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 -
Proof of what? Proof that there are non-Chinese robbers? Proof that Chinese people who rob are frequently convicted? Proof that the law does not treat Chinese robbers and non-Chinese robbers differently? Note that we've gone from "Black people are criminal by nature, thus Jim Crow laws are justified" to "Well, see, sometimes black people aren't prosecuted for hate crimes, this proves hate crimes only ever apply to white people."
"A Chinese robber robbed an elderly white person using a crowbar and their charges were dismissed. To disprove this, you must not only find a non-Chinese robber, you must find a non-Chinese robber who robbed an elderly Chinese person with a crowbar and their charges were dismissed. Details of the case don't matter, but if you don't find a non-Chinese robber who robbed an elderly Chinese person with a crowbar and got their charges dismissed, it proves that Chinese people are robbers and also laws don't apply to them. If you do waste your time looking for a non-Chinese robber who robbed an elderly Chinese person with a crowbar and got their charges dismissed, I'll pull out the next example of Chinese robbers I've collected and demand another one-for-one match."
Here's the original definition of the Chinese Robber Fallacy, from Alyssa Vance:
My steelman of the Jim Crow position (and note I'm not a Jim Crow supporter!) is that they are making this argument instead:
To prove them wrong you could provide a single example of a white guy filming himself doing a hate crime and then prosecutors dropping charges for restorative justice.
The OP specified "elderly black victim" but in my view you'd certainly prove your point if the black victim was a pregnant woman, in a wheelchair or whatever. I would not consider you to have proved your point if the victim was a fit young man in a gang or if it was some crazy situation like that Jewish guy with a brain tumor who faked 100 antisemitic bomb threats, however.
I am not aware of any such incidents but I'm also not all that interested in the WN stuff.
Here is where the moving goalposts happened:
The OP argued that "we do not live in an equal society."
Now, that's a rather vague statement. On the face of it, it's obviously true (no society has or could ever be "equal" in any absolute sense), but what the OP was clearly implying (in the context of his other posts, as he's stated as much) is that laws basically don't apply to black people. Black people can commit crimes, white people can't. Black people commit almost all the crimes and are not prosecuted for it. (If forced to steelman this, I'm sure he would say obviously it does in fact happen that black people are prosecuted for crimes, as this obviously happens every day, but the position he's taking is essentially that we live in a dual legal system where black people are prosecuted much less frequently and much more lightly.)
That is the argument I rejected.
Then the second OP came in with a demand for "dueling anecdotes" and the specific case of a black person who committed a hate crime and wasn't prosecuted.
If we started out with a specific assertion like "Hate crimes are politicized and more often applied to white people committing alleged hate crimes on black people than the other way around," I would probably have agreed. But that wasn't the starting point. So pointing at an example of a black person committing a particular crime and not being prosecuted isn't refuting what I was arguing.
That's without even digging into the details of the specific case, which I'm not going to, because there are always a lot of variables in cases like this that make good ClownWorld/LibsOfTikTok-style outrage-fodder. What exactly was the crime, why was the decision made not to prosecute? Charges get dropped or reduced all the time, for a lot of reasons; without any evidence or actual stats beyond "The defendant was a black person," an anecdote has no weight or meaning. Am I sufficiently motivated to go read up on this one item just to "rebut" a point I wasn't arguing against in the first place? Supposedly to prove my case I then have to find an exactly equal and opposite anecdote. So just finding black people charged with hate crimes won't be sufficient, I have to find an exactly equivalent opposite case.
That's not a serious attempt to support the much stronger original assertion, that's just playing games. No, I will trade anecdotes with the person who has a long list of terrible crimes committed by black people to "prove" that black people are terrible.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link