undefined | Better HN

0 pointskbenson3y ago0 comments

I read the comment you're replying to as saying it didn't actually destroy anything, it's just easy to infer that from what's visible in records (e.g. statistics). "Didn't actually destroy anything in practice" pretty clearly puts it as against the idea that it destroyed anything though, to my eyes.

0 comments

lovich3y ago

That may be what they meant, but my interpretation of their full statement(including the part about the formalization of that unit) was that they didn’t have any family structure to begin with. The poster may have had a nuanced reason for saying that, but given the dog whistle and lack of any nuance actually stated by them, I don’t see a reason to assume as such

aperson_hello3y ago

Not quite sure what the "dog whistle" was that you're referring to...please explain that!

The statistics show significantly lower marriage rates among black families (moreso correlated to poor families, in which black folks over-represent). The thing not shown in the statistics is the number of families where parents are together, but unmarried (and oftentimes reporting different addresses) because they get SIGNIFICANTLY more benefits that way. So...the family unit is there, but just not formalized. And people are just responding to the incentives in front of them.

lovich3y ago

That explanation doesn’t have a dog whistle, but implying that a family structure doesn’t exist in any manner in the black community is the dog whistle that it seems you inadvertently triggered

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointskbenson3y ago0 comments

0 comments

lovich3y ago

aperson_hello3y ago

Not quite sure what the "dog whistle" was that you're referring to...please explain that!

lovich3y ago

That explanation doesn’t have a dog whistle, but implying that a family structure doesn’t exist in any manner in the black community is the dog whistle that it seems you inadvertently triggered

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse