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.

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

23 children under 5 were killed in the Troubles.

It could be racial of course,but it could also be random. I have dealt with many terrible circumstances in the UK where people do horrible things to each other. Like kill over what seem like trivial annoyances. My point is you can't rule that out just because it doesn't make sense to you. You aren't wrong to speculate it could be racial. You are wrong with the info we seem to have to say it must have been. Thats all.

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.

What is your evidence the old white guy is racially motivated?

This is what I said:

  1. The white guy apparently acted out of fear

  2. People often (rationally!) are more fearful of young black males than of other people

  3. Therefore, such a person "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"

Note both the tentative nature of the claim, and the weak role played by race as an explanatory factor.

This is what OP said: "blatant case of racial hatred"

Note both the high degree of certainly, and the much stronger claim made re the attitude held by the shooter (hatred, rather than a rational bias) and the role of that attitude (a motive, rather than a contributing factor).

I believe that highly certain, strong claims need to be backed up by more and better evidence than do tentative and weak claims.

Which one of those premises and conclusions do you disagree with?

You DO realize what the racial dynamics of violent crime are right?

  1. Yes, I am aware of the numbers re violent crime. But the issue is not about the numbers; it is about the motive. You can't infer that from total numbers, because if you just go by

Oh but I forgot - only whites are racially motivated when they commit crime against others.

It is very odd to infer that I believe that, given my reference to the Zebra killings.

This just happened yesterday.

You might want to hold back on citing that as evidence, since this article says the kid was hit by bullet fragments, and this one describes him as "firing wildly." A far cry from walking up to a kid and shooting him in the head.

edit:

You make the invitation while cowardly evading the issue yourself.

I would be happy to discuss the issue, which, since you seem to have forgotten, is about how to judge a person who acts out of racial bias, but nevertheless rationally. You have not done that, but rather have confined yourself to discussing whether this particular person is an example of that phenomenon. So, you are the one who is evading the issue.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

not, though. Unprovoked, vicious attacks on other ethnicities by blacks are... common enough .., hate crimes.

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?

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."

Swap the races and see how that plays out. Gangs of white teenagers gang rape and murder terrified black women, while the local government and academics say "lol. lmao. It's ok, she had it coming because her grandfather might have been a gang member. No need to do anything, because our boys will run out of victims soon enough"

That is a pogrom.

No. This author is not the state.

What? The people he was talking to were government officials in the town of Rosedale, and social workers running programs there. Are we talking about the same thing here?

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.

Well, I understand the OP to be referring to street crime. Which does not in any way, shape, or form, constitute a "pogrom." OP is intentionally using an inaccurate, emotionally loaded word, which, as they say, casts much more heat than light.

Where does this fall on the pogrom-street crime scale?

As for the reference, @WhiningCoil said

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.

And I think I know what he's referencing. It's the book Left Behind in Rosedale: Race Relations and the Collapse of Community Institutions. Specific to the claim of elderly, I think he's thinking of this thread on twitter from a few years back. The second and third in sequence deal specifically with the elderly. Later in the thread you get this collection of excerpts.

None of those are pogroms, or even close. And if you are arguing that OP was using "pogrom" to refer to demographic change and the associated changes in institutions discussed in that book, well, with friends like you, he doesn't need enemies.

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.

I wouldn't mod you for using "pogrom," but people are allowed to take issue with your use of the word.

This response is just petulant belligerence. You've piled up quite a few warnings for doing this kind of thing, but you've also been cut quite a bit of slack. I told you very clearly with the last one to chill out and stop posting things you know perfectly well will get modded, or you will start getting modded harder.

I don't know if your seething animosity has just reached the boiling point and you really are unable to control yourself, or if you're going for the "Mods are mean to me for telling THE TRUTH!" martyr route, but this time you get a three-day ban.

I mean how else are you really supposed to respond when someone picks out an, honest to god random as far as my sensibilities are calibrated, word out of a post and goes "Because of this word, I have declared you no longer worthy of engaging with".

Well, there are numerous ways you could respond.

You could decide that if he doesn't want to engage and you find engagement not worth it, to not engage.

Or you could say "I think dismissing my post because you don't like that I used a word is unreasonable."

Or you could say "I think pogrom is entirely appropriate in this context: here's why."

Lots of ways, really.

But not with snarky comments like "feeding my comments through chatgpt so it can properly neolib the vernacular to not trigger you."

Come on, you're too smart to play stupid; when you uncork, you know you're uncorking, and either you know you're going to get modded or you're just hoping it won't get noticed. I do not believe for one hot second that you really thought any mod here, reading the report on that one, would say "Yeah, that's fine."

More comments

Oh, give me a break. As if you did not intentionally chose the word, "pogrom." And, having done that, you won't even own up to it.

Of course I intentionally chose it. I chose all the words I typed. How is that even in question? You never even explained what is wrong with it. You just went "Oh, that's a no-no word. Disqualified!"

No, it is not a no-no word. My point was that its use in this case is a lie.

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