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 -
There's no "tap dancing" going on here. Segregation and "unequal treatment" (we have equal treatment now? you sure?) aren't "the only practical way to avoid" [ethnic cleansing and people getting pushed in front of subway trains by "serial random assaulters"] but they are a way of doing so - certainly one that produced demonstrably better results. You seem to be operating under a very strange impression that what matters is that the proper procedure must be followed with zero concern over whether the procedures produce good results. This is an outgrowth of the mindset implanted by operating in a society run on the ideology of the bureaucrat - no one can be faulted for anything as long as proper procedure was followed. Though this seems normal to many people today, it is actually quite insane.
Sure, all those things are true technically.
Stopping rape and murder - more important than any societal rules because these are of the highest priority of men to stop and if you society does not stop them then you make an enemy of all capable men who will quietly step out of society which then make it impossible for your society to do anything as you lose all forms of cooperation.
Stopping terrorist attacks is more important than the details of the rules - plainly obviously true. Preventing military attacks on civilians is the most basic of government functions so it can have a prosperous society.
Stopping narcotics trafficking - this is only a problem that's downstream of about a zillion things that the current bizarre government we have does.
There are no laws in existence - there's only who / whom. That's not a reflection of the only possible state of affairs but it is a correct description of what we have now and I'm not going to pretend that it isn't.
Do you think we should reimpose racial segregation or not?
Yes.
Yes.
There is no "ethnic cleansing" happening in the United States. As for people getting pushed in front of subway trains, yes, we do have demonstrably better ways of preventing that than segregation: law enforcement.
In other words, all of those things are true.
Yes, we care about stopping rape and murder and terrorism and drug trafficking, but we also care how we stop those things, and just as we do not give the government infinite power to stop those things by any means necessary, we also do not endorse every solution that might, in theory, reduce or eliminate those things. What you're getting at is that black people commit more crimes (true) and what you're darkly hinting at is that we should segregate them or Do Something else to lower the black crime rate. Even accepting the first premise (higher black crime rate) it does not follow that a just solution is to to impose racial segregation or whatever else you have in mind.
That sounds like a catchy expression untethered to the legal reality in which you live.
Lets play dueling anecdotes.
My turn: black attacker, elderly asian victim, racial slurs used, charges dropped.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/SF-Bayview-attack-Second-suspect-surrenders-to-15098296.php
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9437615/Two-teenage-girls-accused-car-jacking-killing-Uber-Eats-driver-reach-plea-deal.html
Your turn: white attacker, elderly black victim, racial slurs used, charges dropped.
No. Also, you've been told to change your username. Do it. The only reason I am not banning you right now is so you don't whine that I did it in the middle of a thread where I was a participant, but the next time you post with this username, you will be.
Yes, this nic was apparently bad only after I called the mods out on tolerating ilovenonasianminorities69, but banning bigdickpepe1488. I missed it because your message was sent on thanksgiving. Sorry about that.
Noted that you are unable to find a single comparable case of prosecutors letting white criminals get away with the kind of thing they routinely let black criminals get away with. But we definitely have "equal treatment".
What you can note is that I'm not interested in playing bad faith games like "dueling anecdotes."
What's bad faith about asking for a simple existence proof?
The Chinese Robber Fallacy wouldn't be a fallacy if you could literally not find a single non-Chinese robber.
Proof of what? Proof that there are non-Chinese robbers? Proof that Chinese people who rob are frequently convicted? Proof that the law does not treat Chinese robbers and non-Chinese robbers differently? Note that we've gone from "Black people are criminal by nature, thus Jim Crow laws are justified" to "Well, see, sometimes black people aren't prosecuted for hate crimes, this proves hate crimes only ever apply to white people."
"A Chinese robber robbed an elderly white person using a crowbar and their charges were dismissed. To disprove this, you must not only find a non-Chinese robber, you must find a non-Chinese robber who robbed an elderly Chinese person with a crowbar and their charges were dismissed. Details of the case don't matter, but if you don't find a non-Chinese robber who robbed an elderly Chinese person with a crowbar and got their charges dismissed, it proves that Chinese people are robbers and also laws don't apply to them. If you do waste your time looking for a non-Chinese robber who robbed an elderly Chinese person with a crowbar and got their charges dismissed, I'll pull out the next example of Chinese robbers I've collected and demand another one-for-one match."
Here's the original definition of the Chinese Robber Fallacy, from Alyssa Vance:
My steelman of the Jim Crow position (and note I'm not a Jim Crow supporter!) is that they are making this argument instead:
To prove them wrong you could provide a single example of a white guy filming himself doing a hate crime and then prosecutors dropping charges for restorative justice.
The OP specified "elderly black victim" but in my view you'd certainly prove your point if the black victim was a pregnant woman, in a wheelchair or whatever. I would not consider you to have proved your point if the victim was a fit young man in a gang or if it was some crazy situation like that Jewish guy with a brain tumor who faked 100 antisemitic bomb threats, however.
I am not aware of any such incidents but I'm also not all that interested in the WN stuff.
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
More options
Context Copy link