This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
For this to be true, you would have to explain why so many blacks are in prison. You can't have it both ways and claim that the black incarceration rate demonstrates that blacks are more criminal but also they aren't subject to laws.
I'm not that familiar with the Singaporean legal environment, but do they actually assign people legally subordinate status based on their race? As for patterning our society after the Ottomans, I can think of many reasons besides my objections to your racialism why that seems like a terrible idea.
It does, actually. The argument you could credibly make is that law enforcement is often politically motivated and influenced by politicians, so in present times there is undue sensitivity about being perceived as racist, which results in minorities often being prosecuted less harshly. While this is true, it's certainly not some sort of carte blanche for black people to commit crimes (see above re: the high black criminal incarceration rate.) Moreover, we've discussed many times in this sub cases like San Francisco and Portland, where there are open air drug markets and homeless people basically allowed to do anything short of murder without prosecution. Most of those people are white.
There are many more whites murdered by whites and even more blacks murdered by blacks with no spectacular media coverage.
I don't know which specific cases you're referring and don't care, since almost inevitably when one digs into these one finds details that don't quite fit the picture the person offering them is trying to portray. But sure, there are are daily horrors committed by black people - granted. Scott wrote an article about this that is still valid.
It's not necessary to restrict the argument to specific cases though. We have statistics. While most murder is intraracial, blacks commit a disproportionate amount of it and they also commit a disproportionate amount of inter-racial murder. This isn't just Chinese people being smeared as robbers because the media is focusing on Chinese robbers in particular.
I am not disputing the 13/57 statistic, and if we were having a longer discussion about that, my views are less progressive and closer to the median Motte view. What I am disputing is that because a disproportionate number of blacks are criminals, we should treat them as criminals as a race and reimpose segregation or Bantustans or whatever.
I agree that this is a principle worth sticking to regardless of the outcomes. Whatever the answer to our problems might be, racial subjugation isn't it.
On the other hand, it's beyond apparent that the old plan, the one we came out of the civil war with and actually tried implementing post-64, did not work and probably never will. We don't know how to fix our race problem via education or social engineering, and it is actually a pretty big problem that hits everybody in ways difficult to ignore. We've promised blacks a better life, and we've largely failed to deliver. We've promised everyone else a solution to the social ills spilling out of the Black community, and we've failed to deliver on that as well.
I've mainly stayed out of this thread, because on the one hand there's evident racists suggesting maybe we try Jim Crow again, and that is fundamentally repulsive, but then on the other hand there's people acting like the Civil Rights movement actually achieved its stated aims, and that's absurd. It's maddening.
Yeah, sadly I agree. As I said, I am not really "progressive" or optimistic in my view of current race relations. I just don't see white nationalists offering a solution that isn't pure blood and violence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because they commit an absurd amount of crime - most of which is "unsolved", a good portion of which is unreported. The famous 13/57 understates it because that only counts solved murders and there are massive numbers of unsolved murders in places where every single unsolved murder is committed by a black person.
The rest of your post is progressive nonsense.
Scott is a conscious, aware liar and has never written an article that is "still valid" - much less one which fell to a very simple rebuttal in the comments.
He knows his argument is demolished here so he backs into "toxoplasmosa of rage - they pick bad cases on purpose because it's a better loyalty test" - which doesn't fit at all (which he almost certainly knows) because there are simply no cases where the progressive narrative fits. You can see every day blacks getting away with crimes, you simply never see that with whites. Turns out it's actually really easy to catch criminals but the justice system doesn't do it for blacks because we don't have "equal protection".
Most of your post is assertions without evidence. You just "know" this is how it is because it fits your worldview, and you carefully stick to your 13/57 talking points and avoid addressing any of the counterarguments I and others have made.
Blatantly false.
An example - your argument:
Addressed here:
If you want to ask for evidence for this then you run right into progressive "manipulation of procedural outcomes" - progressive academics straight up lie so you have to go to anecdotal evidence that nonetheless contains valuable statistical information and that shows that, yes, blacks are basically immune to the law. An example elsewhere in this thread was a black guy who killed a few people in a home invasion who served 4 years of an 8 year sentence then killed someone else when released. You can find dozens of examples on the NY Post twitter feed of "this person was arrested 47 times on felony charges previously". To which you rebut "Chinese robber" but the argument implied there is one that assumes the conclusion. "You can find examples of anything because there are a lot of people" is the general argument but it's simply impossible to find examples "arrested 47 times, committed a newsworthy crime" where the perp wasn't black - certainly you can't find dozens of examples of this. You can't find videos of whites behaving the way blacks do such that there's a joke "new Street Fighter level just dropped" when you can watch a new video on a daily basis of blacks having mass brawls in public.
Hang on, pretty sure the home invasion guy was white, or at least off-white. I was trying to figure out the ethnicities of everyone involved and realized I can't tell the difference between Italians and Puerto Ricans
Link?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fj-g2UFWYAIy2gz?format=jpg&name=orig Shooter is "Samuel Parsons-Salas." Think it was a mexican party, but a lot of the people involved were mixed. Nobody I'd feel comfortable calling a racial slur without having their 23@me results handy.
Thanks for the link - this person is easily recognized as having significant SSA ancestry.
I'll defer to your expertise then--I wouldn't have pegged him as more than an octoroon myself
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There ought to be a lag time in this. What does the racial breakdown of carceration look like since, say, May 2020?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link