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 -
...what? I'm sure men are more involved in crypto than women, but why black men?
And what does "protect cryptocurrency investments" even mean? Providing a price floor for them? Making them more regulated? How?
My bias is that crypto is speculative gambling for the mass public, though I believe there are valid use cases for it. What's next, subsidies for Amway to protect women-owned small businesses?
I probably profile as a "young man" for their software models and i get near constant ads built around vote for Trump because of Crypto/Zyns/Sports Gambling.
More options
Context Copy link
Crypto has pretty heavy black overrepresentation among the owners.
More options
Context Copy link
I saw some reporting a few days ago that speculated that part of the movement of black men towards the right (they will still vote Kamala at 80+% but still movement) was driven my crypto concerns. I'm not sure I buy that, but I'm guessing whomever wrote this press release did.
More options
Context Copy link
There's three interpretations in my head of what that could be, and considering what the Biden admin has been doing and how it's likely to be exactly the same people in charge under Harris, there isn't really any doubt which one it is.
Crypto traders and users want the governments to protect the ability to use and trade cryptocurrency by keeping the knee off the neck of the industry.
The crypto industry wants governments to give clarity as to where it will intervene and where it won't, so that the industry can finally know where and how they will be allowed to operate.
Governments wants to make the cryptomarket as "safe" and regulated as regular finance (and by doing so, kill opportunity in that market for the plebs).
More options
Context Copy link
I watched a Sagaar/Crystal Breaking Point show on the topic, and to me it seemed funny that for some reason none of them mentioned the potentially most important reason: crypto has been historically used to protect money from various actors, including garnishing the income due to child support or other such obligations. If you have irregular or under the table income, you can store it even using cash such as with bitcoin ATMs or peer-to-peer trading, there are also other methods. Sending signals that the government will be easy on these practices may be very important for black men specifically.
I may have misunderstood, but it kinda sound like you think that the Democrat staffers who wrote that press release were thinking 'black men use crypto to hide their drug-dealing money and avoid paying for the children they walked out on, we'd better tell them that they have our support'.
Even in politics, I think you'd struggle to find that kind of jet-black cynicism
Democrats dropped tens of millions for MAGA candidates in 2022 from their own money, while declaring the same candidates as existential threat to democracy.
Spending government money to get some votes of shady characters? Absolutely no problem, especially with so many naive people around.
More options
Context Copy link
The perspective of the policy maker would be more "black men are marginalized from traditional banking institutions and turn to alternative ones instead, so we should promise to protect the alternatives." They amount to the same thing, but the added layer of indirection lets you avoid consciously considering the concrete implications that you explicitly list.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I thought it meant regulate cryptocurrency investments so Black men don't gets scammed. Not sure if these policies are fleshed out in more detail elsewhere. Possibly, there is no intention to give specific details so people can just fill in the blanks with their preferred policy.
That's probably a good idea. But black men who are into crypto presumably don't want regulation to "protect" them from it.
The issue with the ambiguity is that people really into crypto are as likely to fill in the blanks with things they're worried about as things they're hopeful about.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My guess is that they have some sort of internal polling to try to figure out what the common factors are amongst black men who support Trump, and they came up with buisiness ownership and cryptocurrency investments.
And then stopped right there and treated them like the wider cohort instead of tailoring the message to who they are targeting.
This is fucking amateur hour.
Like how does one suck at marketing so bad that they try nanny state patronizing on the libertarian leaning business owners? It genuinely feels like being talked down to because you're black.
Ok, some low social trust people are libertarian, but many are not- they want a government big enough to magically pass out money, and incompetent enough not to attach any conditions on it. Second order consequences don’t occur to them because 85 IQ and shitty schools that don’t teach economics. Crypto is not necessarily libertarian for the vast majority of people who own it.
That's fair, I'm going to have to get used to the fact it's no longer a cypherpunk secret club as it normalizes. We got Monero for the cool kids now.
But whilst not everyone who holds Bitcoin knows about the inner machinations of the SEC, "Operation Chokepoint" and all that jazz; they at least know that they don't want the government in charge of their money, that's the whole value proposition of it in the first place.
So the way I see it, either you're a degen gambler who will balk at being "protected" from being able to rug people with shitcoins, or you actually are treating it as an investment and you don't want the government to meddle with your neo-gold.
I just can't conceptualize what a person who sees this statement as a good thing and actually cares about crypto looks or sounds like. If you can I'd like you to draw that picture for me, because I'm really not seeing it. Black man or not. Even the most bottom of the barrel drug dealer who's silly enough to think the feds can't trace his crypto knows that them "protecting" you is bad news.
Really the only people it would work on are Affluent White Female Liberals like Warren herself, which is literally the opposite of the target demo on every single count.
Well yeah, I’m not claiming that Kamala is doing a good job appealing to this crowd either. Just that it’s possible, in theory, to offer them government shit- although I’m not sure what that would look like.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"You're a black man, right? Vote for me, I'll give you government handouts and weed! You can even use the handout to front money to start dealing!"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link