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 -
SCOTT ADAMS has had ENOUGH. Renounces black heritage. Calls for SEGREGATION from HATEFUL BLACKS.
www.youtube.com/live/K6TnAn7qV1s?feature=share&t=894
In his recent #2027 episode of 'Real Coffee with Scott Adams', Adams gives a piece of advice for white people living near black people: Move away from them. The advice is prompted by a recent opinion poll. Adams said the poll changed his view on the subject of living with blacks in general and being one in particular. Stating that he no longer identifies as black. The Rasmusen opinion poll in question found that 46% of black people say that it's not OK to be white.
Adams further clarifies that he will no longer be making black people's problems 'his own'. And advices other white people to do the same. Stating that the solution to the problems facing black Americans is simple: Focus on education. And that if they can't do that then it's no longer his problem.
On top of the opinion poll, as a stated reason for his change of heart, he opines that living in a more black area is more dangerous. To this end he cites Don Lemon's observations on the matter. Who had previously stated that living in black areas came with 'problems' he did not encounter in white areas. Adams also stated that, although anecdotal, he had grown weary of the never ending stream of black on white violence. Specifically videos of the acts, of which, Adams stated, there was no shortage. Remarking that he was sick of it.
This rather drastic heel turn from Adams has prompted critics to wonder if the real cause for the famed cartoonists sudden change of heart is to win himself into the good graces of his more vocal and extreme base of supporters. Whose relationship with Adams had turned sour after his alleged support for the COVID vaccine. Though Adams later recanted his support of the vaccine and disputed some of the claims made about his alleged support, he stated that those who never supported the vaccine only did so because of luck. Sparking controversy and the moniker 'CLOTT' Adams.
Others mourn the loss of yet another black American life at the hands of right wing extremism.
I think that the internet has really, really broken this man's mind.
Or the constant, real life, "diversity tax" he's paid, or seen others pay, finally broke through the cognitive dissonance the relentless drone of "diversity is our strength" imposes on him.
I moved away from a "safe" and "diverse" area. The reasons were many. Mostly having to do with the relentless background noise of low and high level crime. And wondering when I would finally draw the short straw. Maybe it was the gas station I always filled up at being robbed at gunpoint for the 3rd time. Maybe it was the shooting in the parking lot behind my townhouse. Maybe it was the playground I can see from my window, that my kid liked to swing at, always being full of "diverse" kids openly doing drugs after school let out, so I couldn't take her.
This was in a supposedly "nice" area! A historic part of town. They village center within walking distance of all this had farmers markets every weekend, and all sorts of bougie artisanal shops. And yet, the subsidized affordable housing nearby, in the name of "equity", cast it's long bloody shadow.
And every single time it's a "diverse" face. Every time. In an incredibly diverse area, where white people may be the slight majority demographic still, never once did I suffer, or was even inconvenienced, by any white criminality, or even witness it, or even hear a 3rd hand account of it. No white people ever tried to rob the bank I made my deposits at. No white person was ever caught breaking and entering. No white person ever randomly shot through the windows of townhomes as a gang initiation.
Sometimes they murdered their wives/husbands/fathers/mothers during lockdown. That was... odd... but nothing to do with me.
There are vanishingly few ways to contextualize these lived experiences. "Diversity is our strength" is not among them. Nor that it's all my fault, and the fault of "systems of whiteness", which just look like pro-social behaviors to me for the most part.
The only conclusion I was able to walk away from that experience with, is that multiculturalism is a failure. It just results in anti-social minorities politically, or literally, pillaging the pro-social majority. The only choice the pro-social majority has is to flee. But only because segregation is illegal.
I'm not sure what would help me draw a different conclusion. Every now again the usual sort of "diverse" person who gets excommunicated for being an "Uncle Tom" helps. But then how they get treated by their "side" usually does more to disabuse me of my hope than their reasonable common sense pleas to return to pro-social norms engenders.
I'm mostly left with the Briahna Joy Gray's of the world insisting, straight faced and deadly serious, that you have a moral obligation to allow yourself to be victimized by her tribe.
That clip is debating "should lethal force be used to prevent theft of a car" (in the specific instance of a probably black 13yo).
Note that in the US, using lethal force solely to defend property is generally illegal! Although "In basically all states, you can use nondeadly force to defend your property—and if the thief or vandal responds by threatening you with death or great bodily harm, you can then protect yourself with deadly force."
Also, this isn't motivated primarily by ethnic tribalism, it's motivated by wanting to save the downtrodden from harm, hence the 13yo example.
Come on. And what was the ethnicity of that 13 year old carjacker? When we are discussing 13 year old carjackers in the US, we all know exactly what ethnicity we are talking about. Also, white people aren’t allowed to be considered downtrodden. Too much charity here
Brianna's activism isn't mostly for 'ethnic spoils for my tribe', it's mostly for 'pls stop killing us racists :(((('.
There's clearly a racial component, but people like brianna are more than happy to complain about police violence, poverty, or the opioid epidemic among poor whites, and try to help them with policy.
I think there's a thing here where, in order to 'fight the left' while still maintaining progressive moral values, people rhetorically twist the left's actions into what the left calls evil - so "white genocide", "black ethnic tribalism", "the left wants us dead", etc, even though those are not accurate. Considering the idea of 'should carjackers be killed', outside the context of 'if they are black' or 'if they are 13', is more useful - and brings up - is every life 'of equal value'? Where does the 'value' of human life come from?
When someone claims a leftist is doing "blood libel", most of the claim's power comes from claiming they hate white people or are malicious somehow, as opposed to a subtle claim of hypocrisy. And I'm claiming the application isn't particularly fair, but even weaker than when the leftists do it.
Well, those questions have been asked in influential works of moral philosophy and politics for centuries. But the ways they're answered generally don't justify shooting carjacking black 13yos.
"Carjacking" is a form of armed robbery. Whether there is justification for shooting an armed robber while he is committing armed robbery is something that has very often been answered in the affirmative in politics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
False claims of being killed, are called "blood libel", when the defamed group is Jews. It is considered not in anyway lesser form of antisemitism than advocating for a Jewish quota.
This claim is a particularly absurd, as it inverts of the reality of interracial murder: there more Black-on-white murders each year, than white-on-Black.
Not twist, apply to all groups equally, instead of picking and choosing which races getting persecuted counts as "racism".
There's a difference between the claim being incorrect, and the claim being an accurate description of why brianna and liberals do what they do. They aren't motivated by ethnic spoils! They're motivated by a desire to stop poor, oppressed, forced-into-crime-by-poverty-and-racism black people from being killed.
How would you tell the difference?
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't being able to rob cars without risking getting shot a form of ethnic spoils?
If shooting a car-robber makes one a criminal, what should be the appropriate punishment for such criminals according to Briahna? Restorative justice? Immediate cashless bail? Benefits like in Richmond CA?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Hold on, is inaccuracy grounds for dismissal? In that case why hasn't "'pls stop killing us racists :((((" been roundly dismissed?
Grounds in what sense? There isn't some lib in this conversation whose hypocrisy is being exposed by differing standards here. Why should I lazily believe dumb ideas just because people I dislike believe dumb ideas?
Are the people you dislike libs? And by that do you mean left wingers?
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