Just some comments on the recent debate between @XanderhalTV , @IamSean90 , @NuanceBro , and some other guy on systemic racism. While I applaud Sean and Nuance, idk why Xanderhal and the other dude are talking about a topic they really don't know about
Xanderhal and Sean debated on if stop-and-frisk worked, with Sean saying yes and Xanderhal saying no, obviously, and that it was racist.
Data has shown stop-and-frisk to not be racially biased once further controls are adjusted for:
Heather Mac Donald has also discussed this issue in length in multiple places. Not only was it not racially biased, but it also led to a drop in crime in New York.
Then they go into *why* blacks commit more crime. Xanderheral asks the question why they commit more crime, says he doesn't know why, then says "its because of poverty"
Luckily, we have studies to see if there is a causal correlation on the issue! tl;dr: No.
After family variables were adjusted for, this 2018 study done in Sweden (n=500k +) found poverty to not be causally associated with crime
After some back-and-forth on poverty and crime, Xanderhal says inequality can play a role in the high black crime. This *sounds* true, and studies have found an effect, but once publication bias is controlled for, inequality is not associated with crime
Sean and Nuance are then asked why they think the black crime rate is high, and ofc, some of these explanations are the classic conservative arguments. Sean says one variable is single-motherhood, but single-motherhood is not causally associated with crime...
Bad parents are more likely to leave their kids and pass on these bad traits. Kids with bad parents would turn out bad regardless and would be better off WITHOUT the bad parent in their life
After more back-and-forth on driving stops, they finally move onto racial bias in police shootings. The quick kill to this is that adjusting for crime shows an anti-white bias in police shootings/ killings, not an anti-black one
Xanderhal's teammate focuses a lot on "unarmed" shootings as evidence of racial bias in shootings. As Sean correctly points out, "unarmed" is misleading as the person could have lost their weapon while in the altercation. Misleading title
After this, the debate just moves onto a Q&A which I don't consider important.
If you've seen one bread-tube debate on systemic racism, you've seen them all (including this one). Sean and Nuance did fine, Xanderhal and his teammate didn't seem to know the issue, though
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Contrary to Matt Walsh, porn isn't responsible for the rise in virginity along young men. (A🧵)
First off, it's important to remember that pornography actually increases sexual desire for real people — it doesn't diminish it, as shown in a 2015 study.
Second, as has been consistently shown, porn users actually have more sex than non-users! They're more likely to have more sexual partners, and this is even true among adolescent viewers.
Third, this line of reasoning never even made sense. Porn users have a higher desire to get married and are more likely to get married (except high consumption men but not women).
I thought this was a claim just made by people like @MattWalshBlog , but I guess it's something people actually believe, for some reason, and has even been espoused by Republicans in 2018. But this makes no sense, a 🧵1/?
First off, this assumes that porn makes people violent -- but this has been a claim criticized since the 1980s, probably even earlier than that. As a 1982 review notes, pornography does not increase aggression in men who are already not aggressive.
The idea that individual differences are important in the relationship between porn and aggression has also been supported in other studies. A 2012 study found that low-risk men were not at risk for increased aggression when compared to men at risk men... tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…
Another one of those anti-porn threads claiming it's harmful. This one is pretty interesting since it comes from a reboot coach, but much like my pinned thread on a similar thread, the claims being made are simply not true. 🧵 1/??
It's claimed that the pornography industry makes $96 billion in annual income! That's a lot of money, but I can't find a single source that says this. One PDF links to the book "Pornland" for this #, but not even the book says this.
A Yahoo! article says people have been saying it's < $96, and others say it's > $96, with the highest estimate being at $97. However, their source for this doesn't say how they came to this number, but as @PornPanic notes, it's probably less than this
Got tagged in this thread, so I thought I'd make a response to this given the use of "science" to support the claims and the fact that I've heard these claims way too much, a 🧵
This claim comes from Kuhn and Gallinat 's study (N=64) finding that males who watched more porn had lower grey matter than those who watched less. However, their OLS regression shows lots of deviation, indicating lots of measurement error
The way the OP describes this study is interesting, as he claims that "grey matter decreases over time with porn use", but nowhere in the study was this ever found & the study itself was cross-sectional, so we can't make any causal claims