• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Black men are succeeding in America (CNN)

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
36,709
2,548
1,520
Best Coast
What exactly is Rentahamster argument? I feel lost watching this back and forth
This should help.

You're the first to mention the notion of a positive piece of news being used as a "political weapon". How could someone weaponize good news?
By using it as evidence for claims that certain politicians/policies/legislation are responsible for the positive news and that they should be supported as a result, even if it actually isn't really evidence.
You're right, we do have people in the thread claiming that the welfare system is responsible for the positive news, even though the article and other research indicates otherwise.
Does it really though?
You tell me. The article in the OP and the subsequent statistics and research-papers linked so far indicate that's the case.
Dun's claim: That the article indicates that the welfare system is not responsible for the black men achieving more success.

The burden of proof requires that Dun demonstrate that the article attempts to show and/or advocate for this.

Dun's evidence:

Well, education, work, and marriage were three factors leading to the success of black men. All three of those reduce or eliminate one's entitlement to welfare services. It's not difficult to figure this out.
The article does indicate the first sentence.

The article DOES NOT indicate the second sentence. That is Dun's own reasoning. Whether or not welfare is or is not responsible for any of this uptick in black social mobility is irrelevant to the conversation, because the article does not make this assertion.

The article doesn't even have the word "welfare" in it appear once.

Further evidence disputing Dun's claim, is that the paper that this article is based on does suggest that social programs do, in fact, help, and that it recommends more of them.

Dun even admits this part too:

Yeah, the article presents no info that indicates welfare was responsible for this improvement.
which is the point I'm making, and yet he still thinks he's right even though he just agreed with my assessment and restated it plainly right there. I think the point of confusion for him rests here:

I concluded (and still conclude) welfare was not a major contributing factor to the success of these black men. Tying yourself into knots trying to tell me I cannot conclude that is pointless.
This is where the goalposts moved because I'm actually not trying to tell him that he can't conclude that. If he understood my initial question properly, he would realize that I'm only trying to tell him that he can't say that the article indicates that. Because it doesn't. And he already admitted to that, so we're arguing over nothing. He's free to make his own conclusions about welfare.

This goes back to the whole "political weaponization" that brought this up in the first place.

By using it as evidence for claims that certain politicians/policies/legislation are responsible for the positive news and that they should be supported as a result, even if it actually isn't really evidence.
Saying that this article indicates welfare is not responsible for upward black mobility is not supported by the evidence, because the article says nothing of the sort. The authors of the article, however, actually do think that social programs are beneficial, so if you read the paper this article is based on, you'd see that they applaud and recommend such programs.