A Talented One
New member
Stiff;7938261 said:A Talented One;7938227 said:Stiff;7938150 said:A Talented One;7938066 said:Stiff;7938009 said:A Talented One;7937909 said:When this topic comes up people never fail to trot out the same silly, easily-disproven arguments. There was lung cancer before there was cigarette smoking, so I guess smoking cigarettes could not possibly contribute to lung cancer.
Do people really think about what they are saying? I mean really think?
kzzl;7937170 said:This isn't about hip hop. This is about cracking down on what white supremacy deems unapproved black behavior.
White supremacy may disapprove of a certain black behavior and that behavior might nevertheless be bad for us independently of the disapproval.
But if the cases of lung cancer DECREASED after the introduction of cigarettes that would make the whole notion that cigarettes contributed to lung cancer seem absurd right?
The crime rate in the Black community has DECREASED since the introduction of hip hop
College graduation rates have INCREASED since the introduction of hip hop
Fuck your feelings these are easily verifiable facts. You're not making as good of points as you think right now do some research.
Crime increased since the introduction of hip hop. That's a fact. Now it has in more recent years decreased again. But that's consistent with hip hop being a contributing factor. There are other factors in play obviously, and no one with any sense would say that hip hop is the only factor.
Same thing with college graduation rates.
And if the cases of lung cancer decreased after the introduction of cigarettes, that would not make the whole notion that cigarettes contributed to lung cancer seem absurd. The other factors in play might have receded in their effects just as cigarettes were becoming widely used.
*SIGH* stick to arguing your feelings bro. Facts aren't your strong point.
Homicide Rate
![]()
Dropout Rates
![]()
source :http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012006.pdf
College Attendance
![]()
Ok, I appear to stand corrected about college graduation rates. (Still, it is well known that the racial test score gap was steadily closing for decades, but either slowed down or started widely again in the late 80s.) But what you posted supports what I said about crime rates. Hip hop was around by the mid-1990s. And already very popular too.
Anyway, you have not addressed the most important point. This is that something can contribute to the increase (or decrease) of something while the general level of that thing is decreasing (or increasing). So, for example, if rates of lung cancer started to decline just as cigarettes were becoming more widely used, that would not show that cigarette smoking does not contribute positively to lung cancer.
No bruh...hip hop was around in the late 70's...and then crime started decreasing well into the mid 80's and then began to climb when crack started to spread. The crime rate decreased as hip hop initially spread and then increased as crack spread...since crack has dried up it's been falling ever since the mid 90's and is almost half of what it was in the 70's.
The crime rate did not increase following the introduction of hip hop - that was the most important point. There's no purpose of going off on a tangent now about cigarettes and lung cancer.
I would say that crack is more important for crime rates than hip hop, possibly by far, but what you are failing to mention is that hip hop in 1994 was not the same as hip hop in 1979. A lot had changed in 15 years, and not for the better. So the crime rate did increase once hip hop started getting less positive.
Anyway, the most important point is what I said: that something can contribute to the increase (or decrease) of something while the general level of that thing is decreasing (or increasing).
I applaud you for actually trying to engage my arguments (instead of seeking refuge in reactions), but I can't continue to go back and forth about this tonight. I have other things I should be doing.