkeley is on that list.)

More to the point, I have to stress that correlation is not causation. Detroit is doing some pretty shitty things right now, and there's no point in arguing that. But why are the liberal/progressive policies to blame for why there's so much poverty there? Isn't it just possible that certain economic trends could help explain that?

[mrswdk]

I don't think Mets was making any claim that liberal progressive* policies raise people out of poverty.

*whatever that means

You should try to use Google more. It is your friend. It will show you the way to Wikipedia. It might not be the best, but it's better than nothing.,

Progressivism

Yeah yeah. I've seen that Wiki before. A belief in progress. lolz. I guess everyone in the world is a Progressive then.