ColonCaretCapitalP
No bio...
User ID: 779
ColonCaretCapitalP
5d ago
Well, just to take this point by point:
-
Age segregation occurs in senior communities. These are certainly safe from young people but impose on their residents a requirement not to house kids or younger adults for extended stays. A larger attempt to segregate people away from young men would probably require society to figure out what it intends those young men to do, especially the affluent ones if it is affluent neighborhoods that would shut their doors to that group.
-
Gender-based segregation is even more difficult due to most family units being composed of people of both genders and various ages. It goes in the niche ideological space of lesbian separatism if practiced consistently, but girls' schools, convents, and other explicitly or de facto female institutions can exist.
-
Income segregation is real in that zoning can exclude cheap housing while the well-off bid up the prices in exclusive areas. This is the most effective method middle-class people have to avoid crime, but it comes at literal and figurative prices.
-
Yes, actually, restricting residence in an area by rap sheet would be popular and maximally functional with a minimal impact on everyone who doesn't have a felony on their record.
-
Racial segregation has precedent (used to be legal) and occurs in part voluntarily due to different lifestyle preferences.
ColonCaretCapitalP
5d ago
I went to high school in Louisiana around Obama's 1st term, and no, I don't recall doing so. I read Huck Finn on my own time at a younger age. I did get to read the part of the bigoted Juror #10 in 12 Angry Men but that doesn't have slurs because it isn't explicit about what the defendant's ethnicity is.
ColonCaretCapitalP
5d ago
It's odd that they go round and round on how white identity would sell an anti-crime agenda. It might not on a government level, but there are ways it could work on an individual.
Walt could be clear that being in a subculture where the details and demographics of crime are discussed makes people want to stay in low-crime neighborhoods and be pretty good at predicting which neighborhoods are low-crime. Whether you live in an implicitly white suburb (quite common) or an explicitly white country (the supposed goal of WN), this may be an expression of tribal identity that makes you safer.
There's an issue with white flight, in that it concentrates crime and makes white people feel less responsible for the costs of governing areas they don't want to live in, which includes policing. Leaving the ghetto and then running it as a police state would be an example of the unpleasantness you describe. Imprisoning more people and for longer sentences is certainly the way to get the antisocial fraction out of the way of everyone else.
The cyclical pattern of crime and enforcement has existed about as long as anti-racist narratives have been dominant. We can count the 2010s trough in crime rates as a sort of completing of the cycle, with recent years repeating the mistakes of the 1960s. (Walt mentions in the podcast that it goes back earlier, so likely a reference to Reconstruction and the subsequent "nadir of American race relations.")
ColonCaretCapitalP
5mo ago
Pushing multiple complex issues to the voters in a single election may not lead to wise policy decisions. Without a strong opposition campaign, they are inclined to approve anything that sounds good. It should be some solace then, that these measures were not like California propositions in that they were not proposed through direct-democratic means, but have already passed both houses of the legislature by a 2/3 majority. It only takes a simple majority of voters to approve amendments to the Texas Constitution. I feel partially absolved of responsibility knowing that the voters are not the part of this process that is most able to prevent bad amendments.
ColonCaretCapitalP
9mo ago
Yes, I found the rate limit on Saturday and then not again.
Much of the backlash to the thread was that other commenters responded with sympathy. The stories had convinced many users that some cases were in a moral gray area. This was connected to a feminist opposition to rapists being allowed to communicate with the general population in an affirmative space, and some disgust at hearing the stories and the misogynistic views implied by them.
[The psychiatrist response] (https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/xf5c2/reddit_are_you_aware_how_dangerous_the_askarapist/) makes an overly-sophisticated point (contrary to the more commonsense opposition described above) that was eaten up for some reason. Arguing that rape is about power and that raping a conscious person means you get off on hurting or horrifying people (I'd argue that this is partially true but is itself sexual), he claims that the rapists in the thread were getting off on horrifying an imagined audience.
More options
Context Copy link