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 -
One theory is that Blue Tribe turns the burner up or down for purposes of tactical or strategic advantage. Given that they're more or less back in control, what advantage is there on turning the burner back to high?
Thousands of extra black people are being killed per year, compared to five years ago, and this rise correlates neatly with the largest social intervention in law enforcement in living memory. But this is an inconvenient correlation to examine, so it simply goes unexamined, and people mention how it seems like things have chilled out lately. Well, sure. The chillness or lack thereof of our collective environment is entirely determined by Blue Tribe social consensus, and is entirely detached from any actual facts of our physical existence.
BLM was a crisis of the cops hunting black people in the street, not because the cops were actually hunting black people in the street, but because the media and other organs of blue-tribe social consensus generated a collective delusion that it was so. Now black people are actually being killed at rates approximating those delusive rates, but no one cares. This is how it works, and in fact how it has always worked. We've collectively outsourced our cognition to a small cadre of radical utopians, and we dance to their whim.
It will remain so until the existing system ruptures badly enough that the problems become undeniably immediate.
You're missing something important here. Floyd for example was viral on Black Twitter and communities BEFORE media or Blue Tribe got involved. The ideas about police brutality exist in urban black communities and then that filters to their nominal political allies in the Blue Tribe. Which then will get signal boosted by the media etc. The sentiment does not vanish (whether or not it is accurate) because it is not based on data. It's based on stories and previous experiences and then the emotion is usually triggered by a specific incident (often one with a video that can stir up emotions).
You could have zero deaths of black people to cops for 5/10 years or more and no media stories about it and this belief would still persist. The evidence is that stories of white doctors killing black babies in utero as part of maternal care is something that still persists through the stories told by say my ex-wife's mother who is certain white doctors in the 60's killed her first two babies. She successfully had 5 kids after skipping all maternal visits thereafter until thinking her fears were overblown she went back to a doctor for her 6th and youngest. Then when he was born, they discovered he had a needle broken off in his skull and suffered brain damage and partial blindness. So the belief was reinforced, spread to her community and crucially to her children. Did white doctors try to murder her kids in utero? I don't know, but she believes they did.
My ex-wife, an educated IT worker, decided this was no longer a worry, but when she miscarried our first child after a visit to her (white) Ob/Gyn where did her thoughts go? For our second, she repeated her mother's ideas and refused to visit any doctors for the first 6 months. I am pretty confident the miscarriage was a coincidence, but I really want people to understand just how these cycles of issues and thoughts can re-occur even with "normal" events because they are not driven or created by data, they are created by fears and passed on stories from family and friends. Her sister then refused to go to any doctor for her 2 kids. Vaccination rates in Black communities still lag due to "taking the government needle" STILL being an active concern.
Blue Tribe media does not GENERATE these beliefs. It SPREADS them to Blue communities. This is an important difference for understanding what is going on.
I don't understand your point. There's plenty of batty ideas out there (I happen to hold some myself!), that either side's media would refuse to spread, and if they spread organically, they'd only address them in a negative way.
I'll buy "those ideas were already out there" as an excuse for Blue Tribe media when I see them give the Great Replacement the same treatment they gave BLM.
Ahh, i think you misunderstand. I am not talking about blame, just correcting an erroneous understanding (in my view) of the situation.
If FC is correct once the media stopped the narrative the issue would vanish entirely, because they generate it from whole cloth. If I am correct even if the media didn't mention the issue at all you would still get periodic race based protests/rioting within black communities regardless, when a trrigering event occurs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm sorry, what? Is this supposed to be a COVID thing? If so, "killed" is a rather questionable word choice.
I want to see a source.
I wish I had some faith we won't see the exact same demands for sources the next time this issue comes up.
No, I’m convinced on this one. I really did think OP was somehow blaming COVID policy, which clearly wasn’t the case.
He also gave a source and I concede that the phenomenon is real. I even mostly agree with the reasoning!
By all means hold me to this in the future.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Here's a starter. We have the largest increase in the homicide rate ever recorded, immediately following one of the largest social and political interventions into our law enforcement system in living memory, an intervention that directly interfered with the function of law enforcement nation-wide and repeatedly created "cop free zones" with massively-elevated murder rates.
Now, to be fair, it's true that we can't actually prove that the attempted deconstruction of our entire street-level law enforcement apparatus has anything to do with the historically novel murder rate. After all, the NYT hasn't declared it so, and if the NYT doesn't say it, it isn't true. One can merely point out that this exact consequence was predicted from the beginning of the intervention and before, because similar interventions at smaller scale had similar effects.
...Perhaps the point should be made with less snark.
We talk about policy a lot here. Generally, the pattern is that an intervention is proposed, carried out, and then we discuss the outcomes. Usually in the field of public policy, the outcomes of a policy are subtle and difficult to detect, and so we get a lively debate back and forth over whether the intervention worked or not, whether it was worth the cost or not. Does increasing black representation in TV shows increase metric [x]? Inquiring minds want to know.
BLM was a significant social and political intervention, one of the most massive and abrupt in recent memory. Its interventions coincided with an immediate and unprecedentedly massive increase in violent crime and murder, which has not relented in the two years since. This increase in violent crime is the largest ever recorded. A massive increase in violent crime was predicted by conservatives from the start of BLM, myself included. The increase in murders was immediately visible following the start of George Floyd riots, in the blocks surrounding where he died. Thousands of extra black people are currently being killed every year, for real and not merely in the imaginations of Blue Tribe.
I assert that the linkage between the BLM movement and its activism and the increase in the murder rate, particularly for black men, is the clearest, most obvious linkage in social science in the last generation, and possibly since the invention of the discipline. To the extent that you or others think that the evidence for this linkage is insufficient, I think it bears examining why, and whether such skepticism applies to claims more amenable to one's tribe.
Thank you.
I will admit that I was unaware of the magnitude, and thought you were alluding to COVID policy rather than violent crime. But yes, the rate of gun homicides has jumped by quite a bit in the last few years.
It’s hard to tell exactly when it started without tick marks. I tried to verify with FBI stats, but for some reason they stop with 2017, 2018, 2019. These numbers suggest that black Americans were victims in about 50% of gun homicides even as the total number decreased. Simultaneously, around 42% of victims were white.
The final point in your graph gives ~57 bgh/100k. Scaling by relative population sizes, we’d expect something like 12 wgh/100k. Given that the white homicide rate didn’t get nearly that high, something clearly happened in black communities.
Rioting and reduced police presence are clear candidates. Opponents note that lots of murders happened in red-tribe areas, rather than just the cities, and did not correlate with defunding. This is however compatible with demotivating. At the very least, BLM obviously failed to make anything better.
Does this seem like a fact that you should be unaware of, given your basic assumptions and expectations of how society operates? Like, if I had claimed last week that the murder rate could do what it did, and you'd be completely unaware of it for years after the fact, would you have thought, "yeah, that seems like an accurate description of how the world works", or would you think I was booing my outgroup or waging the culture war?
...At some point, it seems to me that Gell-Man Amnesia stops being a curiosity, and needs to actually be engaged with. I think this conversation demonstrates a fundamental disconnect between fact and perception that is pervasive and lasting, and that should pretty clearly have decisive consequences for everything relating to the culture war.
More options
Context Copy link
That's a pretty bad cite. Most of the sub-cites are pay-walled, but I'd seen the NYT one with the city-to-city comparisons before and it was bullshit. Their list of cities was "arbitrary"; no real rhyme or reason, but it included cherry-picked tier-3 cities with Republican mayors just so they could play dishonest games with percentages (This small R city went from 4 murders to 8. That's a 100% increase! Much worse than D megacity that went from 500 to 800, which is only 60%.). I ended up just taking the wiki list of top 50 cities in the US and looking at the before and after murder count for the Republican and Democrat mayored cities. R cities definitely had a large increase, but it was still significantly smaller than the D increase.
Then the first article that isn't paywalled keeps trying to compare San Francisco to Jacksonville. The degree of point-missing is almost an art. They take a rich, white city criticized for the crimes/ills of drugs, homelessness, shoplifting and burglary, with a dash of random hate crimes against Asians for seasoning, and compare it to a much blacker city, and act like it some sort of gotcha that one has a higher murder rate. Same deal with the comparisons of states. All those "Red" states are also the ones with much higher rates of black people. And when the claim in question is something like "Racial(ist) backlash against policing of black people has increased the costs and reduced the incentive for policing black people, and this has resulted in a bloodbath", it's hard to imagine this coming from a place with any good faith.
Or maybe the reliably left-wing, pro-police reform Brennan Center is just trying to deflect blame for their own promoting of this exact situation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If a progressive had claimed 'large-scale black leftist resistance will lead to a racist backlash by cops and society, which will lead to more dead black people' before BLM, that doesn't make them correct, even though there were protests and there were more dead blacks. Similarly, the right making a claim, and then the outcome happening, doesn't make their claim about how true.
We all get the 'ur biased towards ur team' thing, that doesn't make it unimportant to establish causation! It's not implausible, just not proven at all.
What would proof actually look like? A detailed look at the experience of the criminals/victims/observers whom the homicide rate increased dramatically, establishing the ways in which cop pullback - maybe - led to less fear of starting fights openly, or in places with more people, leading to more homicides.
More options
Context Copy link
Surely the obvious counterpoint is that the BLM movement utterly failed at the ballot box, with multiple major cities having elections resulting in the side pushing for increased police funding winning (or not even having a serious candidate pushing for any kind of police reform).
But I'm guessing your claim is that the protests themselves discouraged the police from doing their jobs, leading to less effective policing (per officer/dollar spent). Which seems to just prove BLM's point that the current way we do public safety / law enforcement is bad for black people.
I'm having a hard time understanding this argument. I assume that you accept that less police attention = more black people getting murdered. How does this mean that policing is bad for black people?
If the system can just arbitrarily decide to not protect them, that seems like pretty good evidence it's not acting in their interests.
The BLM movement's main issue is that they believe police-as-we-know-it is a bad (and in particular systematically racist) way to handle public safety / law enforcement and that those issues should be handled by different organizations than what we currently call "police" (or at least that the current police should play a smaller role). The police murdering black people directly and the police deciding to do nothing about others murdering black people are both reasons for black people to not like the police.
The system did not "arbitrarily decide to not protect them". The loudest section of the Black Community, and the much louder social groups that blacks allow to speak for them, demanded that police stop protecting them, and enforced these demands with overwhelming social and physical compulsion.
There are no shortage of deep-blue cities and even states where such a policy could be implemented exactly as Blues might wish it, completely unconstrained by Red interference. No such system has ever been demonstrated. If such a system were indeed possible, probably it should have been developed and deployed and its efficacy demonstrated, rather than gutting the existing system with no replacement on-deck.
But hey, no rush. As demonstrated in this thread, most people aren't even aware that any of this has happened. The people who believed, falsely, that thousands of unarmed, innocent blacks were being killed by a racist police force are blissfully unaware that the murder rate among blacks is currently a line going straight up, because the people who sold them the former lie have declined to enlighten them to the later reality. After all, it's just thousands of extra dead Black people per year for the indefinite future, the annihilation of three decades of social engineering nation-wide. Obviously more important issues obtain, and will continue to until memories grow foggy enough to allow this entire fracas to be blamed on racist Reds.
I think the elections since the George Floyd protests show pretty clearly that this isn't a straight-forward Blue vs. Red issue. Portland, about as deep-blue as it gets, re-elected Ted Wheeler, for instance. I recall police reform not going over well in the NYC mayor election either.
While writing "Black Lives Matter" on things may be popular among the Blue Tribe, implementing their policy proposals seems to consistently lose at the ballot box.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
BLM's specific argument (if one should exist) was that cops were engaged in 'open season' on black people - that it was their actual presence making life hard for the downtrodden.
You cannot pretzel that back to a vague, generalized, 'reasonable' complaint about 'failures of modern law enforcement practices, therefore BLM is on to something' without appearing dishonest or suspect.
BLM wanted less police-as-we-know-it, not less money/effort put towards public safety and law enforcement. One of their commonly repeated complaints is that the militarization of police is expensive leading to less money to hire actual people who they believe would be more effective than expensive equipment at improving public safety.
See Campaign Zero, for instance, which lists:
as their first two policy goals.
(EDIT: That list formats correctly as "1." and "2." in the preview, but not in the post...)
Both of those bullet points are completely compatible with reducing cop presence. Or if not presence, cop interactions - to diminish the overall surface area where police and black Americans interface with each other. The second point in particular gestures towards this.
Yes, the policy proposals I listed because they relate to reducing police presence both are compatible with reducing police presence. They both explicitly talk about reducing the number of police in exchange for increasing the number of people working in public safety.
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
He's talking about general murder rates.
More options
Context Copy link
He's referring to the recent spike in homicide rate, which happened disproportionately for black victims / offenders. The claim is that BLM -> less police enforcement -> more murders. Dunno how accurate that is, most convincing evidence for it would look like anecdotes from said criminals, or people involved, attesting to it. "Gangs are more active now that the cops are paying less attention"? idk.
I agree with your implication that criminals aren't in their hideaway saying "cops are gone, let's go nuts!"
Fortunately, there's an easier explanation. Most violent crime is committed by a small minority of people. By arresting and prosecuting a small number of offenders you can reduce the crime rate by a huge percentage. The average person will commit zero violent crimes, but the average offender might commit dozens if left unchecked.
Fail to arrest a person the first time they assault someone, and they can continue to victimize more and more people. Here in Seattle, we joke about needing a "10 strikes and you're out" law for that reason.
My point is that, if that's what's happening, because a 50% increase in homicides is a lot, there will be many anecdotes or sorts of evidence of the form 'our group is getting much less police pressure now, and are able to operate in more parts of the city', or jail occupancy rates for specific severe crimes significantly decreasing, or officers reporting seeing - many times - letting someone go for a mid-tier crime and seeing them commit more crimes, at a rate 50% higher than in 2019.
Just staring at a 'blm graph' and a 'homicide graph' and observing they both go up in 2020 isn't enough to prove that. Nor are a dozen or even a hundred articles about 'X was released after arrest crime Y and then committed crime Z later', because those articles also existed in 2019, and the way media reporting works, the numerical effect of media attention and people sharing articles totally overwhelms any signal in frequency relative to a mere 50% increase.
I disagree that "staring at a 'blm graph'" adequately responds to the argument.
BLM was a social movement that took direct and powerful action to alter our society, ranging from mass protests to large-scale violence to widespread social shaming to a whole spectrum of other activities. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that its touch was felt in every facet of adult life nation-wide. It directly impacted my personal relationships. It changed the content of the sermons I heard at church. It changed the art I'm paid to make. It changed every show I've watched on stream since. It directly caused and then publicly justified large-scale lawless violence and criminality, and attacked the role of police in our society without a modicum of restraint. It was the largest-scale social intervention of my lifetime, powerful enough to cause obviously-connected harmful effects on the other side of the world for no reason but sheer social inertia.
The law-enforcement systems it was directly and unambiguously aimed at experienced the largest-magnitude change ever recorded, almost immediately after these interventions began.
There is clearer causation between the BLM movement and our current murder rate than there is between any social-science intervention and any given result in living memory. If the causation is not clear enough in this case, it is obviously not clear enough in any other case either, and we should admit that statistics don't work and the very concept of "social science" is invalid.
...For the record, I'm making bold claims here because I think the evidence is overwhelming. Can you point to a stronger intervention, or a greater-magnitude result? A shorter timeframe? A closer linkage?
Unless you are very young, or have no exposure to any kind of religious organization this seems highly unlikely. Religion is an ancient and ongoing social intervention that directly and indirectly impacts some 5 billion (or more!) people around the planet at a conservative estimate just today. Even if we just limit it to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Judaism, the social interventions have touched possibly almost every single person on the planet over the last 50 years. Impacting behaviors and laws and more.
BLM is a mere blip in comparison. Even further limiting it to the US in my lifetime (55 years) Religion is pretty clearly the unequivocal winner in social interventions for sheer scale and the behavioral changes it encourages. Just because it's old and is the status quo does not stop it being an intervention.
I think you can even argue neo-liberalism dwarfs BLM given the impacts on the economy and social decisions to put money before the American people (in some ways) and knock on impacts on the Rust Belt through the destruction of social fabric as whole towns and cities just rot away. That's just looking at the negative social impacts. Trillions upon trillions of dollars, countless lives impacted. Then if you look at the additional wealth at the winners of neo-liberalism and the knock on impacts of spending that wealth in a positive way, I can't see any way that BLM can match it either positively or negatively.
Just to be clear I am a supporter of neo-liberalism, I think it overall was a positive thing, but I think there is no doubt that it also impacted many working class Americans in a very negative way over the past 40 years.
This appears to be a language dispute. I would say that religions are social structures, in the same way that, say, the Police system is a structure. They shape society, but they are generally stable long-term, and so one presumes their effects are also stable long-term.
By contrast, a dramatic change in church doctrine or practice, or a dramatic change in police doctrine or practice, would be an intervention, an acute change in how we do things, usually with the goal of improving our results. The civil rights act and the end of segregation are examples of large interventions. The institution of miranda rights, banning of stop and frisk, the passing of major gun control laws and their repeal or sunsetting, the rise of home-manufactured firearms, these are interventions, changes to the system intended to or plausibly suspected of changing the trend of social outcomes.
My claim is not that BLM is the most impactful social system in existence. It was the most impactful intervention, the biggest, most abrupt change of conditions. It was absolutely a blip. If you're looking for explanations for why the murder rate has abruptly gone through the roof, a blip, an abrupt, unprecedented event, is exactly what one would expect to find.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Eh sure, but BLM is just one tiny facet of progressivism. Progressivism/universalism has transformed every facet of adult life, as opposed to touched.
Basically - 'X was very important' and 'Y was very important', together with 'maybe X caused Y', does not prove 'X certainly caused Y'. I agree it's plausible and worth investigating.
why do people make these arguments so much? This is (sort of) true because social science is garbage, not because BLM caused the murder rate. This only works in a sense that it lets you win an argument against some hypothetical interlocutor who likes social science, it doesn't prove anything else.
There's no way BLM was the largest change ever to US law enforcement. Surely something during e.g. the civil war was larger-magnitude. This doesn't address this specific point, but generally your arguments seem to be ... very presentist, making very grand statements about very current politics, instead of understanding things in a way that can be used to affect the systems involved. Yeah, BLM was very significant and not very nice, but what does that tell us about how BLM worked, or why it accomplished what it did, or how we can understand its effects or interact with similar movements in the future? Your claims are quite vague and very nonspecific, compared to the sort of detailed, specific evidence I'd like to see!
Articles like this one (from the Guardian, no less) would point to a pretty direct connection between BLM and overall law enforcement policy (which is even more enduring that personnel shortages, changes in tactics, etc.) You quite literally had DA candidates for one of the biggest metropolitan jurisdictions in the US interacting with BLM activists.
That is relevant, but the 'soft on crime left-wing DA' existed long before BLM, and this still doesn't characterize or illuminate the connection between the policing change and the magnitude of the murder increase
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Investigating how? What constitutes solid evidence on a question like this one, in your view?
Because people stubbornly persist in treating social science as though it was science. Even here. I maintain that the level of skepticism needed to keep this an open question renders any other discussion of social science or social policy pointless. If you already think such all such arguments are pointless, fine. Others evidently do not.
poorly phrasing on my part. Allow me to clarify: the outcomes of the law enforcement system saw the largest change ever recorded. Literally, the murder rate has never gone up this much in the given time period since the day we began recording statistics. If you're aware of a change in outcomes, I'd be interested to hear about it. Maybe one exists.
[EDIT] - actually, no, I did ask for bigger interventions, and I'd definately agree that the civil war and reconstruction were bigger ones. I did say that this was the biggest intervention in my lifetime, though, and I think the 1960s and desegregation would be the most recent intervention of a similar magnitude. That one had more follow-through, of course, and likewise correlated with a very large increase in the homicide rate... but rather slower than this one.
I have been arguing with people over the American murder rate and the policies designed to minimize it for my entire adult life. We now have the largest increase in that murder rate ever recorded, immediately following a very large and highly controversial attempt aimed specifically at changing the murder rate. I was able to predict this outcome in advance, because I'd seen it happen in a smaller scale previously in Ferguson. I think that's reasonable grounds to state that we actually have some understanding about the systems involved, given that we've now successfully predicted highly significant changes.
All of those are reasonable and interesting questions, ones I've delved into at length elsewhere. But none of those questions are needed for the questions at hand here:
What went wrong with American law enforcement in the summer of 2020? And given the scale and acute nature of the problem, why does no one appear to care? Most tellingly, what do the answers to these questions tell us about the nature and operation of the society we're living in?
My claims are:
BLM was the strongest social intervention of my lifetime.
The murder rate increase is the most dramatic change in social outcomes in my lifetime.
The murder rate increase began immediately after BLM went viral.
There exists a likely chain of causation between BLM's actions and the increase in the murder rate.
What about these claims is vague or non-specific? The increase in the murder rate is exceedingly well documented. So are the actions of BLM: the riots, the demands for diminished policing or the outright abolishment of the police as an institution, the establishment of common knowledge within the police force that any error in policing has the potential to destroy not only an officer's career, but their entire city. The long-term effects of the rioting we saw in 2020 are not a matter of speculation; the long-term civic blight is easily predictable from previous examples in the 60s, 70s, and 90s. The results of BLM's general strategy were well-known from the example of Ferguson. The mechanisms by which BLM was organized and the outrage it harnessed was generated likewise can be tracked quite easily, from methodology to results.
Which of these topics appear vague or non-specific to you?
I'm not flying the BLM flag here. Pulling back policing to be antiracist and humane to criminals is bad, aggressively preventing and punishing theft and assault and homicides are good, progressive DAs are bad, harsh punishment for crime good, etc. 'BLM increased the murder rate' is not necessary to think BLM is bad, and BLM was not materially correct about anything whatsoever. This isn't a motte and bailey where with a high standard for your causes and a low one for mine.
But how can we exclude that, e.g. the pandemic - or another exogenous factor - caused some shift in the interactions / social dynamics of criminal communities, which then increased the murder rate? Maybe depolicing increased the murder rate by 3%, and the other cause did 45%.
An example of such a phenomena (which I am not claiming is the cause, and I agree there's much less evidence for this as a cause than BLM) is given here - law enforcement crackdowns on large gang structures have made gangs less organized and less effective, but (supposedly) that lack of organization leads to more violence.
Human societies are incredibly complicated. A single person's spiritual revelations changed the direction of the roman empire. There have been dozens of economic recessions, some with much more societal impact than BLM, and each with complicated and contested causes. It'd be very easy to, in 2005, say "there will be a recession soon because of , and it'll be caused by ", and then have both X and Y happen, and be completely wrong. I don't think causation is established here.
I gave some examples, but they were very vague. Understanding complex things is just hard. What "constitutes solid evidence" just depends on the topic.
Most of your argument above is of the form "BLM was very big, and very liberal, and very bad". This paragraph, from your post:
Has one sentence about police and violence with the rest being about how BLM was a big bad. While I think this overemphasizes BLM's importance, in that "progressivism is even more important than that but BLM was one of the ten coats it wore this year", I agree that the broader trends BLM represented are that significant and that bad. But this is not good evidence for BLM's impact on the homicide rate. That's what I meant by vagueness and broadness.
Yeah, correlation doesn't establish causation, two things can happen at the same time, and not cause each other, even if someone predicted said causation beforehand. See any miracle drug that people swear is curing their colds.
Yeah, nobody cares because of the sixty-year-long reign of antiracism, progressivism, universalism, where they care more about the poor impoverished blacks, and where imprisoning criminals is racist. I agree with that! But that doesn't prove causation in this specific scenario. This again doesn't make sense as a reason for causation, just as a way to make a hypothetical enemy look hypocritical.
Your claims:
I don't understand what "social intervention" means here. Intervention implies an intervener. Sure, BLM had small groups of activists and political networks pushing it, and most people following it were just understanding and amplifying. But that's true of almost everything humans do. And we don't call other political movements 'interventions'. And "social" covers basically all human activity. Was BLM a stronger intervention than ... the mobile phone? Kpop? Both of those seem larger-scale, and if BLM was an "intervention", then so were they, given their use was driven by centralized marketing. Again, I agree that BLM is bad, just disagree with the emphasis.
I don't think this is true as a matter of fact, unless "dramatic" means "it happened in the span of a year" - e.g. the increase in drug overdose deaths in the US over the past decade seems larger in scope, despite also being about dead people. And the "happening over the span of a year" restriction does not give it the moral / political weight that "most dramatic change in outcomes" seems to imply.
I'm not sure if this is exactly true or not, but won't contest it. Timing increases in statistics is much prone to error than noting increases.
If "likely" here means "it is plausible and worth looking into", sure. But if likely means "the muder rate increase is due to BLM and they should be blamed for it", that requires more than "likely"!
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
Has anyone heard any competing theories?
Racism and covid, iirc. Less plausible.
scott wrote a post about this
The "stare at graphs" method of determining causation for complex phenomena in large-scale human groups is not effective. There are so many ways a big number can increase or decrease, it just can't prove the convenient explanation. And the complex economic methods to find causation often fail here too. It's plausible, and it's something many cops claim (they have local experience), but idk.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So things will probably get cooking here in a year when the next presidential cycle kicks is in full swing?
The next bit of heat will likley be the Supreme Court kicking blacks out of college. Err, rather their decision on affirmative action in higher education. This will be 100% noise, because the schools aren't going to change regardless of the decision except in the direction of even more affirmative action, but it will be a lot of noise, marches, rallies, overwrought editorials, cancellation of those agreeing with the decision, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
Your presumption is that the next presidential election will be competitive. Given that we now have confirmed colusion between the federal security apparatus, big tech, and the media to "fortify" presidential elections in favor of Blue Tribe, a process that moderates here consider so pedestrian as to be unworthy of comment, I'm skeptical. Certainly you should expect the burner to go back to high should Reds appear to be gaining significant ground in formal power structures, though.
They aren’t really moderates though. They are moderate within the context of progressives.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Democrats don't benefit from turning up the woke dial; it likely hurts them electorally. Instead it increases in times of intra-coalition competition. How does one advance in sclerotic organizations? Politics. By deploying shared cultural principles in a novel, militarized way, you eliminate existing power and replace it with your own.
The effects on the rest of society are unintended side effects. If it results in worse social outcomes or lost elections, it doesn't matter: you still get a bigger paycheck and have greater social status in elite circles, which is all that matters.
Didn't they kick off BLM2 in the summer preceding the 2020 election? Use MeToo to strike at Kavanaugh?
A lot of them initial led by Shor which I agree with believed the BLM move before the election was a mistake. That election should have been a landslide instead it was 50k votes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link