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 -
Approximately none. Black on white violence isn't uncommon and doesn't generate much in the way of outrage at all.
I will register a prediction that the full story will not be very similar to a kid rang a doorbell and was then racistly shot for no reason at all. I don't know what happened, I don't have a specific hypothesis, and I am not jumping to blame the injured teen, I just bet that this is not what happened.
Agreed, it harkens back to Martin and Arbery, which is exactly why my inclination is to not believe that he was just an innocent jogger, armed only with Skittles, ringing a doorbell and being shot by an evil old racist for no particular reason.
Precisely: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/phenix-city-woman-shot-killed-12-year-old-boy-who-was-rummaging-in-her-yard-da-says/ar-AA175axD
The above is the complete reverse of the above, except the white kid is 12 here. Race is not mentioned at all, though it shows the picture of the perpetrator.
Or another more blatant case of racial hatred: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/nbc-abc-cbs-and-cnn-show-zero-results-for-reports-on-the-5-year-old-white-child-allegedly-executed-by-black-25-year-old-neighbor
Snopes shot back, saying that nbc, CNN and ABC did write articles about the murder, albeit after the above article was written. Even so, note the headlines they give:
I took a quick look through half the above articles, they do not mention race in the text though they might show images of the victim and the accused. Now compare to the headlines for this incident from OP's links:
(it's like one of those light novels that tells the whole story in the title!)
This article doesn't mention race but links to a fair few from the same newspaper that do. Anyway, there's breathless coverage and racial spin for this white-kills-black story in the majority press (Washington Examiner and similar excepted) while the earlier black-kills-white story gets slow-walked and purged of any racial element. This is not what you'd expect from a country where a minority, blacks, kills proportionately vastly more of the majority, whites, than whites kill of blacks. Naively, people would assume that bigger trends get bigger coverage. This is clearly not the case.
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.
It’s funny how you go into depth on why it’s rational to believe that old white people may have racial motivations but black people apparently have none? Strange case you’re building here
I actually said that it is rational for anyone (including, for example Jesse Jackson) to actually be more afraid of young, black males than of persons of other demographics. And that, therefore, there is some reason to think that this person -- who apparently acted out of fear of a young, black male -- might have responded, in part, because of the race of the victim. Such a hypothesis is consistent with what we know about interracial dynamics.
Re the other incident, I did not say that it is not rational to believe that black people have no racial motivations -- see my reference in another comment to the Zebra killings -- but rather that there is no evidence of that in this particular case other than the race of the respective parties. Unlike the case of the old guy, this incident is so unique that there are no previous incidents to draw upon to make an inference. Again, as noted elsewhere, even the Zebra killers did not kill children. And note that OP claimed not that it was "rational to think that the shooter might have had racial motivations," but rather that it was a "blatant case of racial hatred." That is a much, much stronger claim than what I made about the old guy, which did not claim that he acted out of hatred or even animosity, but rather that he might have been influenced, in some part, by a rational fear of young black men.
And, again, I see that you have decided to wage the culture war by trying to play gotcha, rather than taking up my invitation to discuss "how to judge such person, both morally and legally[.]" Disappointing, but unfortunately not surprising on here.
...
These two prongs of your argument seem to be in tension. When a white guy shoots a black youth, "interracial dynamics" can be appealed to. When a black guy shoots a white kid, why do similar "interracial dynamics" not apply? Just as there's a common perception among the white population that black youths are disproportionately criminal, there's a common perception among the black population that white people are disproportionately racist/evil/innately-hostile. Why should the former inform our understanding, but not the latter?
At the moment at least, there's no evidence in the current case either, that I can see. Isn't population-level inference the entire case you're arguing for?
It's not, though. Unprovoked, vicious attacks on other ethnicities by blacks are... I'm not sure we have a working definition of "common" good enough to apply here, but certainly common enough that they've resulted in multiple live national-scale political issues over the last several years: various examples of anti-white hate crimes, the recent spate of Anti-asian hate crimes, and whether or not "polar-bear hunting" exists being three examples. There's another example of a lady abruptly shooting a white kid in her yard in this very thread.
AsI said, because of the specific facts of the cases. Those dynamics often result in individuals feeling fearful of young black males and acting accordingly. In contrast, they do not often result in people shooting little kids in broad daylight.
Which is why I was very careful to say that it is possible that race might be a contributing factor. I also specifically said that it is quite possible that the shooter is just insanely paranoid, as was the wife in the Japanese exchange student case I linked to. In contrast, as I said, the OP claimed that this was a blatant case of racial hatred. Which, as I said, is a much, much stronger claim.
The problem with relying on hate crime data is that hate crimes do not require any evidence of animosity. For example, choosing a gay victim for a robbery out of a belief that gay men are wimps unlikely to resist is enough to constitute a hate crime. Also, of course, purse snatching in which the perp says, "let go, bitch" will be charged as a hate crime. Because overcharging is what DAs do.
Perhaps more importantly, you are ignoring the very unusual facts of this case, ie, the age of the victim.
But again, the key point is the very strong nature of the claim made by the OP.
Edit: BTW, black people commit a lot of crimes, many with white victims. But only a tiny minority are hate crimes. Why should we think (let alone be as sure as OP is) that this is an exception?
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