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 -
While there is certainly an element of this, it heavily depends on where the trial is held. Progressives and blacks have their biases and will be much more lenient towards black on white crime than vice versa, so in San Francisco a "sickle-cell crisis" can be used as an excuse for murder. The reverse biases do exist, I'm sure there are towns in the US where whites are advantaged by the local judges, police, and jury pool, and the "gay panic" excuse for murder would be accepted. The point is that neither are universal at the criminal justice level, because criminal justice is mostly a local system.
The main issue as I see it is that the interests of one tribe are disproportionately advanced by the federal government. Local group bias in either direction is unavoidable, but the federal government seems to fall quite firmly on one pole of the bias. SCOTUS obviously contradicting the letter of the law forbidding discrimination based on race to allow discrimination beneficial to blacks is probably the most flagrant example, but there are many others. I agree with Richard Hanania that this general pro-black and pro-"protected group" bias on the part of the federal government falls under the umbrella of civil-rights law, and that much of the cultural down-stream effects we see today such as "wokeness" and progressive insanity in San Francisco criminal justice are largely a consequence of these laws and how they're enforced.
Cherry-picked examples of terrible jury and prosecutorial decisions relating to street-crimes are the lowest-level example, both causally and intellectually, of the wider trend in America of the federal government protecting some groups more than others. All of this is to say that yes, blacks are certainly privileged in the courts of some parts of the country, but imo that will always be true under any reasonable local or national policy. The issue that should be addressed, and that charitably I'll assume he's trying to address rather than just riling up his readers, is the bias on the part of the institutions that are supposed to be universal. It's axiomatic to me that institutions serving and governing everyone should be objective in the race-blind sense, but they aren't and many people don't even seem to think they should be. I don't think Greer's argument well supports his conclusion that blacks receive legal preferential treatment in this country, although I agree with that conclusion at least on the federal level.
More options
Context Copy link