site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33394 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 17, 2023

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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

CNN: "Accused shooter in Kansas City shooting of Black teen who went to the wrong house is White man in his 80s" Archive: https://archive.is/NcFb5

Edit: Andrew Lester is the 84 year old white man and is facing charges of assault in the first degree and armed criminal action. Clay County attorney Zachary Thompson states there was a racial element but hate crimes is a lower charge so will not be brought. "There is no evidence that the teen entered the home and preliminary evidence shows Lester opened fire on the teen through a glass door with a .32 caliber revolver"

Ralph Yarl is the black teen that was shot outside of Kansas City, Missouri. Early it was reported that he was shot twice in the head but now his family's attorneys are saying that Yarl "shot twice and struck in the head and arm" and Yarl has now been released from the hospital and is recovering at home.

The white man in his 80's "was taken into custody on April 13 just before midnight and was released less than two hours later at 1:24 a.m. on April 14."

Kansas City Police Chief Stacey Graves said in a Sunday news conference a “homeowner” was placed on a 24-hour investigation hold following the shooting. After consulting with the Clay County prosecutor’s office, the homeowner was released pending further investigation.

By all accounts I am seeing Ralph Yarl is a band geek which places my heuristic chances of aggression on his part as low. If I found the correct streets the subdivision is one of the last developments before hitting mostly farms and the street names are really confusing with the developer using the same number twice and then alternating between "Street" and "Terrace."

Of course, still waiting on details but in my opinion this could likely be what some people consider to be the quintessential example of a "racist" shooting. If that's the case and the only quibble between Red Tribe and Blue Tribe is if it would have made a difference if the kid was white or black does this story gain a much traction with that little toxoplasma or does it more go the way of the Eric Garner and Philando Castile killings?

I have noticed that whenever there is this kind of outrage and everyone falls in partisan line - there usually is more to the story. My bet is that it will become toxoplasmic. Something feels off here.

already has a Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Ralph_Yarl

Andrew Lester will face charges of assault in the first degree and armed criminal action. Authorities have issued a warrant for his arrest and he’s not currently in custody, Thompson said.

“I can tell you there was a racial component to this case,” Thompson said at a news conference without elaborating.

sounds more like an accident. so much for 'red states' being immune to this trend of judicial activism seen elsewhere. there is zero evidence to suggest this was racially motivated.

Yeah, Ralph's family jumped immediately on the idea that this was racially motivated, attracting media attention to the point where the prosecutor very probably was under tremendous pressure to see things that way. Not only has Andrew Lester's identity been revealed, but the pictures on that article suggest that Lester's home has already been vandalized in response--either that, or Lester was already being victimized by kids in the neighborhood! The stories I'm reading don't make sense (some say Lester shot through glass, but all the glass in those pictures appears to be intact) and Lester himself does not look well. Everyone is sharing the boy's side of the story, but essentially none of the media outlets I've seen in the past several days shared the story from Lester's view. I did eventually find it though--thanks, UK!

According to court documents, a witness told police that they saw a vehicle pull into Mr Lester’s driveway at around 9.30pm.

Mr Lester told investigators that he had just lain down when the doorbell rang, he picked up a .32 pistol and opened the interior door of his house.

He told police that he saw a Black male pulling on the exterior door and thought he was trying to break into the property.

He claimed he was “scared to death” at the boy’s size and feared he was unable to defend himself given his elderly age, the documents state.

Mr Lester said that he fired twice and that no words were exchanged with the victim.

During an informal police interview at Children’s Mercy Hospital, the teenager said that he did not pull the door and was waiting outside.

He told investigators that a man opened the door and immediately shot him, causing him to fall to the ground where he was shot for a second time.

Ralph told police the man said, “Don’t come around here.”

So, two pretty meaningfully different accounts. But the court of public opinion has already weighed in.

My mind is drawn to a potentially parallel case involving a white teenager. Last semester, one of my students was making a presentation on "stand your ground" gun violence and she mentioned the case of Carson Senfield, which was current at the time. It is not a particularly remarkable case: reportedly, a teenager attempted to get into a stranger's car, and was shot dead. The working theory appears to be that he thought the car was his Uber pickup? The shooter has cooperated with police, said "I was afraid for my life," and that's that.

As far as I can determine, the shooter's identity still has not been revealed to the boy's family (as a result of Florida's "Marsy's Law"). Was there a racial component in that case? Or perhaps a sexual component? I can imagine a woman being very frightened of a strange man hopping into her car, much as I can imagine an elderly man being very frightened of a strange man trying to enter his home. But how would we even begin to know? The Florida prosecutor has apparently decided against pursuing it, and so the family of the victim can't even begin to discover the ultimate truth of what happened to their son (and the shooter does not get to have his or her house graffitied by activists).

But I never saw CNN jumping to any conclusions regarding that case. Apparently some teenager's lives are just more equal than others.

About 25 years ago, some elderly relatives of mine were victims of a home invasion. They had been living in the same house in California for 40 or 50 years, and the character of the neighborhood had changed dramatically over that span. Their children had a security screen installed, but the octogenarian parents never bothered to bolt it. One day someone knocked on their door, so... they opened their door! They were quickly overpowered by a couple of young men (very possibly teens, but no one was ever caught or charged so who knows) who tied them to chairs, pistol whipped them a bit, cleaned out their valuables, and left. One of their children happened to stop by later that day, by which point both had soiled themselves and achieved a number of wounds trying to get free from their bonds. Both lived a few more years, but neither ever really emotionally recovered from the trauma.

Daytime home invasions are exceedingly rare, but when they happen and are accurately reported in detail, they can seize the public imagination, particularly among vulnerable populations. I personally have occasional nightmares about answering my door to home invaders, even though I've never personally experienced such a thing (and rarely remember dreaming at all!).

This case in Kansas seems especially well-tuned for culture warring on both race and firearms, but depending on the shooter's mental and physical health, probably neither is the most salient feature of these events. I really think we would be better off if this started a conversation about filial piety, elder care, and the incredible benefits of cultivating close, supportive family, but I'm sure that is a hope in vain.

I really think we would be better off if this started a conversation about filial piety, elder care, and the incredible benefits of cultivating close, supportive family, but I'm sure that is a hope in vain.

Yeah it’s gonna be “white man bad”, especially important story for the media to run with now given the spate of videos going around twitter of blacks attacking random people in cities like Chicago

Apparently we recently had an honest-to-god serial old-people-killer very near our home in the absolute nowhere of rural Germany. Seems he was active over several years, and a suspect has been caught a few weeks ago. My old grandparents then had an extra bolt installed in their front door, which they used to have unlocked during the day.

Guns are, for self-defense or home-defense purposes, banned in Germany. Families are atomized.

Guns are, for self-defense or home-defense purposes, banned in Germany. Families are atomized.

Somehow I’m sure the gun banning doesn’t make people feel safer

Of course not, nobody here feels threatened by guns. People who own guns are extremely discreet about them lest they ruin their reputation or commit any of the many wrongs that would see them lose their license, so most people don't even see a gun, ever, except in the hands of police.

But whenever the topic of guns comes up, two opinions prevail:

  1. It's a good thing we aren't those crazy americans.

  2. We need to regulate them even more since somehow somebody still managed to get shot in Germany this year.

My grandpa has absolutely skewed my understanding of what a "normal" old person is supposed to be like.

He was performing surgeries himself till he was 80, assisting in them till he was 85, seeing patients in his clinic till he was 91 and the pandemic hit, and now he's 94 and still largely in control of his faculties even as his cognitive functions have obviously declined.

I see a doddering old fool and immediately assume he's something like 90, only to be embarrassed when they're a ripe young age of 75, hard to remember that people mostly end up senile by their late 80s!

I know atleast one person in his seventies that's having to grapple with the idea that someone he grew up with is in a nursing home, while he's still up, spry, active and working.

'Use it or loose it' seems to be a good rule of thumb from what I've seen in old people and who retains their capabilities as they age.

My grandmother declined quickly after my grandfather died. Her father lived to be 101 and was sharp as a tack until the last couple years. She's 90 now and unambiguously senile. Given the timing of her decline, I have to think that if my grandfather has lived she would have kept her mind.

I wholeheartedly agree, my grandpa was doing great until he was forced to close his clinic and stay home for about 2 years straight due to the pandemic. In hindsight, that was pointless, though I am happy that I realized that quite quickly and requested him to resume seeing patients, but alas, it was largely too late by then. I strongly believe that the cognitive activity kept his wits far longer than otherwise, even as he had to dial it back.

He always took his health very seriously, including a diet and regular exercise, but the human body comes with an expiry date no matter how well you oil it up. I can only hope that the option to outright replace worn out parts arises in his lifetime, since it probably will in mine. At least he's had a long, happy life, which is more than most people can ever say.

I've seen both. My grandmother was spry, sharp, and leading tourists and boyscout troops on horseback-riding and canoeing trips right up to the morning she died of a stroke at the age of 89. Her husband (my grandad) having succumbed to cancer 20 years prior.

In contrast my next-door neighbors are in their late 60s early 70, but since the pandemic they've stopped going out, stopped taking care of themselves, and I feel like I've watched them age 20+ years in the last 3. And it's depressing because their daughter is a friend and my better-half and I will get phone calls asking if we can do some basic house-hold task or another because they're both too frail now to take out their own trash or work a toilet plunger properly.

My in-laws live with us, and my MIL has basically receded from life since age 75. Very overweight, can't hear very well, in pain all the time, and won't do anything to try to improve the situation. She has inspired me to make sure I never stop moving and thinking. My FIL is a little better because he helps take care of my son and does the cooking, but he could still stand to get out of the house more.

My own parents went into severe hibernation over the pandemic and still haven't come out, but they are at least staying active and taking care of their bodies.

One big difference between the two couples is class: my in-laws are blue-collar while my parents are white-collar. If I were to generalize from this tiny sample, I would say there is more of an expectation among white-collar groups that you will keep your shit together as you get older.

I largely suspect life is somewhat what you make it at those ages. Faculties seem to operate on a use it or lose it basis. Stay mentally and physically active and you'll be mostly fine. Spend your retirement staring in to the TV and putting down taproots into the sofa from your asshole and you'll decay.

I wonder what percentage of people answer the door at night with a gun?

I certainly would, and everyone I know would at least think it reasonable even if they personally don't plan on doing so.

Do people just have that good discipline that they don't get spooked and shoot?

Because if you're a sensible person responding to an unexpected caller at a strange hour you likely have the gun holstered or held, pointing downward, finger off the trigger, just so it is on hand since you won't have time to retrieve it if the encounter goes south.

And then as you gather more information about the situation, if you notice more cause for alarm/red flag you might start thinking about pointing and shooting. By the time you've made the decision to do that, usually there's been an actual threat presented, and thus it's go time.

Even though there's not much physical effort involved going from "Hmm, wonder who's at the door" to "Fuckfuckfuckfuck time to shoot" there are at least a couple psychological checkpoints most people have to pass before they're even pointing a gun in someone else's direction.

I would expect you to shoot someone by accident, perhaps 1 in 100 times

Good on trying to state an order of magnitude estimate, but this one is massively off.

Doesn't have to involve pointing the gun. Just...having it behind the door.

You don't aim at someone if you aren't ready to kill them. You don't put your finger on the trigger if you aren't ready to punch a hole in something, even if it's the floorboard. Those two rules cover the vast majority of incidents which would otherwise occur from shaky hands or sweaty palms.

I was referring to unexpected door ringing at night, which is a whole different kettle of fish than daytime doorbell ringing or a pizza delivery or something like that.

As for why people don't get shot more often, it's just trigger discipline.

I have the same confusion about why depressed people don't swerve into traffic more.

Yet somehow. Humans manage to consistently not jump of cliffs. Blows my mind.

Humans manage to consistently not jump of cliffs.

Until they see the first one jump.

I have the same confusion about why depressed people don't swerve into traffic more.

I thought the [admittedly unfalsifiable, even though this rarely kills people in modern cars] explanation for that, and (albeit unintentionally) avoiding the contagion effect, was "fell asleep at the wheel".

Same effect probably applies to SIDS, come to think of it; creating a cultural assumption that these cases are acts of God probably keeps the natal murder rate down even though it leads to otherwise wasteful behaviors to try and avoid it.

I took a baby care class a few years ago. They plainly stated that most SIDS is people accidentally smothering their babies. Like falling asleep holding the baby and then turning a bit so the baby's face is pressed against something. They presented this as advice to not fall asleep holding your baby.

So acknowledging that it is sort of the parent's fault, but avoiding making it sound intentional. Which maybe helps avoid some social contagion.

About 50% of people sometimes have the urge to jump when on a cliff edge. I agree that you would expect more people to actually jump.

Many people are familiar with the experience of a sudden urge to jump when in a high place, that is, when standing on a bridge or a viewing platform. On the Internet this experience is described and discussed under the term call of the void, while Hames and colleagues [1] have coined the term high place phenomenon. Although it is an experience known to many people, the phenomenon has rarely been studied.

In the only study published on the phenomenon by now, Hames et al. [1] investigated a sample of 432 undergraduate college students. They could show that over 50% of participants who have never suffered from suicide ideation in their lifetime, reported to have experienced the phenomenon at least once in their lives.

The only evidence we have so far is that the police investigated and released him. So the media’s reportage is premature (but, obviously, the norm for the past decade when an election approaches).

At the moment I’m more concerned about the mass assault on innocents in Chicago, for which we have video and eye witness accounts. This occurred in the same time period as the OP shooting story, but is given a decidedly non-racial angle in the news. But per one Chicago redditor:

I was caught in the midst of this. I'm visiting Chicago as I will be attending medical school here this year. A large group of people were collectively chanting "fuck you and your white woman" at my partner and I as we walked by millennium park. We were taunted and cornered on the L for no reason. I cried my eyes out. I was so excited about training here and serving this community, but now I'm so sad.

I cried my eyes out. I was so excited about training here and serving this community, but now I'm so sad.

Truly there is nothing more satisfying than naive, platitudinous optimism meeting reality. Unfortunately the money is on him turning up the reality-distortion setting in his mind another notch and demanding that the naive platitudes concede even more about what is obviously even more pervasive (and violent PTSD-inducing in the still clearly innocent blacks) racism than he initially thought. We'll see.

If @naraburns had not already banned you, this comment would earn you one. Naked culture warring does not become more acceptable when served with a thin veneer of snide sarcasm.

Quit pretending that pointing out reality is "culture warring".

At the moment I’m more concerned about the mass assault on innocents in Chicago,

That was yesterday. Today is mass looting in Compton.

Chicago gets considerable attention , but it's easily outranked by other large cities for violence. And SF and NYC rank even lower.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWcvbfFUsAATiKG.jpg:large

Race indeed does appear to be a factor. (Black or African American: 5% of population for SF, vs 45 % for St. Louis, 29 percent for Chicago).

I think this is a bit misleading. First, absolute crime levels matter somewhat. You could have a town of 100 we with a murder or a town of 1m 95 murders. The first is more deadly on a per capita basis but is subject to a small change in the numerator. It wouldn’t be entirely unreasonable to think maybe the second is more dangerous.

Second, a lot comes down to watering down the fraction by increasing the denominator with non violent persons in the city but in a different area (eg the BX is much more dangerous compared to the UWS). Some of these small cities in the Midwest simply don’t have the denominator because their non violent population is located in suburbs that arent included in the denominator.

Crime, and especially murder, is incredibly concentrated in specific areas of American cities. Unless there's another 115th North East Street right next to a 115th Terrace in Kansas City, the shootings appear to have occurred in the Nashua neighborhood south of Cunningham near the I435/Highway 169 Interchange. Nashua is ranked in the top ten safest neighborhoods in Kansas City, the 4th best to buy a home in and has a murder rate per 100,000 residents of 4.6 according to Niche.com, though they lump Nashua together with Gashland which is slightly further south.

Now that's a website designed to help people buy houses pick schools not represent crime statistics, maybe things have changed since whenever they got their data. Well here's a local news affiliate's map of homicides for each year. Notice how murders are overwhelmingly concentrated in the southern part of Kansas City. In 2023 they don't show any north of the Missouri River and Nashua is ten miles north of that. On the 2022 map I count seven murders north of the Missouri River within the I-435 loop, with most of them close to the river. The closest shooting to Nashua was two miles away and sounds like a domestic dispute (woman shot in her home after neighbors called cops due to disturbance, suspect immediately arrested). In the area bounded by I-435, 169 & 152 containing the Nashua neighborhood the KSHB homicide map shows a total of six murders since 2015. The Gas Station shooting you brought up was at East 35th & Prospect 20 miles south of where this shooting occurred.

Society was not collapsing around this guy, he lived in a safer than average neighborhood with good property values. Opinions can differ on whether or not it's reasonable for an octogenarian to arm himself before talking to a strange teenager at 10pm, but the old man's perception of threat should not reasonably have been based on the crime spike south of him.

How far away do the murders need to be before one's perception of threat can be based on them? Is it distance, does highway vs. city driving matter? Is it accessibility, can criminals ride public transit to murder you in your home?

Does it matter how long the murderous element have been murdering in the particularly murder prone areas of the city, temporal distance / proximity?

I can see on the map you linked that the murders seem to happen south of the river, if I were old enough to recall a time when these areas were less murderous, I might feel less secure than someone who has always known these areas to be murder enriched.

I'm not sure that being the 4th best neighborhood in the ~25th most violent crime laden city is a great comfort. The local MSM is evidently not portraying the local crime with enough context, it's not St. Louis, Baltimore or Detroit.

Yes, because the only way people ever get a sense of what the "good" and "bad" parts of town are is from GIS data and not by opening their window and noticing that they live in a beautiful neighborhood of detached single-family homes with carefully maintained lawns and not a graffiti-covered ghetto. Yes, he probably watched TV and local news with its inordinate focus on 'if it bleeds it leads" crime coverage. This horribly biased mainstream media may have misled him into thinking he was likely to be a victim of violent crime, and so he gunned down a black band geek (edit: in what would have been) the first murder in KC in 2023 to take place north of the Missouri River. Or he may have just been an addled old man who didn't consume much news and made a mistake.

Either way, the issue was not, as you asserted originally, that this guy watched society collapse around him. He may have watched society collapse on TV and become confused.

If it's anything like the area I left, you can tell which way the wind is blowing.

You show up to the area, fresh faced and optimistic. You quickly notice there is a street below which... well... you don't want to be there after night. You notice every time you drive by there, maybe to take a shortcut, somewhere along your route you notice someone being arrested. But it's fine! You don't live there!

But it's only like, 10 miles from you.

Three years in, the shopping center with the pizza place you used to love becomes... well... uncomfortable. More and more people are getting robbed in the parking lot. Sometimes a body shows up in the woods behind it.

But it's fine, that's still like, 5 miles from you.

4 more years go by. The corner gas station you fill up at starts getting hit every few months. People just walking into the street to stop your car and yell at you for money. Break ins are increasing. It's no longer safe to leave you car parked on the street. You complain about it, and people treat you like you should have known better than to live there. Often people who are like you were 10 years ago. Confident if they just live 5-10 miles north of where you are now, they'll be fine for the foreseeable future.

I put about 50 miles between myself and the problem this time around. It would be nice if that lasted until I'm 85. But I know I can't count on it. Every now and again some felons decide to take a felon vacation. It's like a normal vacation, only instead of going to the beach, they drive a county or two over and rob some house in the middle of nowhere for kicks. I guess even felons get bored and need to spice things up.

Yeah that's definitely a thing that can happen, but was that happening in Nashua? It doesn't look like murders we're spreading there, maybe you have some data about other crimes?

A lot starts happening before bodies begin appearing. Including people getting shot near you who don't die of their wounds. Because at the cusp of the tide is a zone that still has largely functional civil services. Like a hospital with an ER that's not crushingly overcapacity with trauma victims most nights.

One of the last straws in my old area was a guy who got shot in the parking lot next to mine, with the gunman on the loose. Came home to cops completely swarming the area. Technically not a murder though!

Oh yeah, I guess I spent too much time looking up crime data and missed Lester making a recovery. Glad to hear the kid survived and that the collapsed society this old man lives in hasn't had a murder this year!

I'll let you get back to inventing insults and not addressing my central argument.

Give it time. Eventually they too will bend the knee, can’t give any noticers ammunition

Do you live or spend time In a major city with crime and violence? I can say from experience that your comments ring true as of 5 to 10 years ago. Things are changing. And random violence: shootings, stabbing, and beatings have all increased over the last 3 years in what used to be safe an busy city neighborhoods and CBDs. Often times the victims are not caught up in risky behavior, just wrong place wrong time and specifically targeted.

Anecdotal fwiw

Not in the US, but know people who did/still do; apparently in the Bay Area, Asians are now intentionally running red lights because they get held at gunpoint and robbed during red lights?

Sounds absolutely wild to me.

I live in a city of roughly 500k with a murder rate 2.5x the national average and a reputation for meth. I feel very safe in the neighborhood of detached single family homes on the good side of the city I live in. There are areas of the city where I work that are pretty unsafe and I feel and behave very differently there but I know the difference.

I appreciate you sharing your experience but I'm pointing at maps of homicides from 2021, 2022, & 2023 where very few happen in or near Nashua and I don't think you can just shrug that off with "things feel different". Do we have some reason to expect the spatial distribution of stabbing and beatings would be very different from murder?

The person shot was from a different neighborhood.

Crime is not caused directly by geographical areas but by people whose ancestors came from different geographical areas (systemic racism).

and maybe announces he's looking for his brothers.

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.

"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!"

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.

I don’t think this should be considered inflammatory. If a black comedian had these lines in their act it would be a non-issue.

The argument was that there’s a communication style among black folks that can be jarring and intimidating to people not used to it, and this was a not even very egregious example.

If a white person gave such an example in Polite Society they might very well lose their job over it, but we are supposed to be able to violate those kinds of norms here.

If a black comedian had these lines in their act it would be a non-issue.

This is not a comedy forum, though. This is a discussion forum. I'd like to say our standards are "higher" than the average comedy club's, but... let's say instead that they are at least quite different.

The argument was that there’s a communication style among black folks that can be jarring and intimidating to people not used to it, and this was a not even very egregious example.

...phrased in an inflammatory way, and attributing it (as you've done) to "black folks" instead of to specific individuals or even specific groups.

If a white person gave such an example in Polite Society they might very well lose their job over it, but we are supposed to be able to violate those kinds of norms here.

Only to the extent necessary to optimize for light. Just because you're allowed to express your views about racial differences does not mean you are allowed to express them in ways that are unnecessarily inflammatory, uncharitable, etc.

Seems excessive.

Amazing. He was completely accurate in his depiction. The hot-air trying to politely talk around this fact is the heat, not his shining a light at the facts on the ground.

Was he? My experience with blacks had been that they’re more polite in a neutral interaction(like trying to pick their brothers up).

In my proposed dialogue, he thinks he's calling out to his brothers initially (and it is quite likely that his brothers were at a fellow black person's house and so he thinks everyone in the scenario is going to be black), setting his more casual tone (worrying as much about who else might be listening to what you're loudly saying also seems to be a less common black communicative habit). This maybe causes Lester to evince hostile or evasive behavior upon hearing it, causing Yarl to react similarly (or perhaps he's just unable to code switch so quickly between his "politely talking to White people" voice and his "talking to closer in age black brothers" voice).

Of course, to be fair, not all black people even bother using the "politely talking to White people" voice, especially nowadays. And some others also do use it more liberally, almost always when they feel there might be mixed company. But again, as far as I know (as I added to my original post, though only now as I was banned, as it originally got lost in an editing sweep when it was supposed to be moved to the end), maybe Yarl is Carlton Banks from The Fresh Prince. Statistically that's unlikely of course.

In any case it could be a factor. I want to hear the full and true story before I condemn. I was fooled initially by George Floyd, even though I should have known better post-Trayvon. Not again.

For reference, can you demonstrate how one would communicate the same idea in a less heated manner? Or is this a case where the poster should have linked to a few /ActualPublicFreakous videos or the like to provide multiple pro-active examples of the vocal phenomenon in question?

can you demonstrate how one would communicate the same idea in a less heated manner?

Sure thing.

If he is doing this, do you think it sounds like "Excuse me sir, I am expecting to be at address X and...?" Or do you think it is more likely that he was making demands in a loud, plausibly aggressive tone of voice that could easily be misinterpreted before he's even properly reached the door? I've seen people do this.

In my experience, there are cultures of people who communicate anything they want in a direct, loud, demanding, and repetitive fashion, even when they have no ill intentions, and can make others uneasy even during actually fairly neutral interactions with them, much less an 84 year old man.

I've had plenty of interactions with people who have 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 I am used to.

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 did not write a loquacious ban message because it seemed unnecessary to do so, but the rule requiring posts to be about specific rather than general groups, to the extent possible, absolutely applies here. @WhiningCoil's response, which I am tempted to moderate as well, illustrates the problem. I have met many black people. I have met some who behaved in the ways described above; I have met many who did not. I have also had entirely too many encounters, in my life, with white people who behaved in the ways described above.

This is--obviously--a high-heat discussion topic. That is not an excuse; it is a reason to work even harder to live up to the rules.

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?

More comments

When I saw Joe Rogan in Baltimore, a fight broke out in the parking garage because someone wouldn't let someone else back out into the line. It was two cars behind us. The entire 60 minutes we were slowly emptying out of that subterranean edifice, dude was hanging out his window shouting at the guy in front of him more or less exactly like that. Baltimore being Baltimore, my wife was anxious actual violence was about to break out the entire time.

Where I used to live, we'd have to get my infant off the neighborhood playground as soon as the highschool let out, because a bunch of 13 year old black kids in the "mixed income" utopian dystopian development we were renting would take it over and begin speaking exactly like that.

Now granted, in a professional setting, I've never heard a black person speak like that. But literally 75% of the street encounters I've had with black teenagers, they were.

Some black people speak like that, Yes. But in peer to peer interactions mostly.

Virtually all of the black kids I know call any adults Mr/Miss/Mrs Firstname very politely and get a clip round their ear (or worse) from their parents if they do not. And that's including the ones literally from the ghetto. Where even the adults in their 30's are very likely to call me "Boss" or Mr SSCReader as an older man and be more deferential towards me than each other. For a black kid going up to knock on an adult's door they do not know well (given they didn't get the address right) it seems more likely they would be saying "Miss Talia, my mom sent me to pick up my brothers" than stereotypical ebonics even if he were a literal hood kid. Because if he didn't his mum was going to be told about his disrespect and so would her friends.

There is a lot in common with more southern politeness norms in black communities. And to be fair also in regards to levels of violence/threat. It is very similar to my Ulster-Scots brethren, where there are a lot of norms around politeness but also lots of fights/aggression. Which is perhaps why despite being in some of the worst ghetto neighborhoods as one of the whitest white men who have ever walked the earth, I've never encountered any problems. And it's usually pretty easy to see who has had in depth interactions within these communities and who hasn't. You were comparing people in an argument in the street and kids playing basketball (both where trash talking is likely) to a kid going up to ring a doorbell and collect his siblings from an adult. Why would you assume they would be similar interactions? Those are very different social situations. Codeswitching is a huge thing in the black community as you acknowledge later about professional settings and it is also very relevant to interactions like this.

And that's before we even get into the discussion of whether this kid was from a community where he is likely to use that language anyway in the first place.

So consider: A black teenager enters your front door past 10PM, actively searching for something, and maybe announces he's looking for his brothers. You are physically defenseless as an octogenarian, watching society actively collapse around you, what exactly are you expected to do in that split second? Trust in society?

I do not know what happened, of course. But if you have a gun, you can just point it at the teenager without actually shooting him.

Or yell at each other through the door?

The only scenario where you'd be justified at shooting through a door is if the other party is also threatening you with some ranged weapon like a gun, or they're threatening someone else on the other side of the door.

Doubtful that this is what has happened, but I've also been trained by the media to doubt the early reports on these kinds of stories. Jacob Blake was just trying to drive away. Rittenhouse gunned down people merely protesting.

It could be that Yarl carried for defense, saw the old man answered the door with a gun in hand, and drew on him.

Or, old man saw Yarl going for his phone to figure out where his brothers really are, and thought he was going for a weapon.

Or, old man saw Yarl going for his phone to figure out where his brothers really are, and thought he was going for a weapon.

Yarl is alleged to have not had his phone, which is why he was poking around at houses instead of calling his brothers. It's why he mistook Terrace for Street. So he did not reach for his phone.

A black teenager enters your front door past 10PM, actively searching for something, and maybe announces he's looking for his brothers. You are physically defenseless as an octogenarian, watching society actively collapse around you, what exactly are you expected to do in that split second? Trust in society?

Is that pure speculations or are there allegations that Yarl entered the domicile?

suggests a level of implicit trust

People with non-zero levels of trust don't carry a gun with them to answer the door. If you go armed to your front door, you are expecting trouble.

To add onto ThisIsSin's explanation, consider also this video.

To this day, I still have no idea how "rack" any sort of gun at all.

Assuming you're right handed, the part of the gun your left hand holds moves. You pull it back towards your body until it stops, then push it all the way forwards (it locks in this position). It's like pumping a Super Soaker (that isn't actually why they call guns that require you do this to cycle them "pump action", but it's close enough).

Unlike rifles and handguns, it's a really bad idea to store a shotgun with a round chambered because the most prolific shotgun designs have had no provision made to prevent them from firing if dropped.

So if you're storing this kind of shotgun safely, you thus have to get a round from the magazine into the chamber, so you have to cycle the action and in doing so make "the noise".

And "the noise" is made simply because there are a bunch of large loosely-fit parts that all move back and forth when you cycle the action- it's distinctive in a way chambering a round into a rifle or pistol is not (and movies/video games exaggerate it, too).

Gun culture 2.0 takes a dim view of this sort of "negotiation", but also kind of ignores the fact that if the potential adversary hasn't started shooting yet they probably don't intend to and that the cops (in the areas where this is a more valid strategy) are for most intents and purposes non-existent until a few hours after the fact (in a way that they aren't in denser suburbs and urban areas), hence the potential usefulness for a signal that armed security is present to deter the simpler kinds of mischief.

“It is inescapable not to observe the racial dynamics here,” said Crump. “If the roles were reversed,” he continued, “how much outraged would there be in America?”

Approximately none. Black on white violence isn't uncommon and doesn't generate much in the way of outrage at all.

Protesters marched as they chanted, “justice for Ralph” and “Black lives matter,” and carried signs reading, “Ringing a doorbell is not a crime” and “The shooter should do the time,” footage from CNN affiliate KMBC shows.

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.

In a Monday interview with CNN, Crump said the shooting “hearkens back to Trayvon Martin and Ahmaud Arbery and so many of these other tragedies where you had citizens profile and shoot our Black children and the police then let them go home and sleep in their beds at night. Unacceptable.”

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.

“It is inescapable not to observe the racial dynamics here,” said Crump. “If the roles were reversed,” he continued, “how much outraged would there be in America?”

Wait, Ben Crump again?

Family attorney Ben Crump said in a statement, “While this is certainly a step in the right direction, we will continue to fight for Ralph while he works towards a full recovery.”

I am constantly amazed that Ben Crump is instantly the attorney of record in every single one of these cases. Somewhere out there, there has to be a bar association curious about how an out of state attorney becomes the family attorney of so many high profile cases without violating that jurisdiction's version of ABA 7.3.

Approximately none. Black on white violence isn't uncommon and doesn't generate much in the way of outrage at all.

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:

"A 25-year-old man has been charged in the shooting death of 5-year-old Cannon Hinnant" (CNN)

"5-year-old shot to death in North Carolina; suspect sought" (The Associated Press)

"Authorities capture suspect in 5-year-old's fatal shooting" (The Associated Press)

"Motive a Mystery in 5-Year-Old's Murder" (NBC New York and NBC Boston).

"Funeral planned for 5-year-old boy shot at point-blank range in N.C."(NBC12 in Richmond, Virginia).

"Wilson man wanted in fatal shooting of 5-year-old apprehended" (WRAL-TV, an NBC-affiliated station, in Raleigh).

"'He meant the world to me': Family, friends honor life of Cannon Hinnant, the 5-year-old boy shot and killed while riding bike in Wilson" (ABC11 in Raleigh).

"5-year-old shot and killed while outside on bike, 25-year-old charged with murder" (ABC7 in Los Angeles).

"Funeral, vigil scheduled for Cannon Hinnant, the 5-year-old boy killed in North Carolina" (ABC6 in Philadelphia).

"Boy, 5, 'shot dead by neighbour' as he played with sisters" (Yahoo! News)

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:

CNN: "Accused shooter in Kansas City shooting of Black teen who went to the wrong house is White man in his 80s"

Kansas City Defender: “This Is A Hate Crime”: Kansas City Black Family Demanding Justice After A White Man Shoots Black Boy, Ralph Yarl, In The Head Twice For Ringing Doorbell Of The Wrong Home, White Man Released By Police Hours Later

(it's like one of those light novels that tells the whole story in the title!)

NBC: Lawyers for Black teenager shot after ringing wrong doorbell criticize release of man who opened fire

NYT: Family calls for charges in shooting of black teenager in Kansas City...

Kansas City Star: Ralph Yarl released from hospital and recovering at home in Kansas City, father says

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.

Or another more blatant case of racial hatred:

Where is your evidence that "racial hatred" was the motive in that case? There is none in the article you link to.

What other reason could there be to shoot someone else's 5-year-old child playing in the street?

He had no apparent motive except for a family member’s theory that Hinnant rode his bicycle through Sessoms’s yard.

A reasonable approach for suspecting that a child rode their bicycle through your yard is not executing them! And that's just someone else's theory. It doesn't even seem to be true.

On Wednesday, a neighbor told the court she saw Sessoms dash into Cannon Hinnant's yard and put a pistol to the boy’s head. The woman described seeing a “burst of flame” from the gun’s barrel before watching the 5-year-old fall to the ground. She testified that she phoned emergency dispatchers.

https://www.oxygen.com/crime-news/darius-sessoms-may-get-death-penalty-cannon-hinnant-death

There's no evidence of any bad blood between the families or anything. So the default assumption should be racial hatred.

No, as I said before, the default assumption should be that the shooter had some sort of mental issues, especially given that he committed the murder in broad daylight in front of witnesses. Again, as I said, that would certainly be the default assumption if they had both been of the same race. The fact that they were of different races does very little to change that default, especially given that even actual, dyed-in-the-wool racists are not in the practice of executing children on the street. Hell, even the Zebra killers did not shoot little children.

Firstly, racial hatred and mental issues are not mutually exclusive. We can be sure he doesn't have much planning skills. But nobody seems to have announced a motive and the guy himself didn't plead mental illness. If he says that his motive was mental illness then that would ameliorate his position somewhat - but he'd have to produce some kind of evidence that he's mentally ill. Whereas if his motive was racial hatred then admitting it would worsen his position. So if he's silent, then it means that his motive was racial hatred.

Firstly, racial hatred and mental issues are not mutually exclusive

I didn't say they were. The issue is not whether they are mutually exclusive, but rather what he default assumption should be.

the guy himself didn't plead mental illness.

Most mental issues, and most mental illnesses (note that I said the former) are not grounds for a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, which is an extremely narrow defense. In North Carolina, the defendant must show that he had some mental "disease or defect" which "so impaired the defendant’s mental capacity that the defendant either did not know the nature and quality of the act as the defendant was committing it, or, if the defendant did, that the defendant did not know that this act was wrong[.]" A guy can be a grade A sociopath, or schizophrenic, yet not be able to plead insanity.

If he says that his motive was mental illness then that would ameliorate his position somewhat - but he'd have to produce some kind of evidence that he's mentally ill. Whereas if his motive was racial hatred then admitting it would worsen his position.

Mental illness is not a motive. Regardless, this assumes it would ever come up. First of all, that would only come up at trial, but there was no trial; the defendant pleaded guilty (technically, he entered an Alford plea). And, even had there been a trial, the defendant would not have had cause to explain his motive. A defendant does not have to testify at trial, and rarely does so. Nor does the prosecution have to prove motive, because "'[m]otive is not an element of first-degree murder, nor is its absence a defense.'" State v. Carver, 725 SE 2d 902, 905 (NC: Court of Appeals 2012). Motive is admissible to show show that the defendant is likely the perpetrator, id, that was not an issue in this case, so evidence of motive might well have been irrelevant and inadmissible. it is certainly inadmissible if raised by the defendant, because it is not relevant to any claim that the defendant could make at trial. The only time it would be relevant would be at sentencing, But, again, the sentence here was imposed pursuant to a plea bargain.

So if he's silent, then it means that his motive was racial hatred.

Setting everything else aside this is terrible logic. For a start it's not either/or. It could be something else other than race or mental illness. Or he could be mentally ill but not be aware of it. It could be religious hatred, or the kid was annoying him with a bike bell and he snapped.

It COULD be racial hatred, but your logic does not hold together saying it must be.

I'll concede that the logic is flawed. But who has a religious hatred for 5-year old children? Who acts like a pitbull and snaps in such a way that they grab their gun, run into someone else's yard and shoot a 5-year-old in their head because of a bike bell? He has some kind of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde syndrome that switches on and makes him murder children? Are these really likely scenarios compared to racial hatred and low intelligence?

Racial hatred surely plays a major role even if there is some mental illness. The mentally ill are more likely to act on pre-existing motives. Maybe someone's mentally ill and people have been bullying him at school (which are probably interconnected) - it's unwise to say that it's just mental illness when he goes and shoots up the school. Or maybe somebody's been always been resentful of their family, becomes mentally ill and decides to kill them.

And there's plenty of black anti-white racial hatred. Just yesterday in Chicago we had a mob of blacks beating up a white woman: https://www.bizpacreview.com/2023/04/18/horrifying-new-video-shows-chicago-woman-beaten-in-doorway-by-wild-teen-mob-1351090/

Mental illness is individual but hatred can be and often is collective.

I did some research for the last time something like this happened where the races were reversed and the most similar incident happened in 1986. I suspect there won't be a 'This Day in History for Sessoms though: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/man-chased-to-his-death-in-howard-beach-hate-crime

More comments

What other explanation seem likely to you for shooting a 5 year old?

This case looks like mindless, on the spot, rage fueled deed (just like most "gun violence"), not as act motivated by any reason.

Imagine you feel genocidal hatred against X people, and you are willing to sacrifice yourself for this cause.

Would you kill one, exactly one, small X child and then surrender to spend rest of your life in prison, of would you do or attempt to do something more... substantial?

What other explanation seem likely to you for shooting a 5 year old?

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.

just like there's "no evidence" Kansas Man was racially motivated,

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.

rather that there is no evidence of that in this particular case other than the race of the respective parties.

How is there no evidence but there is for the old white guy? What is your evidence the old white guy is racially motivated?

this incident is so unique that there are no previous incidents to draw upon to make an inference.

So unique? Lol. Lmao

https://www.qcnews.com/news/u-s/north-carolina/gaston-county/police-search-for-suspect-after-gastonia-double-shooting/

This just happened yesterday. It’s a regular occurrence actually. But being the hyper rationalist you are, somehow this fact eludes you. Do I really need to start citing some stats from Sailer? You DO realize what the racial dynamics of violent crime are right? Oh but I forgot - only whites are racially motivated when they commit crime against others.

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

You make the invitation while cowardly evading the issue yourself.

More comments

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.

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?

but rather that there is no evidence of that in this particular case other than the race of the respective parties.

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?

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.

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.

More comments

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.

How do you deal with that? The mainstream denies it's rational, the motte largely denies it's racist (in the 'bad' sense). You can't just wave away incoherence with 'it's complicated'. Even if we refused to judge its truth-value, the way others react to it, it appears to be an unstable belief, quickly collapsing into one horn or the other.

  1. I am not "waving it away." I am pointing out that the complexity exists, and that a discussion thereof might actually be fruitful, or at least interesting.

  2. It is not incoherent. A behavior can be both rational and racist, or rational and dangerous, or even rational and immoral. That is the point, and that is what makes the issue difficult.

It's not complex for the rest of the world, they know where they stand. Some would call this place a hive of rationality and racism. Outside they have the opposite problem. You are the rare person with that issue, that's why I was asking you. Is rational racism immoral?

No sane person commits this kind of crime, and it feels too pat to say "he went crazy" with no other motivation

To be clear, I am not limiting it to actual insanity. It could be that he is a borderline sociopath. He might have severe anger issues. He might also have been intoxicated, in combination with the above. So I disagree that some other motivation is necessary.

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

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.

At one point another poster shared many, many excerpts from one such study about it. I wish I had kept a bookmark for it.

I couldn't find where it was mentioned here, but could it have been excerpts from a book on Rosedale, Tx? https://twitter.com/godclosemyeyes/status/1414619671056297984?

The racial violence there and the excuses for it from white liberal academics qualified it as a state supported pogrom by any standard.

"by any standard"? It doesn't even qualify under a reasonable standard. The definition usually includes a riot, those are isolated incidents. And those crimes are prosecuted by the state, regardless of the excuses liberal academics offer.

It's just as obnoxious when the ultra-progressive left refers to incidents of white on black violence as 'genocide'. "But it's a little bit like a genocide/pogrom..." . That's not how words work, all animals are not dogs.

As the worst argument in the world goes: "X is in a category whose archetypal member gives us a certain emotional reaction. Therefore, we should apply that emotional reaction to X, even though it is not a central category member."

More comments

That is exactly it, thank you.

One of the most frequent sources for descriptions of what could reasonably be described as a an anti-white pogrom was the book Left Behind in Rosedale. A relatively tame example:

Some of the street assaults do not even involve acts of theft. One elderly man who had been stabbed on the streets of Rosedale explained in a bewil-dered tone: "There was a black man that stabbed me. April the first, that would be two years ago that it happened. I was here on Thackery and I was shopping. And there was a colored man there. I turned to see where he was at, and the next thing I knew, why he was coming right up behind me. And I still got scars. Why, I was in the hospital for about five weeks. He didn't take a thing from me."

When asked why he thought he was attacked, he said: "It doesn't add up, you know. He didn't take my watch. He didn't take my change, my billfold or anything. I feel like he was afraid of something. I don't know what. I finally walked across the street, to a light. I walked in a store and fell down. They never caught him, you know. They asked me to identify him, but all I know is that he was a black man. He just comeu behind me and stabbed me."

I mean, it's not for no reason.

Yes, that's what I said.

There have been repeated pogroms of older white people

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 think that word is perfectly appropriate and accurate. Your aspersions, on the other hand, make me think you're the one not engaging seriously. You clearly understood what was meant, but are engaging with the diction instead.

More comments

It's always words, words, words with you people. I need to start feeding my comments through chatgpt so it can properly neolib the vernacular to not trigger you.

More comments

The mainstream media desperately want a race war but they need the minority to have the casus belli.

We want to see less of this kind of low-effort reddit-worthy potshot.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats