[General Battuta]

It's not univariate, there is a lot involved in the formation and transmission of "social mores" beyond a single concept. And there is no more evidence of drugs/immigration/economics "working for any phenomenon" to a greater degree.

Bro I think you should read a history book. Those big systemic factors are what explains everything.

The Amish aren't against all technology, just ones which disrupt their lifestyle. They still have a light manufacturing industry, use some aspects of modern agriculture, and so on. You wouldn't have video games anymore but there wouldn't be any flames or starvation either. Of course this is assuming everyone voluntarily decided to live Amish, you can't force something like this.

That has nothing to do with why they'd fail. There is no efficiency or resilience built into their social structure. They benefit from Dunbar's number and could not function as a national society.

[Mustang19]

That has nothing to do with why they'd fail. There is no efficiency or resilience built into their social structure. They benefit from Dunbar's number and could not function as a national society.

They basically model how the entire country lived in 1800, and it's possible for people to adopt most of the policies that they use to maintain social integrity (ban TVs, go to church, spend time with family, etc).

Bro I think you should read a history book. Those big systemic factors are what explains everything.

Culture is also important even when it is just a symptom of something else. Drugs? Immigration? Economic systems? Culture modulates the effects of all three.

So GB, do drugs "explain everything" and how would I know from reading a history book?

edit: okay opium wars blah blah blah i was trying to make a joke jesus

[Nuclear1]

Crack epidemic.

[General Battuta]

They basically model how the entire country lived in 1800, and it's possible for people to adopt most of the policies that they use to maintain social integrity (ban TVs, go to church, spend time with family, etc).

So GB, do drugs "explain everything" and how would I know from reading a history book?

edit: okay opium wars blah blah blah i was trying to make a joke jesus

No the whole point is that no one thing can explain everything. Especially something as big as a crime wave. The reasons people go into crime are incredibly complex. It's not as simple as them being bad people or some kind of individualist streak.

[Mustang19]

The issue I have is that I've heard more than once from liberals (or maybe some non-liberals too) that loss of social norms and cohesion isn't even a valid explanation for 20th century crime trends, yet I haven't heard stronger evidence for alternative explanations that can be applied across the industrialized world were these trends were seen. edit: inb4 simple explanations, i know, but economy/drugs/immigration can't account for all of it

[Mustang19]

No the whole point is that no one thing can explain everything. Especially something as big as a crime wave. The reasons people go into crime are incredibly complex. It's not as simple as them being bad people or some kind of individualist streak.

If you reword it, it sounds much more plausible. Poverty or race doesn't force someone into crime for instance; most poor blacks don't run around committing crimes all day. Some are more likely than others. Individual personality differences do affect whether or not someone will turn to crime in a given situation. Regard for social mores or degree of social support are also factors.

[General Battuta]

Genetics too. Some vast proportion of crimes are committed by the same small percentage of men who father most fatherless kids - they have some notable genetic traits.

[Mustang19]

Genetics too. Some vast proportion of crimes are committed by the same small percentage of men who father most fatherless kids - they have some notable genetic traits.

I agree. And I'm not even going to call you racist for that.

I'm really surprised that Mr. Vanguard of Liberal Academia can't put forth a conclusive argument as to why the whole traditional values/social control theory deserves no consideration as a factor.

[Nuclear1]

Because honestly, the whole traditional values theory sounds like a tool conservatives use to show how people have become degenerates without strict church attendance and keeping in line. 

Poverty, a failing educational system, soaring costs of living, urban decay, and fear of change often leads people to commit crimes.  It's not atheistic degenerates running around murdering good church-going Christians or the rise of a gay mafia.

People with stable jobs, healthy relationships, a sense of purpose and overall well-being are less likely to commit crimes than the people who aren't like that.  Of course, the religious right would like you to believe that church or a belief in God gives you all of those, but that's a misrepresentation of the facts.  As someone said earlier, the 'falling church attendance' is a symptom of people becoming more socially-isolated.  If they go out with other people, live their lives with purpose, and are content with their lives, then that's what drives them to stability.

[General Battuta]

Traditional values never existed. They never were an entity, just a mirage. America has never had a society which operated on any of the standards I imagine you would cite as traditional values. There has always been too much heterogeneity and too much realpolitik for these notional values to survive in a general sense.

But past that there's simply no reason to say that something is worth of no consideration. We simply have no reason to believe it was a factor, as opposed to all these far more tangible and easily observed forces and causations. It is far easier to argue that something like rising income inequality or a spike in race tensions or Vietnam was the cause of a given crime wave. Even spikes in Europe and Japan are explained by particular incidents and trends locally, not a general global change in attitudes.

Look at past huge crime waves. What caused them?

[Mustang19]

Yeah, it is a tool, and it is usually exaggerated. That's not a scientific reason to dismiss the theory, though, and as mentioned I mentioned in this thread discussing the Amish, the US, Japan, and whatnot, there is a basis for this interpretation.

But past that there's simply no reason to say that something is worth of no consideration. We simply have no reason to believe it was a factor, as opposed to all these far more tangible and easily observed forces and causations. It is far easier to argue that something like rising income inequality or a spike in race tensions or Vietnam was the cause of the spike. Even spikes in Europe and Japan are explained by particular incidents and trends locally, not a general global change in attitudes.

But the trends some of the events themselves- May 68 in France for instance- were apparently the result of a cultural shift, while other events - the recession in Japan for example - might have affected crime rates only indirectly, mediated through culture.

Traditional values never existed. They never were an entity, just a mirage. America has never had a society which operated on any of the standards I imagine you would cite as traditional values. There has always been too much heterogeneity and too much realpolitik for these notional values to survive in a general sense.

And that is the best argument you've presented. No numbers are available for this sort of thing, church attendance figures notwithstanding. This makes studying it pretty damn hard. But you're also saying that traditional values never existed, and I disagree. Indeed to go back to the tired Amish analogy their are entire communities and movements that fetishise this concept. They have always existed in some form or specific variety of forms with enough homogeneity to influence society. Probably the most tangible you can get in terms of causes and effects is religion; for starters, back a few pages when I noted the correlation between religion (or community activity in general) and mental health.

[Mustang19]

Look at past huge crime waves. What caused them?

True, but how big are these crime waves, usually? Is it normal for them to last decades? This is also kind of irrelevant if you take drugs/immigration/economy to be long term trends as well.

[General Battuta]

I don't think you can construct what would probably be termed 'traditional values' without borrowing liberally from various groups. I think it's a prototypic myth, and it certainly never held sway on the kind of level modern social conservatives would proscribe.

Look at past huge crime waves. What caused them?

True, but how big are these crime waves, usually? Is it normal for them to last decades? This is also kind of irrelevant if you take drugs/immigration/economy to be long term trends as well.

Go read the book, I forget. Big. I don't think you have reason to say there's been a crime wave that lasted decades. And I don't understand what your last point is after.

[Mustang19]

Go read the book, I forget. Big. I don't think you have reason to say there's been a crime wave that lasted decades. And I don't understand what your last point is after.

Crime wave? That might not be an appropriate term. But crime is much higher than it was in 1960. I've been calling it a "spike". Are we good on terms now?

[Mustang19]

I do get your point, that the aforementioned explanations better explain crime waves. But culture could impact the long-term trend.

[Mustang19]

Anyway, it's like ten at night and I can't believe you've been sitting around all day discussing with me probably at the expense of your work. It was interesting. G'night.

[General Battuta]

Go read the book, I forget. Big. I don't think you have reason to say there's been a crime wave that lasted decades. And I don't understand what your last point is after.

Crime wave? That might not be an appropriate term. But crime is much higher than it was in 1960. I've been calling it a "spike". Are we good on terms now?

Well I think you can't rule out the possibility that this crime elevation is just a natural consequence of structural changes. Urbanization, for instance, is always going to push the crime rate upwards. Or it could be an income inequality problem. Or a loss of low-end jobs as they go overseas, leaving those at the bottom of the ladder fewer options. Comparing two points in time isn't as illustrative, I think, as looking at the contours of the map.

[Marcov]

I don't see how this "Crime" issue can go anywhere near the declaration that today's life is harder than yesterday.

Have you ever been robbed? Multiple times?

[Nuclear1]

I don't see how this "Crime" issue can go anywhere near the declaration that today's life is harder than yesterday.

Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

[Grizzly]

c) that a fifth of the 80 million people currently living here have non-german ancestors, and d) as I have pointed out, Germany only became a centre of immigration AFTER WW2.

Yeah, but most of those immigrants are Europeans and I don't think they are particularly responsible for any crime waves. You would be the one to enlighten me if they are.

Europe is not the American continent. It is way, way, way more fragmentized. Poland, for example, is absolutely not Holland, and there are many issues (Which may or may not have been percieved issues and exxegerated) with immigrants from, for example, Poland.

The main problem with people emigrating to holland, for example, is that they usually plan to go there, make a lot of money to finish their study, and go back and finish their study. Or something like that. So they do not bother learning the language (and the goverment does not bother trying to teach them). And then, the immigrants decide that Holland is actually a very nice place to live in (can't blame them for that, since it is, although Belgium is better ), and decide to stay here. Along with a lot of other polish friends.  This has happened before with a lot of other immigrants. All of them from the same continent, or from northern africa. For some reason, the people from former colonies of NL actually have integrated better...

Oh, there's something: Failing goverment policy might also be a reason for (percieved) higher crime rates.

For more on the fragmentization of Europe being much bigger then say, the fragmentation in the USA, and why you should never say anything that comes close to 'europeans are all alike and get along very well, you simply need to:
Compare the Dutch with the Flemish (Dutch-speaking belgians)
Compare the British with the Irish, the Scots, or the Welsh, or the Americans
Compare the French and the Germans.

And lastly

Compare the dutch speaking Belgians with the french speaking Belgians. Same country, two completely differnet people's, and the parliament there is a complete cluster****. If you ever though that the US politics were bad because its bassically two parties bickering over each other whilst they want the same thing, due to percieved ideological differences, this is worse: A lot of parties bickering over each other due to a language difference.