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 -
Where is your evidence that "racial hatred" was the motive in that case? There is none in the article you link to.
The most obvious, as you note later, is that he has some sort of mental health issues. That is certainly what you would have inferred, had the perpetrator and victim been of the same race.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "racially motivated." The shooter clearly was in fear of the victim. Now, of course, I don't know this guy. He might be fearful of all strangers, like the wife [note: the wife, not the husband] in this case. Or, there might have been something independent of the victim's race that caused him to be in fear. But, I as I am sure you know, many people -- especially older people in places like Missouri -- are more fearful of young black males than of other people, and hence might use force against a young black male in a situation where they would not have used force were the victim of a different race. In fact, there are people on here who have pretty explicitly argued that such use of force is justified. In that sense, the race of the victim is a cause of such shootings, and so can be described as "racially motivated." The hard part is that being more frightened of young black males than, say, young Asian males is rational. Indeed, depending on the level of fear, it can be simultaneously rational and racist. The question of how to judge such person, both morally and legally, is a difficult question, and one that might actually yield a fruitful discussion. What I do not believe is likely to yield a fruitful discussion is making unsupported claims about unrelated cases.
I mean, it's not for no reason. There have been repeated pogroms of older white people by influxes of younger black populations that have been totally ignored by institutions that have turned a blind eye towards the horrors this older generations must now suffer. At one point another poster shared many, many excerpts from one such study about it. I wish I had kept a bookmark for it. Maybe said poster will crop back up and repost it.ChatGPT: There is a reason for this. Institutions have ignored the repeated attacks on older white people by younger black populations. Another user previously shared excerpts from a study about this issue. I regret not saving it. Hopefully, that user will return and share it again.
Yes, that's what I said.
I don't know that the use of terms like "pogrom" to refer to the phenomenon to which you refer gives me much confidence that you are interested in engaging seriously with the very real issues raised by this incident, rather than being interested in engaging in the culture war.
I would think the violence is different in character.
Pogroms were more coordinated than the factors which led to white flight. Ethnic cleansing was the goal, not a side effect. In contrast, white Americans were running from urban decay and opportunistic crime rather than any particular animus.
@WhiningCoil’s examples upthread fit this mold. Arrests, robberies, a general sense of unease. Under these circumstances, I too would want to get the hell out. But I find it categorically different than personally being targeted for my race.
Well, lets compare some historical pogroms to, what I would claim, are more contemporary pogroms.
For, wikipedia.
Pulled at random, the Warsaw Pogrom, 1881
I mean, I don't see how you could read that and not see the parallels to the devastation wrought by BLM riots in the aftermath of the "Hands up Don't Shoot" lie. Or the city blocks in Minneapolis sacked and razed as thoroughly as anything I'd ever seen depicted in sacks of cities in antiquity, or the aftermath of total war bombing runs in WW2. Or the interviews with the hapless residents who lost everything sobbing and destitute. Or the calls to specifically target white people that were broadcast far and wide, albeit tuned to specific audiences to try to hide the intent. I mean, on the numbers alone, at least as people died or were injured in the Minneapolis BLM riots as the Warsaw Pogrom.
Because in many of the BLM riots, many if not the majority of those involved were themselves white. And many of the businesses attacked were black owned or benefitting black communities.
The BLM riots may have had a racial trigger but the actual violence and so on was mostly not targeted by race in the same way. In fact in your final example they are specifically pointing out the violence there is impacting their own black community (and yes indeed arguing for it to be taken to the suburbs, which is bad), which you would not have to do if it was already targeted at white communities.
In other words most of the damage happened in black areas, lots of it by white people which is not consistent with it being a pogrom AGAINST white people surely?
Looking at Kenosha of the three people shot by Rittenhouse, only one was black and looking at the videos most of the people in the background seemed to also be white. Much of the violence and rioting was indiscriminate not targeted as it would be in a pogrom.
Which doesn't make it good of course, but probably means it should not be described as a pogrom.
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