This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
...
These two prongs of your argument seem to be in tension. When a white guy shoots a black youth, "interracial dynamics" can be appealed to. When a black guy shoots a white kid, why do similar "interracial dynamics" not apply? Just as there's a common perception among the white population that black youths are disproportionately criminal, there's a common perception among the black population that white people are disproportionately racist/evil/innately-hostile. Why should the former inform our understanding, but not the latter?
At the moment at least, there's no evidence in the current case either, that I can see. Isn't population-level inference the entire case you're arguing for?
It's not, though. Unprovoked, vicious attacks on other ethnicities by blacks are... I'm not sure we have a working definition of "common" good enough to apply here, but certainly common enough that they've resulted in multiple live national-scale political issues over the last several years: various examples of anti-white hate crimes, the recent spate of Anti-asian hate crimes, and whether or not "polar-bear hunting" exists being three examples. There's another example of a lady abruptly shooting a white kid in her yard in this very thread.
AsI said, because of the specific facts of the cases. Those dynamics often result in individuals feeling fearful of young black males and acting accordingly. In contrast, they do not often result in people shooting little kids in broad daylight.
Which is why I was very careful to say that it is possible that race might be a contributing factor. I also specifically said that it is quite possible that the shooter is just insanely paranoid, as was the wife in the Japanese exchange student case I linked to. In contrast, as I said, the OP claimed that this was a blatant case of racial hatred. Which, as I said, is a much, much stronger claim.
The problem with relying on hate crime data is that hate crimes do not require any evidence of animosity. For example, choosing a gay victim for a robbery out of a belief that gay men are wimps unlikely to resist is enough to constitute a hate crime. Also, of course, purse snatching in which the perp says, "let go, bitch" will be charged as a hate crime. Because overcharging is what DAs do.
Perhaps more importantly, you are ignoring the very unusual facts of this case, ie, the age of the victim.
But again, the key point is the very strong nature of the claim made by the OP.
Edit: BTW, black people commit a lot of crimes, many with white victims. But only a tiny minority are hate crimes. Why should we think (let alone be as sure as OP is) that this is an exception?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link