Teens beat homeless men to death

[IrishLion]

...a fictitious demon neckbeards write fan-fic about online...

That's the only type of beard that I can grow efficiently and consistently, and so this offends me. I much prefer ManBearPig when writing fan-fic. I'm serial.

 

[GoIrish41]

True

But what is "violent anti social behavior'?

Beating up random people?

Street fight?

Gang fight?

Does this count as "violent anti social behavior" >>

[/IMG]

Absolutely.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I think this all goes back to the views on marriage and family. There is a HUGE % difference of those who are "upper middle class" and above who are married versus those who are solidly in the middle class and below.

The side effect of this is single parent households. From Murray's coming apart that Whiskey linked earlier (good summary in the link):
"In 1960, just 2% of all white births were nonmarital. When we first started recording the education level of mothers in 1970, 6% of births to white women with no more than a high-school education—women, that is, with a Fishtown education—were out of wedlock. By 2008, 44% were nonmarital. Among the college-educated women of Belmont, less than 6% of all births were out of wedlock as of 2008, up from 1% in 1970."


Charles Murray on the New American Divide - WSJ

 

[Booslum31]

I sound like my father. America is in a huge culteral and moral decline. Rome comes to mind.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

What follows is an editorial review for Charles Murray's Coming Apart:

As with the Bell Curve, this treatment has all the right data with erroneous conclusions. In addition to the "decline of the work ethic, religious observance, and the decline of marriage," "Fishtown" suffers from a decline in societal wealth. After years of services intended to hold the poor (mostly non-white) at arms length and make them as dependent as junkies out for the next fix, the social net has been removed, and the means for marginal members of society to contribute in meaningful, or productive ways has been nearly eliminated. Because at the same time the pool of available jobs have become much more highly technical. Yes, those at the bottom who need services to be productive, cannot afford those services with the wages they can garner. They are getting squeezed out, with little thought or concern of those who have more.

All of this, while the wealthy get wealthier. Which is why they (the wealthy) seem to be unaffected by the "social decline." In other words, the wealthy are not affected by things like the poor, first because of their money, and then because of what it buys. Assuming that something like marriage decline is responsible for any social ill is fraudulent and more than a bit hypocritical. Sweden has the highest rate of live births out of wedlock of any country with the lowest level of childhood poverty on the books, so much lower than the US that it is embarrassing!

You can see this same self justifying view of the elite in the Second Temple Period writings of the Israelites, like the Book of Job. At one point being wealthy was a sign of "God's approval." Then people began to question authority when they suffered so greatly. Later Heaven had to be created as a reward after first the Greeks, then the Romans dominated and defiled the Israelites and their institutions. Because the whole system needs to be based on rewards; right? We tend to change toward that which gives us the self-righteous, moral imperative. And toward what perpetuates our social systems and institutions. Especially when we feel powerless. Proof that we are "right," and those unlike us are not, so to speak is key to hope and survival.

Instead of realizing that generations of depravation with programs that discourage peoples from standing on their own, followed by a removal of the safety net and the trickle of wealth this group experienced result in a kind of poverty than creates a "faux social and behavioral retardation" that makes effective contribution more difficult than possible, and more and more difficult than ever.

Bell Curve wasn't racist because of its facts, it was racist because of its interpretation of them. Anyone who assumes a "racial group" is dumber than another is racist, as is anyone that doesn't see social stigma resulting in hundreds of years of suffering and depravation, followed by dysfunctional enabling through dependence oriented programs designed to placate those that are being deprived, is also racist. So I say!