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 -
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?
I think the implication is that Brianna being black is a main driver of her support, like, if she was born Indian or White, or if she was Black but hispanics were the primary "poor race forced into crime by socioeconomic factors" group, she wouldn't make a big deal about it. But when we see Brianna's white friends, or harvard-educated friends, be similarly outraged about BLACK BABIES being killed, that doesn't work? What does the word 'ethnic spoils' mean? I'd expect it to either imply a person is 'nepotistically' attempting to help their co-ethnics (falsified by black wokes being about as mad as white wokes), or that the wokes are giving 'spoils' to an ethnic group in a direct, political-machine like exchange for support (but 90% of blacks aren't criminals, this works for welfare but not 'no kill black kids').
sure, libs are hypocritical and dumb, that doesn't mean their motivations are 'ethnic spoils'
I don't remember the exact quote, but she makes a point that joyriding is a common, and rather innocuous activity.
I doubt that a white liberal would claim that.
I saw similar claims from black twitter users that a cop should not have shot a black teenager(?) that was actively engaged in stabbing another teenager(?) because knife-fighting is a rather common and harmless activity that young people engage in. I doubt that this is a viewpoint that makes white people comfortable.
The way American media presented it was by cutting the bodycam video at the point where you can see the black perp dropping the knife. If they thought that knife-fighting was a harmless past-time that would not turn down their sheepish viewership from supporting BLM, why did they cut it?
My understanding of the white support of BLM is that they have a poor understanding of the actual violence cops have to deal with in the US. If they are advocating for violent criminals to be straight up released, they are not asking for that in their own neighborhood.
Here's an example
They're insulated from black violence. Sure they'd love to see fewer black babies harmed, in a vacuum, until these black babies are literally holding them at gunpoint, then they'll demand the police, or the federal marshalls
Some of these people don't see themselves as white, and see themselves as on the same side as the blacks, which is why they are demanding ethnic spoils. Demanding ethnic spoils for another tribe is performative, a form of Law of Jante, but for the blacks like Briahna, it is straight up 'taking what's ours'.
Not that all blacks necessarily believe that, but that's a commonly observed sentiment, and it's not like American culture in general provides any sort of pushback against the idea that 'blacks are owed everything'.
I wasn't able to find any examples of white (or black, aside from a journal article from 1990) people defending joyriding, so I can't really test this directly. But ... how is this different from when white liberals defend homeless drug users, petty thieves, or black criminals who are victims of police brutality? Combine that with relaxed approaches to accuracy and mistakes in casual speech, and it's well within distribution.
you're mixing together several groups of people and motivations, and finding a contradiction in it. but they aren't unified! "The media" and "white liberals, generally" are different - someone (as some 60s-80s gay rights activists did) who believes that pedo rights are a part of LGBT rights can still suppress the pedo part of LGBT activism to aim for mainstream palatability. Dishonest editing attempts to play to the public's values, not the values of your team. Even then, 'a black person claiming police shouldn't intervene in knife fights because they're common and relatively harmless' could be race-specific without brianna's attitudes being race specific. And even if it wasn't race-specific, that doesn't mean all liberals (and therefore 'the media') believe it, just that some do as part of the broader tendency i'm arguing for.
To be clear, there is some attitude of 'racial solidarity' among some blacks that opposes policing or law enforcement on blacks, and supports things like welfare, on the grounds of opposing 'them predating on us' / police brutality / racism / 'snitching'. But that isn't the only or main contributor to blm support among blacks, and isn't even close to significant for brianna specifically (again, graduated from harvard law, co-hosted a left-wing podcasts with "Virgil Texas").
As a harsher contrast to the characterization of white and black motivation, consider the weather underground - here we have white people participating in black power bombings! Along with black people! How does this fit into the 'radical black progressivism is black ethnic tribalism'? If it quacks like a duck, probably it's a duck - but if the pigs and goats are quacking too, it's worth checking.
Are you denying that there is a racial component to 'black lives matter'? Instead of a less racially charged name like 'End police brutality'?
Where was Briahna when Ashli Babbitt was summarily executed by Capitol police for trespassing unarmed?
Where was Briahna when James Fields was charged multiple life sentences for hitting a car in front of him during a protest with no law enforcement control?
In the same exact video Briahna even mentions Rittenhouse in a disparaging manner.
By Briahna's logic, nobody should have attacked Rittenhouse. He may have committed some kind of offense by 'crossing state lines' with a rifle or being at a riot or what not, but that does not justify attempting to murder him with a gun or a skateboard!
I don't see how this informs her motivation for decreasing law enforcement against her kin.
Here is the quote:
My prior is that this is an unexpected statement coming out of a Harvard's graduate's mouth.
It seems that they're letting all kind of riffraffs in these schools now.
Good for diversity right? We need more prosecutors and judges that are familiar with petty criminals, career criminals, otherwise, how could they possibly do a good job?
Virgil Texas also looks like the kind of guy that would hate the white tribe and would stand for black criminals over white families.
Here she is in that video claiming that police violence affects blacks disproportionately.
Which is not true, black people interact more frequently with the police, due to the whole committing half of the violent crime thing, they are not disproportionately killed when adjusted for frequency of interaction.
She even says at 17:36
Imagine somebody claiming that it would be reasonable to ask politicians
Seems like she wants people to go out of their way to do things specifically for her kin.
Some whitish people identify with the black tribe, or at least against the white tribe. There are a number of articles written by whitish journalists out there that essentially amount to 'white people are terrible'. That does not say anything of black people's motivations for supporting their own tribe and selectively demanding more relaxed law enforcement.
That was 50 years ago and these people are still around, some of them barely did any time for terrorism.
Susan Rosenberg was involved in BLM for example.
The default of American society is to favor blacks and disfavor whites, at all levels of government.
We are all complicit in this anti-white system, again, that does not really say anything about the motivation of black people themselves.
If violence, such as killing a 13 yo kid is a bad thing, then surely, black criminals committing ~50% of the violent crime is a bad thing.
If one wanted to alleviate this issue, and a more violent police was found to reduce the rate of violent crime, wouldn't that be progress, according to Briahna?
If the police killing 10% more innocent black kids every year was able to reduce the violent crime committed against black kids, to reduce the overall total black victims of violence, shouldn't BLM support that solution?
The murder rate is currently rising in majority-black cities in the last couple years, and this is associated with the police pulling back due to public outcry over brutality.
I don't know if causation can be found, but it seems that the public outcry against the police is hurting black people.
I believe that Briahna should stop advocating for more safety for black criminals.
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