If Mort Divine ruled the world

Yeah, the removal of high time preference glorifying entertainment couldn't possibly be positive :rolleyes:

According to this logic, it would be better to eliminate the vast majority of music (anything about smoking pot, having underage sex, drinking, etc.). It's not just unrealistic, it's stupid. Music is a release. You're acting like a puritan.
 
I know, I'm being what rms calls "sensationalist."

But what you'd suggest is that hip hop feeds a violent mentality within black communities while metal doesn't (or does to a lesser extent). In order to do that, you'd have to show a) that music carries more weight than other cultural factors, including history and current social conditions; and b) that African Americans, for some reason, don't understand the content of their music as an aesthetic and symbolic element, but as encouraging real behavior, while metal listeners are able to make this distinction (which would carry an implication that metal listeners are more intelligent than hip hop listeners).

Heavy metal contains a comparable amount of transgressive material, and has been linked in the past to notable instances of violence. If we are saying that music is an important cultural factor, then it makes perfect sense that music of all kinds contributes to behavior.

I don't believe this, of course. While there are isolated examples of people seeming to emulate musical artists, I don't think music should be blamed for cultural behaviors; and I think this holds for metal as well as hip hop.

Nothing to do with music. What I think hip hop does to worsen the situation of black Americans, especially those below the middle class, is to give unhealthy male rolemodel figures to young, impressionable black males who are already fighting against the pull to engage in gang activity and are already more often than not dealing with a fatherless upbringing.

These older male rappers slide easily into the male rolemodel slot for a lot of young black guys and if the overwhelming content of mainstream hip hop as well as a lot of non-mainstream hip hop is about holding down your territory, slinging drugs, sexual promiscuity, gang violence, etc and that is coming from people who are filling a male rolemodel void, that is dangerous.

The problem with hip hop is that rappers, who are usually rather financially conservative people behind the scenes, sell a lifestyle of crime, easy money and "realness" to poor people. Hip hop also promotes a don't snitch mentality which directly leads to criminal activity being protected in black communities.

This concept has been talked about for decades within the hip hop culture by the way, people like KRS-One have been trying to fight against this crushing tide of gang glorification within hip hop since it boomed in the late 1980's.

In fact, if Islam can be said to have had any positive contribution to the ethics and morals of a community in the western realm, I would definitely try to make the case for it within hip hop culture. But it's not the majority mentality, especially not in the communities that are below the middle class.

TL;DR it is not about hip hop music, but the culture itself.
 
Also, many conscious rappers have been making an argument for decades now that hip hop has become a toxic influence on their people which is evidenced by the fact that you can't really make it in hip hop unless you make ignorant music.

Luckily that is actually starting to turn around.

cig what are you smoking

Your mum's tits.

No but seriously, the amount of big name rappers who secretly vote for politicians that want to lower taxes shouldn't really be surprising.

50 Cent raps about the dumbest stuff possible but behind the scenes is actually an articulate businessman that owns confectionery companies and Jay Z has built an empire on being smart with his income.

Consider the RZA from Wu-Tang, the guy is a filmmaker now. The GZA gives short lectures to students about science, these aren't hoodrats even though they may have very likely inspired people to be hoodrats.
 
Nothing to do with music. What I think hip hop does to worsen the situation of black Americans, especially those below the middle class, is to give unhealthy male rolemodel figures to young, impressionable black males who are already fighting against the pull to engage in gang activity and are already more often than not dealing with a fatherless upbringing.

These older male rappers slide easily into the male rolemodel slot for a lot of young black guys and if the overwhelming content of mainstream hip hop as well as a lot of non-mainstream hip hop is about holding down your territory, slinging drugs, sexual promiscuity, gang violence, etc and that is coming from people who are filling a male rolemodel void, that is dangerous.

The problem with hip hop is that rappers, who are usually rather financially conservative people behind the scenes, sell a lifestyle of crime, easy money and "realness" to poor people. Hip hop also promotes a don't snitch mentality which directly leads to criminal activity being protected in black communities.

This concept has been talked about for decades within the hip hop culture by the way, people like KRS-One have been trying to fight against this crushing tide of gang glorification within hip hop since it boomed in the late 1980's.

In fact, if Islam can be said to have had any positive contribution to the ethics and morals of a community in the western realm, I would definitely try to make the case for it within hip hop culture. But it's not the majority mentality, especially not in the communities that are below the middle class.

TL;DR it is not about hip hop music, but the culture itself.

I think I understand what you're saying. You're saying that the power of marketability and the appearance of a certain lifestyle is more appealing than the music. I don't think you're wrong that rappers promote a certain kind of lifestyle, but you can't say that it has "nothing to do with music." To paraphrase Marshall McLuhan, the music is the message. If these rappers are promoting an image that is drastically different from the financially conservative behavior they actually exhibit, then the music is of utmost importance since it's through the music (along with other marketing strategies) that the image you're identifying is visualized.

Also, concerning the question of role models and "ignorant music" (I can't remember who said this, but someone said hip hop is "ignorant"), I'd say that figures like Kanye West and Kendrick Lamar are currently more visible musically speaking than 50 Cent or Jay Z (the latter is controversial; but although J still puts out music, I think he's more influential as a producer at this point). West and Lamar are two very different artists, musically and politically, and yet they're not blindly promoting "high time preference behavior." Lamar's albums in particular are exploding and they're some of the most intellectually stimulating work being put out. Even Tupac's lyrics used to admit the shitty experience of gang lifestyle, fearing that you were going to die every day.

But all of this is beside the point, since I still don't believe that the role model void is the primary reason--above other things like actually living in communities with gang violence and rampant drug use--for problems in the black community, and I think the claim that eliminating hip hop would improve the situation is absolutely absurd. This doesn't mean that it doesn't have an image problem (i.e. concerning role models), but the answer isn't eliminating the music entirely or its thematic content. I think one answer would be promoting more music like Lamar's.
 
I haven't stated that I want or think hip hop should be eliminated, hip hop was overwhelmingly positive for black culture in the 1980's until groups like N.W.A. made it near impossible to make it without promoting gangsterism.

I don't know of Jay Z being a producer, you might be thinking of someone else or maybe I'm just ignorant to what he's doing - but my overall point is that rappers are selling ignorance to audiences in the overwhelming majority of cases and have been doing so since the 1990's while they themselves often actually live in more normal circumstances and I think that's sick.

To me it stinks of blacks in the past selling other blacks into slavery. But of course I would never suggest that hip hop should be essentially deleted from existence lmao.

And I agree about Kendrick Lamar and others, which is why I said things are beginning to turn around somewhat, though mumble rap is also booming and that is a style of hip hop that barely even speaks full English words. :lol:

When I said it's not about the music, I should have been more clear, what I meant was it is not the music on its own that is doing anything to anybody, which is why I think the metal comparison doesn't equate because lyrics alone do not do much to people - but rather the culture that surrounds the music, so in that case sure punk is a much better comparison except that most punks probably don't live in similar socio-economic situations with blacks in America.

A huge chunk of punk culture is just bourgeois kids rebelling against stuffy former generations. Hardcore punk and grindcore was born from middle class kids, kids who whether they like it or not mostly grew up in households with in-tact nuclear families where the parents had jobs before they had kids, it's a very different situation.

Boy, we do fucking talk about black people a lot though. I'm starting to feel bad about this honestly.

tenor.gif
 
I haven't stated that I want or think hip hop should be eliminated, hip hop was overwhelmingly positive for black culture in the 1980's until groups like N.W.A. made it near impossible to make it without promoting gangsterism.

That's true, you didn't. Some others here have suggested that it could theoretically improve the situation, or that if it had never happened we would be better off. I think both are ridiculous sentiments.

I don't know of Jay Z being a producer, you might be thinking of someone else or maybe I'm just ignorant to what he's doing - but my overall point is that rappers are selling ignorance to audiences in the overwhelming majority of cases and have been doing so since the 1990's while they themselves often actually live in more normal circumstances and I think that's sick.

Jay Z has his hands in everything, record studios and film production. He oversees a lot of shit, and while his name might not always show up as "producer" on the label, he's basically a de facto producer at this point.

When I said it's not about the music, I should have been more clear, what I meant was it is not the music on its own that is doing anything to anybody, which is why I think the metal comparison doesn't equate because lyrics alone do not do much to people - but rather the culture that surrounds the music, so in that case sure punk is a much better comparison except that most punks probably don't live in similar socio-economic situations with blacks in America.

Okay, but this is basically the same thing I've been saying. It's the culture, yes--by which I mean our culture, the entirety of it, because, as Dak mentioned, rap and hip hop sells just as widely among whites. American culture is also responsible for the kinds of social roles deemed appropriate for African Americans, which is why fiscally responsible African Americans recede into the background. I don't mean deemed in any intentional sense, this isn't going on behind closed doors. Have you seen the movie Get Out? It deals with this topic really, really well. And it's a fucking good movie.

There's also so much good literature on this; the first thing that comes to mind is Claudia Rankine's Citizen, in which she talks about Serena Williams's perceived image in popular American culture. Marketability influences how celebrities conduct themselves, and it also dictates what consumers (are allowed to) want.

Rap and hip hop are a part of culture, but they're not the primary reason for things like gang violence, even if it feeds into them to some minute degree.

Here's my main argument:

My original point was that you can't blame music for criminal activity, and that if we're going to isolate the causal factor to the music itself then it makes no more sense to say hip hop is responsible for crime than it does to say that metal is. You're defining hip hop more broadly, though, as a wider set of cultural behaviors/conditions. I would agree that those conditions give rise to criminal behavior, I just wouldn't call them "hip hop conditions," or something like that. I would say that those conditions preceded the emergence of hip hop and, in fact, gave rise to genres like hip hop and rap. Those genres are a cultural response to preexisting conditions, and eliminating the music won't eliminate the conditions, or even improve them (theoretically). There's absolutely no way to distinguish between gang members who got involved in crime because of hip hop and those who would have joined gangs anyway due to other social pressures; I'd say that the former group is probably so small as to be negligible.

In many cases, it's likely that hip hop actually serves as an outlet for troubled youth (like punk did). They might experience some pressure to commit crimes, or violent fantasies; but music gives them a way to vicariously exercise those fantasies without resorting to actual violence.

There's no doubt that hip hop is a powerful cultural force, but I'm doubtful that it's a larger causal factor for negative behavior than other social conditions.
 
When I said hiphop I'm not referring to an assembly of beats or rhythms. I'm talking about culture, lyrics, presentation, etc. Obviously one could rap about a variety of topics and not promote high time preference behaviors in lyrics, video, etc. Call me puritanical if you want, but people are dying every day in Chicago trying to live out lifestyles glorified on the radio. Conversely, we don't have Swedes loading up into wooden boats with swords and heading for English shores. It's obvious we can't ban music, but that doesn't mean you can't refer to it negatively.

While psychological or sociological research has never been able to tie consumption of various media to criminal histories, there is research to suggest that the "cathartic" notion of music you are referring to is not supported.

http://blog.uwgb.edu/alltherage/four-questions-on-the-catharsis-myth-with-dr-brad-bushman/
 
When I said hiphop I'm not referring to an assembly of beats or rhythms. I'm talking about culture, lyrics, presentation, etc. Obviously one could rap about a variety of topics and not promote high time preference behaviors in lyrics, video, etc. Call me puritanical if you want, but people are dying every day in Chicago trying to live out lifestyles glorified on the radio. Conversely, we don't have Swedes loading up into wooden boats with swords and heading for English shores. It's obvious we can't ban music, but that doesn't mean you can't refer to it negatively.

Of course not, but I would be wary of ever adopting prescriptive attitudes toward particular content. We can say things like "N.W.A. depicts some controversial material in their music, maybe it's a good idea to intervene among listeners in order to counteract potential negative consequences (to the best of our ability)." That's more appropriate than suggesting that N.W.A.'s music is aesthetically and politically inferior to other art forms.

You might very well believe it is inferior in many ways, but that doesn't do anyone else any good.

While psychological or sociological research has never been able to tie consumption of various media to criminal histories, there is research to suggest that the "cathartic" notion of music you are referring to is not supported.

http://blog.uwgb.edu/alltherage/four-questions-on-the-catharsis-myth-with-dr-brad-bushman/

Two things:

First, that post doesn't mention music at all.

Second (and more important), that post contains a massive misconception that catharsis refers specifically to something that "feels good." That's not true at all, and anyone who knows the actual definition of catharsis knows that. Catharsis refers to the relief from unwanted emotions, but that doesn't mean the object that produces catharsis "feels good."

In fact, most people listen to depressing music when feeling sad. That's not because depressing music feels good to listen to. The process is more complicated than that.
 
Last edited:
First, that post doesn't mention music at all.

Second (and more important), that post contains a massive misconception that catharsis refers specifically to something that "feels good." That's not true at all, and anyone who knows the actual definition of catharsis knows that. Catharsis refers to the relief from unwanted emotions, but that doesn't mean the object that produces catharsis "feels good."

In fact, most people listen to depressing music when feeling sad. That's not because depressing music feels good to listen to. The process is more complicated than that.

It doesn't mention music specifically, but I'm referring to this comment:

In many cases, it's likely that hip hop actually serves as an outlet for troubled youth (like punk did). They might experience some pressure to commit crimes, or violent fantasies; but music gives them a way to vicariously exercise those fantasies without resorting to actual violence.

An outlet, ie venting.

In 1973, Albert Bandura issued a moratorium on catharsis theory and the use of venting in therapy, and research evidence supported Bandura’s views (e.g., Geen & Quanty, 1977). Venting doesn’t work even among people who believe in the value of venting, and even among people who report feeling better after venting (Bushman, Baumeister, & Stack, 1999). In fact, venting has the opposite effect—it increases aggression. The better people feel after venting, the more aggressive they are. Venting can even increase aggression against innocent bystanders.

The specific definition of catharsis might refer to emotions in general, but anger/frustration is one kind of emotion and the one that has been the focus of(afaik) the most research done as it relates to catharsis theory.
 
Wow, that's fascinating. Well, I have to take back that comment then.

Does this only hold for anger/aggression? Because I feel like the trend would be different for depression (i.e. that listening to depressing music alleviates depression in a subject)--or is that wrong too?
 
Wow, that's fascinating. Well, I have to take back that comment then.

Does this only hold for anger/aggression? Because I feel like the trend would be different for depression (i.e. that listening to depressing music alleviates depression in a subject)--or is that wrong too?

Frankly I don't know, it's not something I've done any reading into outside of the anger side. There was much more interest in/sociopolitical pressure to determine the prosocial or antisocial aspects of "safe" outlets for aggression as opposed other emotions. We don't typically think in terms of "safe outlets" for other emotions, for one thing.
 
This is a balanced piece (to be expected from McWhorter) and presents what I see as an acceptable compromise on the issue:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449208/race-iq-debate-serves-no-purpose

In sum, various thinkers insist, some more publicly than others, that we are at fault in not openly “facing” that there is a genetic IQ gap between black people and others. Yet there would seem to be no constructive benefit in “facing” this gap if it exists.

One thing that may undergird these thinkers’ sense that this issue must be “aired” is a general resentment of the Left’s censorious policing of race issues in general. As someone who has taken issue with such policing at length, I share these thinkers’ grievance that on so many topics — such as the value of standardized testing, the wisdom of open-ended racial preferences, the definition of cultural appropriation, whether black-on-black crime or the police present the direst threat to poor black communities, and others — views other than the Left’s are blithely dismissed as morally repugnant. A more open and honest discussion of such matters has direct implications for the well-being of the black community. But the IQ issue is different. To discuss it would shed not more heat than light, but all heat and no light.

Our valuation of intelligence, combined with black people’s grievous history in America, suggests an eccentric yet logical approach to the issue of race and IQ: As a topic whose discussion will yield injury, fury, and doubletalk with no countervailing benefits in terms of prescriptions for how society ought to operate, it ought be exempted from open discussion.

That is: Intelligence researchers, writing in dense, obscure academic journals, will continue to quietly present data that show that race influences the heritability of IQ to certain degrees; others will present data in disagreement. I hope they ultimately settle on a verdict that environment really does entirely trump the heritable portion of the IQ difference; possibly they will not. However, in the wider world, I see no reason that this research should be “faced” and subject to ongoing “debate.” For example, undergraduates should not feel comfortable bringing up these data in class discussions unrelated to genetic research; society would gain nothing from their doing so. Our mainstream media organs, while remiss in their current tendency to insist the issue is settled, will not be remiss in declining to program articles and symposia exploring it out of some kind of “curiosity.”
 
"I think it's bad to talk about IQ and race because I think it's bad and goes nowhere"

Tyson's point about those against science because it doesn't appear profitable/beneficial is more than an aft response to this bogus claim. All legitimate research should be applauded, not only those that are seen as economically or politically beneficial.

If this is what those calling for us to be “honest” about the data they draw attention to mean, then I suggest they be more overt in their prescription. But the prescription would fare poorly. The chances that there will ever be a brutally open, race-based meritocratic consensus of this kind among America’s ruling and chattering classes are roughly nil

off your quote I thought he ignored this, but he contradicts his own position within his own paper. this doesn't make sense. There is clearly a great reason to research racial (IQ) differences, as evidenced here. The obvious and overt bias of being black and educated here are too obvious and ruin this paper.

That's one of the stupidest things you've ever said, Dak. Not one of the stupidest things rms has said, unfortunately.

Wow, that's fascinating. Well, I have to take back that comment then.

this is legendary.

According to this analysis, Murray and his confreres can qualify as charlatans at best, racists at worst, and likely something in between.

The Vox article will stand as our moment’s gold-standard reference on the issue

?? Murray argues this point though. The Harris podcast is easily a good reference. Citing this recent Vox "critique" against Murray and Harris is looking worse and worse by the day. Worse is being nice, from what I can tell.

Many, including most academics, insist that culture is itself determined by external conditions, but this is an oversimplification. Norms and culture, once settled as habit, can persist long after the external causes that originally created them.

ok, this is just poorly thought out. just because conditions are no longer present that once formed "culture," does not mean culture is not external. you aren't born with culture :lol:
 
off your quote I thought he ignored this, but he contradicts his own position within his own paper. this doesn't make sense. There is clearly a great reason to research racial (IQ) differences, as evidenced here. The obvious and overt bias of being black and educated here are too obvious and ruin this paper.

He's not arguing against research. Read more closely.

this is legendary.

Unlike some people, I can admit when I'm wrong.

?? Murray argues this point though. The Harris podcast is easily a good reference. Citing this recent Vox "critique" against Murray and Harris is looking worse and worse by the day. Worse is being nice, from what I can tell.

Actually, it positions the Vox piece nicely against Murray's own work, which McWhorter also describes as referencing "a great many respected scholars of established credentials," and engaging "in the kind of close argumentation associated with serious scientific inquiry." So he's not taking the usual anti-Murray stance.

ok, this is just poorly thought out. just because conditions are no longer present that once formed "culture," does not mean culture is not external. you aren't born with culture :lol:

Again, that's not what he's saying. He states that calling culture external is an "oversimplification," by which he means that cultural practices can persist after the external conditions that shaped them have disappeared or transformed. He's not denying that culture is external; he's saying that making that claim elides a particular nuance regarding the longevity of cultural practices.
 
This is a balanced piece (to be expected from McWhorter) and presents what I see as an acceptable compromise on the issue:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449208/race-iq-debate-serves-no-purpose

I don't see where the compromise is, and there's little balance in the piece unless not screaming "bigot" and "racist" with mouth afoam counts as balance. The author reveals his lean late (credit for doing so at all at least):

I have always hoped the black–white IQ gap was due to environmental causes. My intuition — whatever it is worth given that I am not an expert on the subject — is that the lag in performance of African-descended persons on IQ tests is the result of culture.......I hope they ultimately settle on a verdict that environment really does entirely trump the heritable portion of the IQ difference

His self-serving "lack of imagination" as to why it is important is really the reason for the entire article.

But I do question why those calling attention to possible evidence for such a gap feel that it is such an important topic to discuss. That is, let’s suppose that black people actually are, on the average, lower in g than others. Why, exactly, is it so urgent that this be openly “acknowledged”? I can see exactly three rationales as to why we must be “honest” about the IQ gap, if it exists. None offers anything we could call progressive or constructive.

He then proceeds to build a a super-strawman which he begins to knockdown with glee before he even completes it:

society should accept that a disproportionate number of black people will labor at the bottom of the occupational scale and that in general black people will be underrepresented in the higher echelons of society. If this is what those calling for us to be “honest” about the data they draw attention to mean, then I suggest they be more overt in their prescription. But the prescription would fare poorly. The chances that there will ever be a brutally open, race-based meritocratic consensus of this kind among America’s ruling and chattering classes are roughly nil. Those who are revolted by the very idea of such a conclusion — including me — can rest assured that the moral development of the West, halting and imperfect though it has been, has produced a bulwark against complacently accepting racial stratification.

"I suggest they be more overt about their racism". Nevermind, he's just swallowing his spit before talking.
 
I don't see where the compromise is, and there's little balance in the piece unless not screaming "bigot" and "racist" with mouth afoam counts as balance. The author reveals his lean late (credit for doing so at all at least):

His self-serving "lack of imagination" as to why it is important is really the reason for the entire article.

He then proceeds to build a a super-strawman which he begins to knockdown with glee before he even completes it:

"I suggest they be more overt about their racism". Nevermind, he's just swallowing his spit before talking.

:rolleyes: You're a trip, Dak.

He is clearly not for researching racial IQ differences based on this piece. I don't see how anyone could argue differently.

McWhorter said:
Certainly scientists will research the topic and will share their findings, which will always be available online for those interested.

...

That is: Intelligence researchers, writing in dense, obscure academic journals, will continue to quietly present data that show that race influences the heritability of IQ to certain degrees; others will present data in disagreement. I hope they ultimately settle on a verdict that environment really does entirely trump the heritable portion of the IQ difference; possibly they will not.