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 -
The connection is there, but it's a lot less direct than our local George Wallace fan is making it out. Once anti-discrimination became one of the core principles of the Federal government and any actions with disparate impact on blacks became suspect or verboten, crime was allowed to thrive; this crime was instrumental in driving whites out of Northern cities (and thus turning their rule over to Democrats), a phenomenon usually called "white flight".
Well yes, but you can easily imagine a scenario where governments don’t carry out explicit racial discrimination, but laws still get enforced. Notably this policy is what drove down crime rates in the 90’s.
But no, you can't because then you have a dispute between progressives who say "the law is so unfair because mostly blacks get arrested" and a pathetic side who says "the law is even handed" - which concedes the frame that if the law was somehow unfairly applied, they'd concede and just allow the progressive pro-crime position. Of course, progressives are able to find some case that they convince themselves is unfair and GOPe types cuck on it as is their job.
On the other hand, if a society has an attitude of "we don't care if you find some specific unfairness, things happen and massive amounts of crime are way way more unfair" then the progressive gets shut down.
You'll note that crime did get driven down in the 90s and this low crime drove progressives into a frenzy and they desperately reversed it as soon as they were able.
You can totally have Michael Bloomberg policies and Michael Bloomberg policies totally work. The fact that progressives are often retarded is not specifically about race.
Except that progressives hated that Bloomberg's policies worked and only Bloomberg's persistence in the face of progressive opposition (rare) and the level of power he was able to exercise as mayor (also rare) allowed them to continue. Bloomberg would even point out when asked about stop and frisk "disproportionally" targeting blacks that blacks weren't stopped and frisked disproportionally compared to the population of felons.
Yes, progressives are retarded about crime(and likely many other issues). This does not mean you can't tell them to pound sand without reintroducing Jim Crow, which we know because Michael Bloomberg did that.
That's the entire point of my post.
Micheal Bloomberg demonstrates that you cannot allow progs any power or voice because they actually hate good governance because it's good governance.
Here's the cycle:
Traditional methods controlled crime pretty well
Progs wanted to undermine traditional methods and had a broad spectrum attack on them - legal about "rights" mainly (case clearance rates drop precipitously after the Warren court inventions)
As a way to head off a reaction to their attack, they create nonsense social science where they claim that crime cannot be solved without addressing "root causes" - the root causes being lack of programs. You see echos of this with the modern "trained deescalation personnel instead of police"
Progs win, crime skyrockets throughout the 60s and 70s, plateaus in the 80s and jumps in the 90s
Over time progs come to believe their own lies about "root causes" - that's what they're taught in universities and what trickles down from there
Giuliani / Bratton introduce the idea of addressing crime by addressing crime - Giuliani won in NYC due to support from more blue collar whites and progressives didn't go full out against him because they knew addressing crime by addressing crime couldn't work - it didn't solve the "root causes"
It did work, gets copied in lots of places - progressives are horrified by the decline in crime and pretend that concern over racial injustice is the reason they object to doing things that actually do lower crime - these objections escalate over time
Bloomberg is able to hold out against these objections because he's more entrenched but progressives elect the next mayor who basically undoes it all
Ultimately the problem is that their objection to enforcing the law isn't based on anything that they say it is - the racial unfairness angle falls apart under inspection - their objection is to anything effective. That's the only way to make sense of their behavior because every single thing done was done still under the framework they set out as being within the rules. No executions, no speedy trials, no executive authority vested in cops, no approval of men defending themselves, etc. - just very PMC style "dispatch the cops who follow proper procedure and protocols that follow every explicit progressive rule". There are no crime control measures that are effective that they will support and if they support it and it turns out to be effective, they'll withdraw support when it's shown to be effective.
I’m going to ignore your claim that low crime is the thing progressives are objecting to, in itself, rather than them just being stupid. Instead I’ll note that the correct response to ‘progressives are opposed to anything that works at crime control’ is to tell progressives to go jump in a lake, not to bring back Jim Crow. And if your argument was ‘we need a national reorganization process to shut down progressives ruining society’, my response would be ‘let the rotors start’. But that doesn’t seem to be your argument, your argument is we need to bring back Jim Crow. Which is indirectly connected, sure, but it doesn’t, in itself, actually do anything about the crime problem.
Seeing as how that's the crux of the argument then there's not much productive discussion that's going to happen here. Progressives really object to "Jim Crow" not because "it's an offense that cries to heaven for redress" but because it worked to make a racially mixed society livable - that's the part progressives object to. You can't claim that certain people being second class citizens due to their ancestry / species / race is the greatest crime in the universe is your guiding moral principle because that is what we have now with zero objection from progressives except to point out that blacks aren't venerated enough. The alternatives are Jim Crow or something functionally like it - apartheid, Rhodesia's laws, Singapore / Dubai / Qatar style treatment of guest workers, etc. or race communism then it's a super easy choice to pick the former (unsurprisingly enough progressives hate all of those adaptations - anything that doesn't result in massive crime and a one-sided race war offends progressives). Progressives pick the latter because they like the outcome.
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