this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2025
1 points (60.0% liked)
Politics
10765 readers
161 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Note that this article is from 2007 about a book published in 2000. I think it's safe to say that whatever Putnam observed in the 90s is largely irrelevant today.
Edit: it may actually be referring to a study published in 2007. I can't tell because the article doesn't link the study.
The article itself was from 2007, per the copyright notice. I was really confused by all of the time elements until that came into specific relief. The data are from 2000, meaning before 9/11, so I'm not seeing much utility for how this pertains to life 25 years later.
What has me confused is it seems to be referring to some "new study" but doesn't cite it, and I can't find that study online.
Even if the study existed, and even if it were somehow accurate, that would have been 18 years ago and wholly irrelevant today. And those are big "if"s.
I don't really know what the post is trying to discuss. Unfortunately, the poster seems to be completely silent on the subject beyond posting the link to the article.