Given that instability is down in the US and young men are neither economically nor sexually disenfranchised, yet inequality is way up, it seems your theory is already falsified.

Are you certain that Black or insert minority males are not economically disenfranchised to a greater or lesser degree?

I'm not touching the sexual part with a 10 foot pole cause it bears no relevance in my opinion either. But I do think that many young men are economically disenfranchised in The States.

Edit: In my comment any mention of 'men' should read "and women". I don't mean just males which is another reason I don't think it is important to address the sexual disenfranchisement part.

I'm pretty sure that black males are less economically disenfranchised today than in the past, in spite of increases in inequality. For example, we no longer have Jim Crow laws attempting to correct the excesses of capitalism (greedy employers hiring blacks instead of whites).

A quick google search suggests black men are less sexually disenfranchized than non-blacks.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/07/20/sex-statist...

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19374216/#.Uv0a2HX_SFk

But are they still economically disenfranchised? The degree doesn't really matter much in terms of what the parent is saying to my thinking.

It also isn't necessarily true that the change in the level of disenfranchisement is due to growth, or change in anything having to do with the economy, so much as due to changes brought on by the civil rights movements. Things can change on a societal level without being impacted by or impacting directly things at an economic level.

The social instability mentioned in the parent is still going on even with these advances. Just saying 'its better than it was' doesn't make it not a thing.

> Given that instability is down in the US and young men are neither economically nor sexually disenfranchised

We are. That's a centerpiece to modern intersectional feminism: everyone's hurt to some degree by the structure of society. Men have it better in a lot of situations, but things are still rough.

The U.S. House of Representatives, driven by the GOP Tea Party faction, threatened to default on US debt payments last year. You didn't find that destabilizing?

Who is driving the Tea Party? I would contend economically disenfranchised (though, granted, not particularly young in a lot of cases) voters reacting to increasing economic polarization.

Do Tea Party rank-and-file see their grievances in those terms? Not when they're talking about guns rights and Obamacare perhaps. But get them talking about Wall Street and bank bailouts and it's a different story.

In the 70's, we had a number of large terrorist organizations setting bombs. We had race riots when I was a kid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Contemporary_Klan:...

Regarding the debt ceiling, congress cannot threaten or cause default, since the executive branch has the power to prioritize debt payments. In any case, similar things happened in 1995, so no, I wouldn't categorize more of the same as an increase in instability.

I seem to recall a pretty drastic race riot right around 1995 in LA. America is also still sounding the alarms about a rather large terrorist attack in 2001.

The parent didn't say that instability had increased, rather economic polarization had, but by what metric are you implying instability has decreased considering your above examples?

No major race riots or domestic terrorist incidents in the past 19 years? That seems like reduced instability to me. Crime down? Check. What else should I be looking at?

Klenwell said inequality is bad because it causes instability. That doesn't seem to be happening, so his theory seems to be wrong.

2001 was 19 years ago? I didn't know that. That attack is still being used as justification for all sorts of things as well some which are causing their own destabilizing effects. Also there have been other (arguably smaller) acts of domestic terrorism... The Boston Marathon bombing would be one example.

And to quote your prior post:

in any case, similar things happened in 1995, so no, I wouldn't categorize more of the same as an increase in instability.

So by your example, things that happened in 1995 are 'more of the same' but when presented with a counter example in the same time span (and even more recently) it shows that things have changed (reduced instability) because it has been a significant period of time? Check. That makes sense.

I'm checking out of this conversation. The contortions in your logic are just a bit too much for me. Carry on.