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 -
And if he is doing this, how much do you want to bet it did not sound something like "Excuse me sir, I am expecting to be at address X and..." and instead was more like "Ay! Darnell! DeAndre! Get yo' asses out here! It's time to go! Ay, who you is? Where my brothers at? Where dey at? Ay! Yo, I'm talkin' to you nigga!", likely in a loud tone of voice that could easily be misinterpreted as aggressive before he's even properly reached the door? (Edit on 4/25: Of course I could be wrong here and Ralph Yarl could be a young Carlton (Yarlton?) Banks but statistically that's less likely.)
It's not even the ebonics necessarily, but just the fact that blacks tend to communicate anything they want in a more direct, loud, demanding, and repetitive fashion than other races, even when they have no ill intentions, can make other races uneasy even during actually fairly neutral interactions with them, much less an 84 year old man.
I've had plenty of interactions with blacks where they've wrongfully assumed that they needed/wanted something from me or vice versa based on various mistakes of fact, and while many of these have ended in a non-threatening "Oh, my bad" (though sometimes they also just like to immediately disengage and walk away without comment, almost like weird primitive AI agents, once they realize you're not the droid they're looking for), getting there is usually still an uneasy process as they just do not seem to practice the habits of clearly confirming and socially negotiating their presence and intent nearly as much as Whites, Asians, etc. do.
This of course is not malicious behavior in their book. They have no problems yelling at each other repetitively until one side's shouting wins. But if you aren't used to it I can see why it might seem hostile.
I have a hard time imagining a world in which you wrote that without expecting to eat a ban for it.
Optimize for light, not heat. User banned for three days.
Have you never met a real black person?
Have you? I have, and based on my experience the GGP is still making an extraordinarily inflammatory claim (that the interaction with a generic black youth would likely have looked like that) that requires extraordinary evidence (well in excess of either invoking stereotypes or linking an anecdotal video from the internet hate machine).
If the thesis is actually "members of culture X habitually communicate in the described way (litany of attributes considered negative in our culture, anecdotal transcription optimised for disgust response)", then I'd expect something on the level of scientific papers on the interpersonal value differences and the prevalence of intercultural misunderstandings induced by the different communication style supposedly illustrated by the example. Even then, I would drop the example; if that way of speaking actually induces a negative emotional response in members of our culture. then we should keep it out of the discussion lest we are made more irrational by our own emotional response.
Actually reducing the thesis to "different cultures communicate differently" would be a massive motte-and-bailey shifting of goalposts to a thesis that is so general as to be uncontroversial.
If your feelings on the matter are actually something like "but black people are really this bad, how do we deal with this unfair standard that makes it impossible to prove that in conversation", then maybe it helps to flip the scenario to get another setting in which the required level of evidence and careful wording would at least form a lower bound: imagine a white cook got fired from a prestigious cooking school. People think it's because he's white and there is a pervasive prejudice that white people have no cuisine to speak of. Would you accept someone making the argument with personal anecdotes about being fed canned Campbell's soup, Uncle Roger shorts and Twitter memes about US supermarket toast bread and mayo, or is there a higher standard of evidence you could think of demanding?
No, thank you for engaging earnestly - I was admittedly bristling somewhat after getting the sense that people were overly quick to jump to the defense of their ingroup, and your question was more than fair.
Well, to be clear, the alternative we're comparing to would not be saying nothing at all but more something like clinical statement along the lines of "the speech mannerisms and conventions of black people often register as threatening by members of other cultures", which would arguably convey the same information only at the expense of conveying directly some of what it would be like for the reader to actually be in that hypothetical situation. You could have a separate argument about whether it is better or worse to have the emotional reaction as an elderly guy who just had someone turn up at the door - that is, would a mandatory speech-mannerism babelfish that filters out emotionally salient cultural differences be beneficial or detrimental on average? - but here we are not actually trying to deal with interlopers who may or may not threaten us, nor even give personal recommendations to people who are, but instead trying to foster an environment in which we can discuss societal effects and abstract principles in a detached manner.
When I say the anecdote makes us irrational, I mean that it's hard to "shut up and multiply" the magnitude of one's emotional response to something; and for many people including myself emotions seem to come with a builtin self-reinforcement drive where they also motivate us to seek out more emotional stimulus that reinforces them and shun input that induces emotions in conflict. This complicates the "shutting up and multiplying" of a rational weighing process even further, as now we find ourselves actively trying to increase the first term we found and avoiding exploration of others. That (/whether) this is a problem worth fixing is a separate debate that is largely orthogonal to the circumstance that this is a problem that exists; susceptibility to drug addiction would also be nice to overcome but "start by binging on some drugs and then see if you can avoid getting addicted" is rarely good advice for the individual.
To illustrate the problem of calculating with emotions further, in this particular case, what would even be a counterweight that would allow us to weigh the potential emotional terror of the old man (conditioned on the interaction actually having occurred as OP hypothesized) in the context of the correct consequences to draw as a society? Shouldn't we also take into the account the potential emotional consequences for everyone else - such as the putative addition to the terror a black youth may experience about the prospect of accidentally going to the wrong porch? I don't see anecdotes conveying each of the emotions coexisting and being traded off against each other in a discussion without their respective proponents just getting angered and trying to shoot the other messenger.
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