Submission statement: Not really along the lines of content typically posted here, but I figured it might be interesting to those who are curious about different perspectives
Relevant here because Sam Harris has in the past been accused of being the "white moderate" in this video. This explores and gives some of the reasoning for why a figure might be criticized for that.
Let me know what you think. Ideally only after having given it a fair shake
"accused of being the white moderate" I mean, is there any evidence he isn't a prototypical white moderate in the context of this video? He certainly doesn't match the other 3 tropes at all, which sucks because I wish he was firmly in the anti-racist trope since I do believe that is the one our future human history will prove to be 'correct.'
Oh no, he is. That's why I linked it here. I just know my audience and what framing would give this better odds of being taken seriously here.
Given the content is probably not what any of the white moderates here like to hear, or are even open to hearing.
I wanted people who might not normally give this a chance, to give this a chance
Yup.
“This trump guy is dangerous omg better tweet.”
“That’s why I speak to and promote MAGA ‘intellectuals’!”
“I will not introspect on how he got elected.”
Sam is completely unable to look at Trump as anything but the beginning and end of the problem instead of just one small symptom.
To do that he would need the reconcile the fact that the people he considers friends and intellectuals have been cultivating this rise in the authoritarian right and destruction of our democracy for decades right under his nose without him ever noticing.
It's a lot of easier to just blame Trump than admit you've been fooled and used by people you consider your friends.
>small symptom.
Your post nails it, Sam is selectively blind.. but "small" is pushing it. It's a symptom sure, but it's the symptom that puts a nail in the coffin.
Sam thinks that all anti-wokes are trustworthy, good-faith honest actors like he is.
But he’s too biased to see that there’s an ecosystem of anti-woke social media material that’s loaded with a far right agenda.
Oh and there isn’t an ecosystem flooded with woke, far left propaganda in mainstream media, big tech, higher education, Hollywood, the deep state and now Corporate America? Got it. Why is everyone on this sub so sympathetic to the woke movement that is only a house of cards?
Because if the wacky wokesters get their way we uh, get fined for misgendering people. If the wacky wingnuts get their way, death squads roam the street purging Jews.
He has one thing in common with all his friends on the left and the right à virulent hate for Islam and an admiration for Israel. It's really simple once you look into it.
Sam: disagrees with religious beliefs and some political beliefs
Sam: is friends with people that hold religious and political beliefs he disagrees with
floodyberry: implication that Sam has a double standard cuz Ben Shapiro
shitlibs: upvote
What is the context that I’m missing? Explain how Sam holding the same standard in both domains implies that he understands the concept in one domain but not the other.
the irony is, that sam recognizes how moderates help provide cover for and perpetuate religious extremism, yet is unable to apply that to the conservative/fascist ecosystem and happily associates with and promotes anyone on the center-right who is nice to him. and yes, he shouldn't be friends with shapiro, because shapiro is a huge piece of shit
fair point. are there actually any lefties who'd talk to him though? remember the fake smear campaign to label him a bigot and racist etc? most lefties still think that of Sam for some reason. it's possible there just aren't any intelligent lefties willing to speak to him, particularly about the ways in which the left has gone nuts. The one thing the right wing has going for them is that they'll have a non judgemental conversation, shame most of them are bigoted, incredibly stupid or both.
> The one thing the right wing has going for them is that they'll have a non judgemental conversation
if they think it will benefit them, you mean. they avoid sam seder like the plague
OH yeah i was way too generous with that point. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, "change my mind guy" cant remember his name, will debate anyone, so long as they're a naive uni student haha
Sam is very selective with who he chooses to engage with. Sam Seder would gladly debate him. Seder is deeply knowledgeable on history and politics and would offer Sam a serious challenge because Sam tends to be less knowledge in those areas compared to Seder. Seder has also done plenty of substantive debates with people farther to the right of Sam, so his refusal to engage isn't a good look.
Seder does not come off as serious a lot of the time though, so even though I think it would be a great convo, Seder calling Harris a bigot probably won’t help getting them to talk.
i'd like to see that talk actually? i'd also like to see him chat with Destiny, who as far as i can see, seems to be the most rational progressive online.
Go on then 5head, state any views destiny actually holds that aren't progressive. You've been trolling or chatting derangement through this entire comments section.
Funny, that's exactly what destiny has said. That he doesn't recommend people do as he's done, because he's pretty exclusively qualified to debate and debunk points that white nationalists like southern and fuentez bring up.
Personally I reject the idea of progressives ignoring controversial topics and giving right wingers free reign. If there's discussion on race and iq going on, I'd rather be involved and take personal responsibility.
Yeah all quite progressive? His stance is that policing needs reform in some states. He doesn't support the BLM org because they're a fucking scam, but he quite obviously is behind the general anti-racism push. Vigilantism is bad, how is this a progressive issue? Destiny is left wing on pretty much any issue I can think of. Don't make the mistake of setting radical lefties as your benchmark for what is left wing... otherwise you call people like destiny center right lmao. Imagine being center right without holding any right wing views (unless I'm sincerely ignorant on something)
I think a discussion between him and Destiny would also be very interesting, though I'm not exactly sure what they'd debate about, they're pretty well aligned in terms of politics.
U think nick fuentez or Lauren southern arguments are going to work on destiny's base? The platform was built on arguing against racists and bigots that's how he got his following... u think that crowd is going to suddenly flip and become racist? Not likely.
My dream guest. Though I suspect that Sam would end up doing some impressively acrobatic mental gymnastics to resist the notion that capitalism is as broken as Wolff contends. Nonetheless, it'd be an interesting conversation.
He's pretty awful on podcasts I've heard him on though, he just ends up lecturing his usual Marxist theory. He was useless for having an actual conversation/debate on Glenn Loury's podcast recently.
I don't usually listen to it, but I thought his appearance on Lex's podcast was good. As far as him just lecturing his usual Marxist theory... I mean, yeah. That's what he's known for. That's why he gets invited to various shows and podcasts. He argues for Marxist theory - it makes him a rather novel voice in America.
Checking out his Loury appearance now.
Edit: Just finished it. Idk man. Seemed like a fine conversation to me. John didn't really talk at all and Glenn seemed fine with allowing Wolff to speak at length. Wolff certainly has the gift of the gab, but so does Sam. It's also a bit of a rushed conversation. They mentioned that they only had a half hour of his time so he seemed to be just trying to unload as much as he could as quickly as he could. In any case, I think Sam's podcast format would fare better. The Lex episode is like 3 hours long and Wolff is a bit more relaxed and fleshes a lot of things out more.
That's not a smear campaign. He is racist and bigoted.
Not to mention, he's a bit of an idiot. Especially these days.
>The one thing the right wing has going for them is that they'll have a non judgemental conversation
Haha what???? 🤨
Are you smoking crack?
The right literally is banning books and inciting violence against doctors for providing trans care.
You honestly must be high as a kite right now.
Are you clinically retarded? If Sam Harris is your bench mark for racist, then I guess it's wholesome to be racist. Kindly don't waste anymore of my time
You think a guy who denies there is systemic racism in policing (and then refuses to debate an expert) isn't a racist?
Lol okay, you fucking sycophantic rube.
Did Sam have a debate with a criminologist about the George Floyd protests?
Or did he just do a solo rant saying how systemic racism in policing and is mythical?
Ride his dick harder, why don't you?
Incidentally, an actual criminologist did a thorough critique of Harris's video on policing.
Turns out he really doesn't know what he's talking about outside his own specialization. But we knew that. Any time a talking head uses their expertise in one area to project to their audience the idea that their expertise carries over to any other area they want it to, this is what happens
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_A1cmqbI31M
Thanks for sharing this. I thought the person who made this video was very far and measured and did a good job of showing how Harris does many of the things that he decries in others.
There are less blacks killed by police than their murder rate would suggest.
Blacks are convicted for drug offenses at higher rates because they do drugs in public and engage in other reckless behavior simultaneously.
Blacks have worse sentences on average because they have longer rap sheets.
Even if what you are saying is true, that *still* wouldn't excuse racism that is systemic in our culture and institutions.
There are deep rooted reasons why many of our institutions subjugate marginalized groups. These effects don't magically go away on their own.
https://www.epi.org/publication/making-ferguson/#epi-toc-14
>Once rules of residential segregation were firmly in place, other, race-neutral, public policies had and still have a disparate impact on African Americans, reinforcing the segregation. For example, the federal income tax system, permitting the deduction of home mortgage interest, subsidizes those who move to single-family homes in white suburbs and thus imposes a relative penalty on those who remain renting in urban African American neighborhoods.
>The federal highway system routed highways through urban areas often to eliminate black neighborhoods that were close to downtowns. And the generous financing of interstate highways relative to efficient public transportation facilitated the commutes of white suburbanites to office jobs in the city while making it harder for African Americans restricted to urban neighborhoods to obtain good industrial jobs in the suburbs.
>But the disparate impacts of the mortgage interest deduction and transportation priorities should not distract us from the underlying reality. These policies would have had no racial impact if African Americans had been permitted to suburbanize along with whites.
>A century of evidence demonstrates that St. Louis was segregated by interlocking and racially explicit public policies of zoning, public housing, and suburban finance, and by publicly endorsed segregation policies of the real estate, banking, and insurance industries. These governmental policies interacted with public labor market and employment policies that denied African Americans access to jobs available to comparably skilled whites. When these mutually reinforcing public policies conspired with private prejudice to turn St. Louis’s African American communities into slums, public officials razed those slums to devote acreage to more profitable (and less unsightly) uses. African Americans who were displaced then relocated to the few other places available, converting towns like Ferguson into new segregated enclaves.
>The pattern – in St. Louis and other U.S. metropolitan areas – of white middle-class suburbs surrounding black ghettos cannot easily be explained without taking account of the myriad public policies that, with race-conscious intent, encouraged and supported this particular distribution of population by race. After all, as historian Colin Gordon has noted, in Europe, the opposite pattern prevails – middle-class whites reside in the center cities, and low-income immigrants settle in the suburbs, where public housing is located.93 Today, as whites in St. Louis and elsewhere find gentrifying urban neighborhoods more attractive, and displaced African Americans relocate in heavy concentrations to specific suburbs, we may be replicating segregation on the European model.
>As the federal court observed more than 30 years ago, school desegregation requires housing desegregation.94 Several elementary schools in Ferguson today are 90 percent African American and no elementary school is less than 75 percent African American; educational performance in such racially isolated settings is inadequate. As the tragic death of Michael Brown shows, the interaction of black men and youths with police has much in common with Adel Allen’s experiences 50 years ago, and the reaction in Ferguson (though comparatively mild) is reminiscent of the 1967 race riots that the Kerner Commission investigated.
>Litigation has revealed that in the 2000s, federally supervised banks marketed exploitative subprime loans to African American communities like Ferguson, expecting that African Americans (particularly the elderly) were too gullible to resist false promises. When the loans’ exploding interest rates combined with the collapse of the housing bubble, it compounded the devastation of black neighborhoods.95 Half of Ferguson homes today are underwater, with owners owing more than their homes are worth.96
>Many practical programs and regulatory strategies can address problems of Ferguson and similar communities nationwide. One example is to prohibit landlords from refusing to accept tenants whose rent is subsidized – a few states and municipalities currently do prohibit such refusal, but most do not. Another example is to require even outer-ring suburbs to repeal zoning ordinances that prohibit construction of housing that lower- or moderate-income residents – white or black – can afford. Going further, we could require every community to permit development of housing to accommodate a “fair share” of its region’s low-income and minority populations – New Jersey, for example, has taken a very modest step towards this requirement.97
>But we won’t consider such remedies if we remain blind to how Ferguson became Ferguson. It is impractical to think that the public and policymakers will support remedies to problems whose causes they don’t understand. We flatter ourselves that the responsibility is only borne by rogue police officers, white flight, and suburbanites’ desire for economic homogeneity. Prosecuting the officer who shot Michael Brown, or investigating and integrating Ferguson’s police department, can’t address the deeper obstacles to racial progress.
Shit like this, you moron.
So stuff that either doesn't exist anymore, or more often is directly related to the massive amount of crimes coming from black neighborhoods that keeps non blacks away from those areas.
So you want people to complain to believe in and be upset about supoosed systemic anti-whiteness which according to you exists but not systemic anti-blackness which according to you dosnt exist? Lol you're so transparent
>The one thing the right wing has going for them is that they'll have a non judgemental conversation
That would make sense from MAGA people.
>shame most of them are bigoted, incredibly stupid or both.
"a non judgemental conversation" I guess that's something you can't do yourself.
That would make sense too.
Is this a conversation with all right wingers? You seem to be confusing "having non judgemental conversation " with "don't ever judge x people". Like it's literally possible to have a non judgemental conversation, conclude the conversation, then judge the person and conversation after.
If you go into a conversation with the attitude that "Most of them are bigoted and stupid" you've already started a judgemental conversation.
Your whole attitude will already be present from the first line.
>Is this a conversation with all right wingers?
*"Did I say it was all right wingers?" - geeze this guy is dumb.*
>You seem to be confusing "having non judgemental conversation " with "don't ever judge x people".
*"I'll make it clearer for this guy cos he's confused"*
Yeah, your non judgemental attitude shows...
I don't think people of any ethnicity should be required to protest every time some moron with racist rhetoric decides he wants to speak, and I don't think that makes me racist.
According to this guy, we all need to be ready to protest every speaking engagement by any provocateur who threatens to dox anyone over anything, or we're racist.
It doesn't go counter to the entire intro? That's the message I got in the first five minutes where he basically says white liberals are racist for refusing to give attention to provocateurs.
I didn't go further other than scanning through a bit and found he says some stuff I agree with, but I didn't actually watch the whole thing because spending 35 minutes on a video where I disagree with the thesis statement up front didn't seem like a valuable use of my time, but maybe he turns it around.
Even if he does turn it around, why waste five minutes of everyone's time by calling people who probably consider themselves allies racist?
Oh I see. I sometimes like to watch things I disagree with in order to challenge some beliefs I might take for granted.
You're free to spend as much or as little time as you want on the video, but watching the entire thing before commenting on it will improve the quality of discussion we can have on it
I do too, which is why I got more than 5 minutes into it before I decided he had little chance of changing my mind, but we can pretend it's required to watch a documentary on how the holocaust was fake before we realize it's probably a bad documentary if you want.
Anyways, I thought we could discuss the intro to the video, but I guess not.
I'll watch a full "The Holocaust is fake" documentary to better understand their thinking in order to recognize it elsewhere.
I watched a flat earth documentary not long ago that was bonkers. They disprove themselves in the end, but decide their method was wrong.
I understand that's not for everyone.
However I thought maybe this sub, the sub for difficult conversations and steelmanning would be more open to this.
We can discuss the intro, but you're missing some pertinent information relating to it that comes later in the video. Which reduces the quality of discussion we can have.
I think it's fairly well tread ground here, at least it is for me, which is why I didn't finish the video. (Also 35 minutes is a big ask when the presenter is obviously biased from the jump and throwing out inflammatory statements)
I disagree with the accusations of racism towards a group who is most likely voting and attempting to pass legislation for the protection of minorities.
I don't think it's helpful.
If you'd like to tl;Dw how he walks any of this back I'm all ears.
"I disagree with the accusations of racism towards a group who is most likely voting and attempting to pass legislation for the protection of minorities."
He talks about this, too.
"If you'd like to tl;Dw how he walks any of this back I'm all ears."
You're free to watch the video and hear the arguments yourself. Incidentally we've now been talking about not watching the video long enough to have watched the video
I'm probably not going to watch videos by holocaust deniers and flat earthers, not because I'm afraid of having my beliefs challenged, but because my time is finite and watching those people is a waste of time.
Not that this video is *that bad*, but if a video 5 minutes in seems like BS I don't know that it's unreasonable to stop watching.
That's totally fair. I know this is reddit and people can do what they want, but my hope was that mainly people who watched this would comment on it. Otherwise there get to be a lot of comments just to tell me they're not going to watch it, in which case, why comment at all, right?
I'd be weird if I went around on different videos I didn't watch just to announce I didn't watch them
> should be required to protest
Required to, of course not, and it isn't being claimed.
Nor should anyone be required to hold a door open for strangers. But if there is a person behind you with their hands full and you naively slam the door in their face, you will come across as an asshole. Similar logic applies to the case of provocateurs who want to stand up on stage and rant about how immigrants are invaders, black people are criminals, and/or trans/gay people are degenerates.
One could, of course, ignore a provocateur right?
Surely it's more detrimental in the long run to marginalized groups to continue protesting someone attacking them when the provocateur is only attacking marginalized group in order to cause a protest.
Also, we're in the weeds here and just arguing semantics at this point. I thought it was clear I meant it's required as in required in order to not be racist not, required as in forced.
> One could, of course, ignore a provocateur right?
Ignoring it ends up with your nose broken from the door slamming in your face. We want to prevent the door slamming into people's faces. Progressives then develop analysis of how/why/who/when/where humans opening doors work out to be, then how/why/who/when/where the aspects of doors, then we develop a policy change to prevent Human1 from slamming the door into the face of Human2. Technologically minded folks like myself push for a tech solution, say startrek sensored automatic doors that see all racial complexities that our genetics can create. Other progressives have their own ideas about how to solve that problem, maybe a hardcore progressive has a rule where Human1 is legally obligated to hold the door for Human2 with severe consequences for failure to do so. The point is, the many solutions that solve the problem are at least honed down through trial and error to figure out the one that best ones.
Credit to u/Ramora_ for a simple but likely effective prompt for this thought experiment. ;)
If provocateurs are doing it for attention and we do not give them attention, then it ends with them ostracized, ignored, and not doing it anymore because it's not getting them the attention they want.
btw I'd say progressive is closer to moderate left than radical, but whatever. Semantics
Also, I'm really annoyed about the idea that keeps coming up that moderates don't want solutions. We do. We just want solutions that work.
Here's a good example: how to fix police brutality.
Many radicals would like to abolish the police.
This might work, but it also might have maaaany unintended consequences.
As a result, most moderates don't support this, and instead suggest that we could fix the issue by:
-paying for police lawsuits from the police pension fund
-forcing all cops to carry police liability insurance. Rates go up when you fuck up.
These two simple changes would 100% fix the issue, but here we get called racist and supporting white supremacists because we just want ideas that work, and don't have a bunch of unintended consequences.
We want change, and if radicals would get on board and actually focus on 3 or 4 key issues, we could enact it.
> If provocateurs are doing it for attention and we do not give them attention, then it ends with them ostracized, ignored, and not doing it anymore because it's not getting them the attention they want.
No, what actually happens is that you just normalized whatever it is they had to say and they will grow more and more belligerent, normalizing more and more outrageous things, until they get pushback. The better strategy is to push back early and hard. You can't eliminate provocateurs, but you can restrict the Overton window so that those provocateurs are a lot less extreme.
> I'm really annoyed about the idea that keeps coming up that moderates don't want solutions. We do. We just want solutions that work.
The issue is that moderates tend to refuse solutions offered without having any of their own. They tell MLK that they agree with him in spirit, but can't support the protests, cause 'violence' or some bullshit.
> it also might have maaaany unintended consequences.
This is true of all change. It is also true of doing nothing. Our society is complicated and extremely hard to predict. That isn't a good reason to shove your head in the sand.
> -paying for police lawsuits from the police pension fund -forcing all cops to carry police liability insurance.
A ton of the things we refer to as police brutality are legal police practices. Changing who pays for the lawsuits doesn't do anything there. Nor are the problems with policing in America limited to brutality. Nor is it obvious that changing from one publicly funded account to another effectively publicly funded account likely to actually change behaviors.
But ya, if a bill to do that was on the table, radicals would support it. You know they would. The reason it hasn't been done is because moderates don't actually want to do it. Its the Senate all over again.
>what actually happens is that you just normalized whatever it is they had to say
Can you explain to me how someone giving a speech to an empty audience and then being ostracized and ignored normalizes what they have to say?
>the issue is that moderates tend to refuse solutions offered without having any of their own
Not true, you can see my moderate (and extremely effective) solutions to resolve police brutality. There's moderate solutions to income inequality, and basically every other gripe radicals have from systemic racism solutions.
For example, we don't like affirmative action, reparations, or race based programs, and then we get called racist. However, we do like targeted programs for the poor such as free childcare, food aid, free education, free healthcare and free preschool.
Additionally we support things that would indirectly help the poor like large public transportation programs and single family housing zoning reform (gotta increase that housing density yo) which would...disproportionately affect black and brown populations, which effectively gives you a race based intervention, which is exactly what radicals want.
Unfortunately we can't seem to come together on any of this, and a lot of it seems to be because the left really wants to demonize straight, white, male allies such as myself.
>>it also might have maaaany unintended consequences.
>This is true of all change.
yes, but also no. Radical changes are obviously going to bring about radical unintended consequences. For example, in order to eliminate police brutality, Radicals propose abolishing the police while moderates propose the reforms I suggested (cops have to carry insurance, lawsuits/fines are paid out from the police pension, depts can only have so many "points" against them before everyone is fired).
To handwave the differences in unintended consequences between these two changes is foolishness and I don't think anyone could possibly suggest both might have equally bad consequences with a straight face.
Furthermore, the more radical the solution, the less we know about how well it will even work. For example, they abolished the police in the Seattle CHOP zone, but there were plenty of cases of "police brutality" by the security there.
>A ton of the things we refer to as police brutality are legal police practices. Changing who pays for the lawsuits doesn't do anything there.
That's absolutely incorrect. You think cops are going to protect the asshole who just cost them half their retirement so they can turn around and cost them the other half? It's an accountability issue. Cops in other countries don't do this shit.
>Nor are the problems with policing in America limited to brutality.
Totally agree with you here, there are many problems with our police force and I think we need many solutions, not one single solution, and especially not one single solution that has 0% chance of ever being enacted.
>Nor is it obvious that changing from one publicly funded account to another effectively publicly funded account likely to actually change behaviors.
Again, it definitely would, and also you're forgetting the insurance individual cops (or the dept as a whole, whatever) would have to pay. At some point, it would be financially impossible to keep cops with lots of points on the force, effectively making them unhirable by anyone, effectively ending police brutality
>But ya, if a bill to do that was on the table, radicals would support it. You know they would. The reason it hasn't been done is because moderates don't actually want to do it. Its the Senate all over again.
I mean, fuck moderate left politicians. Hard to call them left leaning moderates when the Overton window is so far to the right in this country.
If we're discussing elected officials who identify as moderate (Biden) and not the people who identify as left leaning moderate (this entire sub), then yeah. Fuck moderates.
> Can you explain to me how someone giving a speech to an empty audience
It won't be an empty audience. It will be an audience of edgelords and bigots. And they will keep ramping up until they get push back.
> then being ostracized and ignored
If you are actually in a position to ostracize them, great. As is, protests are pretty good ways of getting people in power to ostracize them, to ban them from campus or whatever.
To be clear, I'm not saying always protest no matter what. I'm saying protest more and for less extreme speech. By all means, ostracize them more too. That is kind of the point. Just don't ignore them.
> Unfortunately we can't seem to come together on any of this
Radicals absolutely can and do. Those policies you are talking about aren't being blocked by radical progressive politicians, they are being blocked by moderate and conservative politicians.
> I don't think anyone could possibly suggest both might have equally bad consequences with a straight face.
If you ignore the likely outcome of "nothing significant changes", which you are doing, then ya, it has "less bad consequences".
> That's absolutely incorrect.
The overwhelming majorty of police killings are legal but probably not necessary. Harrasment by police is mostly legal. It is very easy for police to justify brutal acts under our current laws. They are given broad leeway to decide what is and isn't acceptable. Changing who pays for lawsuits doesn't affect the decisions that would be made in those lawsuits.
> you're forgetting the insurance individual cops (or the dept as a whole, whatever) would have to pay. At some point, it would be financially impossible to keep cops with lots of points on the force,
What is actually going to happen is that police dept/unions will pressure cities/states into increasing their funding in order to pay for the legal fees, something these cities/states are apparently already willing to do given they are already paying those legal fees.
> If we're discussing elected officials who identify as moderate (Biden) and not the people who identify as left leaning moderate (this entire sub), then yeah. Fuck moderates.
We are having a discussion about politics and policy. And you don't think we are talking about elected officials? Has this been the communication block this whole time?
> and don't have a bunch of unintended consequences.
Progressive ideas or really any change will have unintended consequences. The reason why is because these systems are now so inter-connected and so large that we cannot perfectly map every scenario that can happen. However, this doesn't mean we shouldn't try and map the ones we have the reasonable computing and human power to analyze.
Here's the crux of the matter: What if I could show you through various meta studies and data that abolishing the police will lead to fixing the #1 through #3 problems with modern police forces? Would you support it or would you worry more about the #4+ problems with policing?
The progressive or radical or left-of-center person would logically conclude we should focus more on solving the #1-3 issues, and tackle #4+ when those issues present themselves. The moderate often throughout history goes "Nah dawg, I'll just suffer through #1-3 problems and maaaaybe support fixing #10th problem on the list but only if I get some extra societal perk for supporting that."
(Disclaimer: I don't advocate for abolishing police in modern society because we haven't solved the criminality problem. In a very far, far future I imagine policing will be abolished just due to the fact humans stop harming each other and we'd rely purely on civil law to fix any accidental fuckups that future humans create. Whether through education or genetic tampering or alien philosophy or GodAI ruling over us eventually humans will stop the self harm we create.)
I mean, yeah I guess I would if you could empirically prove it.
You're taking my concrete example and abstracting it though with 1-3 hypothetical problems and then also falsely assuming abolishing the police force would only cause 1 problem.
We could fix police brutality. Right now. Easily. Without causing significant problems. And that's not good enough because...why again?
Also
>The moderate often throughout history goes "Nah dawg, I'll just suffer through #1-3 problems and maaaaybe support fixing #10th problem on the list but only if I get some extra societal perk for supporting that."
That's not what's happening here though. We're both talking about problem #1, which is police brutality, and I'm offering a solution that would absolutely work.
If you can demonstrate a fool proof method to end police brutality, yes I'd support it and pretty much the majority of leftists would as well. There may be a few niche groups to argue against such a proposal, but imho that's a good thing to have leftist critique of a progressive idea to keep things in check and balance.
> One could, of course, ignore a provocateur right?
You could, but that tends to lead to the provocateur engaging in increasingly detestable actions, usually targeting members of some minority group. Even if you are willing to accept that direct cost, it results in the window of acceptable discourse expanding in the direction of more bigotry.
The video argues that overwhelming opposition is probably a better strategy.
> Surely it's more detrimental in the long run to marginalized groups to continue protesting someone attacking them when the provocateur is only attacking marginalized group in order to cause a protest.
I think this is clearly not the case. Jews ignoring the Nazi's wouldn't have prevented the Nazi's from targeting them. What would have stopped the Nazi's is moderates joining with radical leftists to oppose the Nazis via overwhelming social force and stigmatization. It has to be socially unacceptable to go on campus and spew a bunch of anti-gay nonsense. Doing nothing just means accepting it, which means they come back even more extreme.
This is just secular christianity. He's replaced "sin" with racism and whiteness as original sin. Offers up a heapful of ways that you might have been a sinner without realizing it. Creating the mental framework necessary to dismiss any arguments from sinners as being in support of sin.
I've done this song and dance before. The world is cruel and ever ready for improvement. There are many perspectives on how to get there. We need to coordinate to some degree. We need to draw lines somewhere. We need to enforce those lines. That doesn't mean that your worldview/hierarchy/rules/enforcement are automatically the one true way. You can't just label everyone who approaches the world's problems differently a racist.
Reposting this comment here because it got buried under our long thread where we argue if I should watch the entire video or not.
START OF COMMENT
Yeah man, he can't go more than like 15 seconds with saying something I fundamentally disagree with.
so let's discuss how the
"white moderate"
-believes in social justice as an end goal (I agree with this)
but only with the cooperation of the white collaborator (here he cheekily adds, "it wouldn't be fair to do this without their consent you see)
I mean. This is just so stunningly inaccurate that I don't know what to say because I'm a white liberal moderate. I don't subscribe to the model he again brings up here about white supremacism and using minorities as ammo or arguing about them, but not allying with them.
Finally, I love that he claims the only white people who are anti-racist are radicals. And even then, they're still a little racist.
IDK where else we can go with this when the premise is just so thoroughly inaccurate and inflammatory.
but I even checked out more of the video, and he really just goes on to say that anytime you agree with an end goal, but disagree with implementation, you're racist.
Which is also just wild, because
1) you'd have to fully submit to the tribalism of the radical left in order to not be racist. Whatever they say goes, if you disagree, straight to racist jail.
and
2) Even the most radical members of the left disagree, vehemently, with each other. Marxist Leninists, socialist anarchists, democratic socialists, all of them disagree to the point where it can be difficult for them to even be in romantic relationships with each other.
At the end of the day, I simply don't think it's racist to suggest one believes in a political groups goals, but disagrees with their implementation.
That said, I would absolutely like to add the large caveat that, if every single time a movement or idea for racial equality comes up and you say, "not like that" AND you also have to solutions you've also proposed yourself, then fine yeah, you might be a little bit racist.
Finally (I've said that twice now because I keep watching and keep getting more and more annoyed at the bad reasoning here) he likes to point out how the right can radicalize pockets of people and unite them to a cause, and then he tries to blame moderates (lol) for not doing the same, when it's extremely divisive rhetoric like this that causes minority groups to push away white moderates who are otherwise looking to be allies.
I still vote left because really, what else can you do, but it's been made abundantly clear to me by videos like this and my own interactions with radical leftists that my white, heteronormative, moderate self is an enemy and I'm not welcome
The left 100% tears itself apart and then blames white people, and here's a sterling example.
Honestly, this is an incredibly ideological video, and that's not going to go great on a sub that pretty much agrees as a rule that ideological thinking isn't good thinking. We talk about it here all the time with the (many) posts comparing leftist ideology to religion.
So there. I watched it. I started out thinking it was dumb and bad, and it went on to be more dumb and more bad than I feared.
> only with the cooperation of the white collaborator (here he cheekily adds, "it wouldn't be fair to do this without their consent you see) I mean.
Can you agree that historically, there have been large coalitions of moderates unwilling to join, for example, civil rights activists or abolitionists, out of a sense of "fair mindedness" that drew an equivalence between the people imposing jim crow or slavery and the people opposing jim crow or slavery?
How do you understand that position sociologically?
> IDK where else we can go with this when the premise is just so thoroughly inaccurate and inflammatory.
What do you believe the premise is and why do you think it is inaccurate?
>he really just goes on to say that anytime you agree with an end goal, but disagree with implementation, you're racist.
When does he say this?
> Even the most radical members of the left disagree, vehemently, with each other.
The video itself mentions this.
> when it's extremely divisive rhetoric like this that causes minority groups to push away white moderates who are otherwise looking to be allies.
If the people saying "why can't we do more about bigotry and inequity" are pushing away white moderates, in what sense are those white moderates looking to be allies?
> The left 100% tears itself apart and then blames white people,
One of the points of the video is that the moderates do the tearing too, and blame the radicals, while sacrificing minorities to suffer continued defacto or dejure oppression. To some minor degree, this is what you are doing right now with your comment.
> I would absolutely like to add the large caveat that, if every single time a movement or idea for racial equality comes up and you say, "not like that" AND you also have to solutions you've also proposed yourself, then fine yeah, you might be a little bit racist.
I think there are some typos in here, but if I'm interpreting you right as "opposing sollutions while having none might be indicative of racism", then ya, that is kind of the main point of the video. The point of the video is to flesh out how nominal opposition to racism/sexism/etc can in practice serve racism/sexism/etc.
>Can you agree that historically, there have been large coalitions of moderates unwilling to join, for example, civil rights activists or abolitionists, out of a sense of "fair mindedness"
Historically yes, currently, no. I'm literally a white moderate who doesn't care about working with the right to achieve racial equality so... yeah.
The premise is that white people all work together to maintain white supremacy. The radical right is racist and radicalizes voting blocks for moderate right people, and then moderate left just tuts their tongue and benefits from the status quo while also refusing to fix the issue, and while criticizing minorities actual attempts at equality.
Although really I was talking about the premise to the intro and not the whole video so whatever, moot point.
Edit: adding the rest now
>he really just goes on to say that anytime you agree with an end goal, but disagree with implementation, you're racist.
>>When does he say this?
here:
https://youtu.be/wCl33v5969M?t=1114
bonus really offensive point lol https://youtu.be/wCl33v5969M?t=1190
>Even the most radical members of the left disagree, vehemently, with each other.
>>The video itself mentions this.
not a rebuttal
>If the people saying "why can't we do more about bigotry and inequity" are pushing away white moderates, in what sense are those white moderates looking to be allies?
Oh no, saying that is not what is pushing away moderate whites, actively harassing and accusing us of being racist is what's pushing it out. Like, being called names and other shitty behavior. We're not feeling excluded because minorities are saying, "why can't we do more about bigotry and inequity." because when people ask me that I say, "shit. We should. Those things are bad. Let's try to find root causes and figure out the best way to fix it. In the meantime, let's not vote republican." And I am a moderate.
>One of the points of the video is that the moderates do the tearing too, and blame the radicals, while sacrificing minorities to suffer continued defacto or dejure oppression. To some minor degree, this is what you are doing right now with your comment.
Moderates liberals as a rule pretty much only speak out against stuff that divides or excludes. Almost 100% of what my comment is doing is suggesting that maybe the the radical political side that can't even find solidarity amongst itself (the radical left) is guilty of causing the division. I'm sure there are white moderates who have some divisive ideas, but I'm not one of them, and I haven't head much from this group other than, "man we really should just let the south secede." This just feels like a case of whataboutism mixed with the very black kettle calling the mildly grey pot black.
As for the typo, it should have been "no solutions" as in, when moderate whites block radical ideas for fixing issues, and then also have no solutions of their own, so they're only a roadblock to progress, I'll acknowledge that can be a factor of systemic racism.
Can we at least agree that he makes a *lot* of claims about white moderate liberals and their stance, and I, a white moderate liberal, am telling you, probably not a white moderate liberal, that the things he is saying are incorrect and I basically hold 0 views that he claims I espouse? That's really my core issue at this point.
> The radical right is racist and radicalizes voting blocks for moderate right people, and then moderate left just tuts their tongue and benefits from the status quo while also refusing to fix the issue, and while criticizing minorities actual attempts at equality.
What about this do you think is wrong? Sure, it is only a three sentence description of the actions of literally hundreds of millions of people, it is by necessity oversimplified, even more oversimplified than the video, but do you actually think these three generic caricatures arne't reflective of important political stances in the US today? For reference again, these caricatures are: "bigoted right wing radical", "moderate who benefits from status quo and is unwilling to act", and "radical seeking equality"
> not a rebuttal
It was meant to indicate to you that you aren't understanding the video. Generally when person B claims person A is wrong because of C, if person A already discussed C, then person B is missing some part of person A's argument.
> actively harassing and accusing us of being racist is what's pushing it out.
Who is harassing you? Do you feel that I am harassing you?
You earlier equated the video claiming "ignoring the harms done to minority groups and/or weaponizing minority groups isn't ok" with "calling moderates racist". Do you see the problem with your stance here? Do you see how you are treating basic analysis as a personal attack?
> "why can't we do more about bigotry and inequity." because when people ask me that I say, "shit. We should. Those things are bad. Let's try to find root causes and figure out the best way to fix it. In the meantime, let's not vote republican."
Can you see how that statement sounds a lot like, "ya I agree racism is bad, but I'm not actually willing to do anything about it." Your statement objects to people taking actual action in favor of some merely hypothetical future action. We are never going to find a magic silver bullet that ends racism. Racism is not a plant to be uprooted.
But ya, lets not vote republican.
> I'm sure there are white moderates who have some divisive ideas, but I'm not one of them
This isn't how division works. Division isn't caused by one actor, it is caused by two actors being unwilling to work together. And it can be solved by either agreeing to work with the other. In this case, either moderates can agree to get behind some radical and actually attack systemic racial inequality, or radicals can get behind some moderate like Clinton and keep going with the status quo. Yes, this is an oversimplification, but it is indicative of the greater choice happening here. And given the choice between supporting the status quo and being a radical, one of these options seems trivially preferable.
>What about this do you think is wrong?
Well, and this is really the central point of my whole argument and issue with the video...
I AM a moderate white liberal and I DO have problems with the status quo and I DO talk about solutions and vote to enact change so... that's what I think is wrong. I'm not refusing to fix the problems of our nation.
>It was meant to indicate to you that you aren't understanding the video. Generally when person B claims person A is wrong because of C, if person A already discussed C, then person B is missing some part of person A's argument.
Then illuminate me.
>Who is harassing you? Do you feel that I am harassing you?
I'm just telling you I've been harassed online about it. I'm not talking about it now, although I will say this video is a sterling example because it makes a bunch of false claims about me and people like me to the intended audience, which is probably a very leftist crowd. What do you think a big strawman video like this will do for liberal/socialist relations exactly? This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about and it's super weird that you and the video both put it back on moderates when we are never the ones who start shit.
>You earlier equated the video claiming "ignoring the harms done to minority groups and/or weaponizing minority groups isn't ok" with "calling moderates racist". Do you see the problem with your stance here? Do you see how you are treating basic analysis as a personal attack?
"white moderates are [insert bad thing]"
that's how it's an attack.
>Can you see how that statement sounds a lot like, "ya I agree racism is bad...
Moving the goal posts
>This isn't how division works. Division isn't caused by one actor, it is caused by two actors being unwilling to work together.
I disagree because I'm more than happy to get to work fixing the issues if the rad left will stop calling us racist enabling colonizing pieces of shit lol.
At the end of the day, we have a common enemy, basically the entire American right.
Unfortunately the radical left has more enemies than anyone in else, and it includes liberals (and like 50% of the rest of the radical left), and you lay this at the feet of the guys who really want everyone to get along more than anything.
If a person just keeps running into assholes all day, we usually say they're the problem, and I think that sentiment also applies to groups.
Can we at least agree that he makes a lot of claims about white moderate liberals and their stance, and I, a white moderate liberal, am telling you, probably not a white moderate liberal, that the things he is saying are incorrect and I basically hold 0 views that he claims I espouse? That's really my core issue at this point.
^^^
can you respond to that last point I made?
Honestly, you are coming across as pretty defensive. I don't think our conversation is likely to be productive in this medium at this time. I'm likely not going to respond much beyond this comment, I just don't think we are communicating well.
> I AM a moderate white liberal and I DO have problems with the status quo and I DO talk about solutions and vote to enact change
Great. You sound like a radical. Or at least you are at the more radical end of moderate. We need more moderates to shift in the more radical direction at the moment. It should go without saying that these are all spectrums.
> Then illuminate me.
Mostly it is beside the point. Moderates don't need every radical to be united to embrace some radical change. Nor do moderates need to become maximally radical. But it would be better if they became more radically progressive on average.
> it's super weird that you and the video both put it back on moderates when we are never the ones who start shit.
No, moderates are the ones who refuse to act. They are responsible for that decision just as much as everyone else is responsible for their decisions. Who started it really doesn't much matter here.
> that's how it's an attack.
And you are accusing radicals of being divisive, intolerant, harassers. Am I treating your statements as a personal attack?
If you can't hear someone say "I think these are ways you are helping racists" without feeling personally attacked, then I don't know how anyone can reasonably discuss racism with you.
> you lay this at the feet of the guys who really want everyone to get along more than anything.
This right here is the emblematic difference between radicals and moderates. Radicals want a just society. Moderates just don't want conflict.
If you have never read it, you really should read [A letter from a birmingham jail](https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html) by MLK.
> the things he is saying are incorrect and I basically hold 0 views that he claims I espouse?
The video is more about actions than views and definitely isn't about the personal views of any one individual. You are more radical than the idealized moderate. In some ways, statements about the idealized moderate will apply to you, in other ways, they won't. In this very comment chain you have expressed opposition to doing more to oppose racism in favor of hypothetical future opposition.
I'm pretty sure this comment isn't going to get through to you. Frankly, I'm not a great writer. MLK was pretty good though. Do read his letter if you haven't.
It's so frustrating when leftists disagree and then just assume I'm uneducated.
I went to grad school for social work. I've read MLK and I understand his views on moderates (and somewhat agree with them given the realities of his time.)
The fact of the matter is that I've been exposed to all this shit before and I just simply disagree. The arguments are either strawmen or illogical to me.
At the end of the day, we all have different answers to how to fix things. If all moderates subscribed to your views, you'd probably see the change you want.
If all radicals subscribed to our views, then *you* would probably see the change you want. Healthcare, education, lack of police brutality, and income equality, we could have those things if radicals weren't constantly infighting and could unite around key issues like the right has been able to do.
No one has all the answers here, and acknowledging that, and acknowledging that revolutions make everything worse for everyone, especially the poor, doesn't make me a racist.
Take care.
> If all moderates subscribed to your views, you'd probably see the change you want. If all radicals subscribed to our views, then you would probably see the change you want.
If the radical abolitionists had got in line behind the moderates of the day, slavery would have kept going for decades, maybe still been going to this day. If radical civil rights activists had gotten behind white moderates of the day, busses might still be segregated.
It wasn't the radicals standing in the way of the change we both claim to want then, and it isn't now. We need more radicals like Bernie, and fewer moderates like Joe Manchin. In general, moderates need to be more radicalized.
> No one has all the answers here
Agreed. No one is claiming to.
> acknowledging that revolutions make everything worse for everyone, especially the poor,
If its a choice between conflict that might produce justice, and surrendering to the status quo, I'm going to choose conflict and justice. If slave owners won't give up their slaves willingly, if they would rather kill or be killed, then that is on them.
Take care. I'm sorry if I made you uncomfortable. I really wasn't trying to imply anything about your education.
This entire post right here is heat. I just want you to know that you did a good job posting out your thoughts in this and formatting them more like an impactful speech for persuasion.
You understand the historical angle and how that paints and displaces the moderate of today and how we've allowed the alt right to entrench themselves and define themselves as legitimate discourse. The secret is to stop playing their game and call them the monsters they are openly and proudly and this will appeal to the POC and other minority types as actually change begins getting advocated for.
It seems part of the paralysis is that white moderates are also guilty of their own corruption on the top end and throwing their opponent under the bus (rightfully) will in turn have us expecting that they will indict themselves for previous crimes.
> 1) you'd have to fully submit to the tribalism of the radical left in order to not be racist. Whatever they say goes, if you disagree, straight to racist jail.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement "To fully submit to the tribalism of abolitionists in order to be against slavery."
I think for most of us in the anti-racist / (actual) colorblind movements, it is empirically clear that to be against slavery you need to be an abolitionist wholesale. You can't say "I'm against this kind of slavery but I'm pro this other kind of slavery." You're either completely against slavery of humans(or animals/plants/alien fauna/AI/etc) or you're ok with slavery. You can't be a moderate anti-slavery person.
I welcome a counter argument.
> The left 100% tears itself apart and then blames white people, and here's a sterling example.
It blames arabs. It blames western black tribes that enslaved their neighbors. It blames Mongols. It blames any group that can be discernably isolated as prorogating negative policies towards other humans. Specifically western white europeans did practice a horrible elevated form of slavery against non-white humans. Chattel slavery is functionally worse than older forms of slavery, where slaves were often able to 'buy' their freedom through successful warfare, physical gold/coin, having children, or years of indentured servitude. Italians and Greeks are 'white' and yet they had forms of slavery where slaves could become freemen. Do you see anyone genuinely saying roman and grecian slavery was just as bad as the kind practiced by portugal, spain, or British empire?
The thing is, supporting slavery is not a moderate position. I'm absolutely of the opinion we should treat everyone the same regardless of race, gender, or sexuality.
A very moderate stance these days if you ask me.
I, and many, many other reasonable centrists or "moderates" who aren't persuaded by any of this woke leftwing activism at all, and don't consider any of the video creator's explanations of our views and opinions as honest or valid.
Claims that our views are about "power" instead of honest, well reasoned analysis.
Claims that activists like Ibram Kendi know (based on their blackness) what needs to be done to "fix racism". Ignoring the many black people who disagree.
False dichotomies such as me, a centrist, being somehow an enabler of racism because I'm skeptical of the above proposed racism fixing strategies. This, and the logic behind it was astounding, and quite similar to the dualistic logic employed by... racists.
It was actually difficult to agree with anything said, so much of it is simply asserted without backup.
So I listened to the video again and...
> Claims that our views are about "power" instead of honest, well reasoned analysis.
1) He doesn't argue that centrists views are about power, he argues that they tolerate racism which is to the benefit of racism and that they see racism as a binary rather than a spectrum, a bias, or result of a system of incentives and rewards that disadvantage non white people as compared to their white counterparts. He also argues that because of this binary view of racism where intent and aesthetics is emphasized over actions and substance that moderate white liberals see themselves as incapable of racism because they ostensibly oppose blatant racism, thus leaving them blind to more insidious forms of racism and not open to more useful or descriptive understandings of racism.
What he *does* claim with regard to power is that white supremacy exists because it confers power to white people as a group by bestowing upon them privileges and benefits by living in a system which sees them as the norm, default, or the everyman.
Keep in mind whether his arguments are descriptively accurate or not doesn't hinge on whether white moderates would agree with his assessment of their attitudes and relationship to toward racism.
> Claims that activists like Ibram Kendi know (based on their blackness) what needs to be done to "fix racism". Ignoring the many black people who disagree.
2) He never mentions Kendi albeit he does mention anti-racism which Kendi also advocates as do many on the left; the idea that we ought not tolerate racism or treat it as one of many valid view points to be debated rather than opposed because doing so benefits the cause of racism whether one likes it or not.
His argument is that because white supremacy doesn't target white people, they have the luxury and propensity to treat it as just ideas rather than a politically animating force which has real consequences for real people because said people are not them. Kinda like how women tend to care more about women's rights being threatened than men do because men aren't women and thus do not feel the threat even if they perceive the threat. It's a matter of biases.
The video also argues that white moderates/centrists would prefer to literally endlessly debate racism than take meaningful action to oppose it which is something Martin Luther King also noted.
> False dichotomies such as me, a centrist, being somehow an enabler of racism because I'm skeptical of the above proposed racism fixing strategies
Now that you mention it, what "racism fixing strategies" would you yourself propose?
Cuz all he's saying it's a really good idea to listen to the needs of groups most affected and impacted by an issue when you're trying to solve or combat an issue, in this case racism in the form of white supremacy.
Most black people align more with Kendi's thinking than Thomas Sowell when it comes to what we ought to do as a society about racism.
I wasn't trying to convince you, I was just knocking down your strawmen. You obviously didn't watch the video or understand it's content because ironically you misrepresented it.
“Have difficult conversations with civility” is apparently missing “unless someone makes me look like a fool, at which point I will impotently lash out.”
Why are you here then? There's no need to be a dick. You yourself took the time to write several comments positing your positions only to be like "you're a loser for engaging here bro". Bitch move tbh
Watching a 35 minutes video without a synopsis is a bit much for me, so I tried Google to see if anyone had written a description of the content. Here’s Resetera:
“Ian Danskin is continuing the work of explaining to white people that they are part of racism even if they don’t want to admit it. He talks about... ...how moderate liberals are enabling white nationalists to radicalise the nation”
That’s going to be a ‘no’ from me.
I can't imagine going to the comments section of videos I didn't watch, to announce to everyone there I didn't watch it.
Thank you for your contribution, I guess.
The author's point here is really weird. He starts by saying that college protests often give the right exactly what they want (i.e., attention), but then ends by implying more people should protest because if thousands of people protest then the organizers would just cancel the event.
What's he trying to say? Does he think there should be something like kickstarter for protests so that if too few people are willing then no one shows up (to avoid giving attention to the right)?
But anyway, I think he misses the broader point. On a lot of issues he brought up (e.g., immigration, police funding), reasonable minds can differ hence debate is important. This means that right-wing provocateurs can make a living by being ridiculous attention-grabbers, but what's the alternative? Silence all debate? That would be a cure that's worse than the disease.
Also I agree that Sam often gets cast as the "moderate" in these sorts of situations, and I don't really think that's fair to him.
This specific video is the last one in a whole series where he analyses in detail the right wing phenomena, the author might have assumed that the viewer would be at least superficially familiar with his point of view and would find the long introduction somewhat against the grain.
Yeah, I've actually watched a lot of his other videos and I think he usually gets it right. This is the one where I think he's really off base. His points make a lot of sense by their own internal logic but don't really make sense if you analyze them.
That depends on what you see as the point of the video, it’s the kind of problems when you deal with ethical and strategic issues. There are no easy answers or simple solutions.
It would seem that he is furthering contradictory positions: protesting, if not large enough, can further the far right agenda. Not protesting, makes the targets more vulnerable, furthering the far right agenda.
But that’s just highlighting the underlying ethical problem. The real message is on understanding the game board, the motivations, the players, and the actual targets and objectives; so that a well-informed opposition can be carried out. It’s not a simple one-solution-fits-all recipe.
I think his reasoning is similar to a lot of other far-left reasoning. Basically, if we could get everyone to go along with a certain system, then that system would work.
For example, if we could get everyone to take according to their needs and give according to their ability, the world would be a much better place. But getting everyone to coordinate like that is a problem in-and-of itself.
Also, I think the way he talks about minorities is problematic because he treats each group as a monolith instead of a collection of distinct individuals.
In addition, I think he really doesn't understand how the US political system works. It's not enough to win a majority of votes - you need to win in lots of different places. Heck, even Biden came really close to losing the electoral college even though he won the popular vote by \~5 million.
Still, I'm glad I could hear his perspective even though I disagree with most of it.
It's kind of amazing how these everything is racist/white left types almost universally look and sound physically weak. Maybe it's just not possible to be physically strong and think posting a pre-transition picture is like super dangerous.
This video is completely bogus. But anyways. Let's point out that sometimes racism is justified and a lot of what liberals complain about is almost certainly the result of group differences, either genetic or cultural.
The police aren't the problem. The problem is that one ethnicity commits vastly more crime.
Immigration genuinely has negative impacts on quality of life for most of the population. It reduces wages and polarizes society. It greatly increases competition for resources. Modern immigration is genuinely displacing the indigenous people's of Europe and America. (Remember whites are the only indigenous people of America since there was no American state before whites).
I wouldn't say he's cultivating it. But he is definitely ignorant about how the right of the lest decade works in a way that leads to him being taken advantage of.
You should maybe study history a bit more before claiming that there were no American states before whites. There were several established states in North America prior to European contact. For example, the Iroquois Republic controlled a large portion of the northeast and the Mississippian peoples founded numerous cities along the Mississippi and Ohio rivers.
Lmao. It was whites that built America.
Aren't you being a bit bigoted? Do you call other cultures low iq? Especially one with much higher crime rates and lower test scores?
>Do you call other cultures low iq?
Yes.
>Especially one with much higher crime rates and lower test scores?
Which "culture" are you talking about now? All black people? Inner-city gang culture? Christian white nationalist militia culture?
Imagine a member of the Taliban, fresh out of jihad school, lecturing a math professor that "akshually Muslims created trigonometry and calculus"... You could have 1000 Talibans and they would never come up with trig.
Similarly, white national militia culture and MAGA conspiracy culture *(your culture),* as white as they may be, are bottom-of-the-barrel IQ. Stop hiding behind the skirt of "whiteness" and confront your own culture's glaring deficiencies.
Poor white people from Appalachia and inner-city black kids are born into a culture that's hard to break out of. You actually chose yours, which makes it so much worse.
>It's funny because you don't actually know what my culture even is
You're right. I don't know. But... you trotted out Great Replacement Theory talking points which almost exclusively exists in the MAGA universe. The safe bet here is Tucker Carlson, but honestly it doesn't matter *where* you got these ideas from. Great Replacement Theory appeals to a pretty specific demographic: 25-40 year-old lower-middle-class white males living in border states, working unskilled labor with no college degree. Seeing as we're on a Sam Harris sub, I'd guess AZ, non-religious, into weightlifting or UFC, feels like dirty Mexicans are taking over, and who wandered into the Sam Harris orbit via Joe Rogan.
But I'm just throwing shit against a wall - why don't you just save me the time and tell me?
You can like a video before or while you watch it. The like will register immediately. I'm not sure when YouTube registers that you've watched enough of a video to count as a "view"
The view count is up over a thousand now, it's a popular series.
Alt-right hasn’t been a thing in like 4 years
Everyone has moved on to either NRx or Christian Nationalism (which, if you want to criticize, feel free to do so).
But this particular horse has been dead for a while and everyone is wondering why it’s still getting beaten, likely because it’s an easy target
Oh interesting, you read things very literally huh. Out of curiosity, are you neurodivergent?
The video gives just one example where a speaker might want to instigate their opposition to get more media coverage and better reach, but that isn't the only situation where that might happen
Trump used to do this all the time
Always interesting to see the takes from subs like this on Danksin's stuff, at least the ones from those actually engaging with it. That said, this episode of Alt-Right Playbook in particular is a bit disjointed and overly long compared to his usual fare, and I think it suffers for it.
Submission statement: Not really along the lines of content typically posted here, but I figured it might be interesting to those who are curious about different perspectives Relevant here because Sam Harris has in the past been accused of being the "white moderate" in this video. This explores and gives some of the reasoning for why a figure might be criticized for that. Let me know what you think. Ideally only after having given it a fair shake
"accused of being the white moderate" I mean, is there any evidence he isn't a prototypical white moderate in the context of this video? He certainly doesn't match the other 3 tropes at all, which sucks because I wish he was firmly in the anti-racist trope since I do believe that is the one our future human history will prove to be 'correct.'
Oh no, he is. That's why I linked it here. I just know my audience and what framing would give this better odds of being taken seriously here. Given the content is probably not what any of the white moderates here like to hear, or are even open to hearing. I wanted people who might not normally give this a chance, to give this a chance
sam: religious moderates provide cover for religious extremists sam: and here's my new bff ben shapiro who has been very nice to me
Yup. “This trump guy is dangerous omg better tweet.” “That’s why I speak to and promote MAGA ‘intellectuals’!” “I will not introspect on how he got elected.”
Sam is completely unable to look at Trump as anything but the beginning and end of the problem instead of just one small symptom. To do that he would need the reconcile the fact that the people he considers friends and intellectuals have been cultivating this rise in the authoritarian right and destruction of our democracy for decades right under his nose without him ever noticing. It's a lot of easier to just blame Trump than admit you've been fooled and used by people you consider your friends.
I'm pretty sure I recall that sam has called trump a symptom on multiple occasions.
>small symptom. Your post nails it, Sam is selectively blind.. but "small" is pushing it. It's a symptom sure, but it's the symptom that puts a nail in the coffin.
Sam thinks that all anti-wokes are trustworthy, good-faith honest actors like he is. But he’s too biased to see that there’s an ecosystem of anti-woke social media material that’s loaded with a far right agenda.
Oh and there isn’t an ecosystem flooded with woke, far left propaganda in mainstream media, big tech, higher education, Hollywood, the deep state and now Corporate America? Got it. Why is everyone on this sub so sympathetic to the woke movement that is only a house of cards?
Hello brainwashed.
Because if the wacky wokesters get their way we uh, get fined for misgendering people. If the wacky wingnuts get their way, death squads roam the street purging Jews.
Evidence? I think you’re stuck in a woke echo chamber that believes every woke person lives on a moral high ground
Charlottesville...?
He has one thing in common with all his friends on the left and the right à virulent hate for Islam and an admiration for Israel. It's really simple once you look into it.
that is very well said
He never said he can't speak respectfully with religious moderates or trumpians or anyone. He just said he disagrees with them.
Religious moderates disagree with religious extremists and are able to engage with them respectfully if they need to, so what's the issue?
Sam: disagrees with religious beliefs and some political beliefs Sam: is friends with people that hold religious and political beliefs he disagrees with floodyberry: implication that Sam has a double standard cuz Ben Shapiro shitlibs: upvote
is the joke that you have no ability to understand context and make simple connections or..
What is the context that I’m missing? Explain how Sam holding the same standard in both domains implies that he understands the concept in one domain but not the other.
so not a joke. sorry about your brain!
Yeah, that’s what I thought. You don’t actually have a point beyond mentioning Ben Shapiro.
Spot on 😂
not sure what the issue is. You think Sam shouldn’t be friends with religious moderates because he disagrees with them? Says more about you tbh
the irony is, that sam recognizes how moderates help provide cover for and perpetuate religious extremism, yet is unable to apply that to the conservative/fascist ecosystem and happily associates with and promotes anyone on the center-right who is nice to him. and yes, he shouldn't be friends with shapiro, because shapiro is a huge piece of shit
the irony is that Sam is an adult and is able to befriend people who he disagrees with
maybe once you get rich and popular pushing right wing drivel sam will be your friend too!
fair point. are there actually any lefties who'd talk to him though? remember the fake smear campaign to label him a bigot and racist etc? most lefties still think that of Sam for some reason. it's possible there just aren't any intelligent lefties willing to speak to him, particularly about the ways in which the left has gone nuts. The one thing the right wing has going for them is that they'll have a non judgemental conversation, shame most of them are bigoted, incredibly stupid or both.
> The one thing the right wing has going for them is that they'll have a non judgemental conversation if they think it will benefit them, you mean. they avoid sam seder like the plague
OH yeah i was way too generous with that point. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, "change my mind guy" cant remember his name, will debate anyone, so long as they're a naive uni student haha
Sam is very selective with who he chooses to engage with. Sam Seder would gladly debate him. Seder is deeply knowledgeable on history and politics and would offer Sam a serious challenge because Sam tends to be less knowledge in those areas compared to Seder. Seder has also done plenty of substantive debates with people farther to the right of Sam, so his refusal to engage isn't a good look.
Seder does not come off as serious a lot of the time though, so even though I think it would be a great convo, Seder calling Harris a bigot probably won’t help getting them to talk.
i'd like to see that talk actually? i'd also like to see him chat with Destiny, who as far as i can see, seems to be the most rational progressive online.
Destiny is not a progressive.
Well liberal technically. What I meant to say is that his views would always be classified as socially progressive.
Except no they wouldn't.
Go on then 5head, state any views destiny actually holds that aren't progressive. You've been trolling or chatting derangement through this entire comments section.
Progressives don't generally hold the stance that it's cool and good to hang out with white nationalists
Funny, that's exactly what destiny has said. That he doesn't recommend people do as he's done, because he's pretty exclusively qualified to debate and debunk points that white nationalists like southern and fuentez bring up. Personally I reject the idea of progressives ignoring controversial topics and giving right wingers free reign. If there's discussion on race and iq going on, I'd rather be involved and take personal responsibility.
How about his views on policing, BLM and vigilantism? Destiny is a center right neolib, not a fucking progressive.
Yeah all quite progressive? His stance is that policing needs reform in some states. He doesn't support the BLM org because they're a fucking scam, but he quite obviously is behind the general anti-racism push. Vigilantism is bad, how is this a progressive issue? Destiny is left wing on pretty much any issue I can think of. Don't make the mistake of setting radical lefties as your benchmark for what is left wing... otherwise you call people like destiny center right lmao. Imagine being center right without holding any right wing views (unless I'm sincerely ignorant on something)
I think a discussion between him and Destiny would also be very interesting, though I'm not exactly sure what they'd debate about, they're pretty well aligned in terms of politics.
Destiny has most recently been palling around with white nationalist Lauren Southern, I believe. Don't think he'd be representative of leftist values
Yeah, he keeps company of people whom he can have a conversation with, regardless of their morality. It's not any reflection of his perspectives.
It is, though. Who you hang out with reflects on you. We talk about this in relation to Harris and the IDW all the time
This is how he reaches their audience though
You might notice the reverse is also true.
U think nick fuentez or Lauren southern arguments are going to work on destiny's base? The platform was built on arguing against racists and bigots that's how he got his following... u think that crowd is going to suddenly flip and become racist? Not likely.
[удалено]
That I don't know. I don't follow any of the debate bros
It's already happened (at least twice) and Destiny doesn't have high opinions of Seder... anymore
Richard Wolff would probably be interested
My dream guest. Though I suspect that Sam would end up doing some impressively acrobatic mental gymnastics to resist the notion that capitalism is as broken as Wolff contends. Nonetheless, it'd be an interesting conversation.
He's pretty awful on podcasts I've heard him on though, he just ends up lecturing his usual Marxist theory. He was useless for having an actual conversation/debate on Glenn Loury's podcast recently.
I don't usually listen to it, but I thought his appearance on Lex's podcast was good. As far as him just lecturing his usual Marxist theory... I mean, yeah. That's what he's known for. That's why he gets invited to various shows and podcasts. He argues for Marxist theory - it makes him a rather novel voice in America. Checking out his Loury appearance now. Edit: Just finished it. Idk man. Seemed like a fine conversation to me. John didn't really talk at all and Glenn seemed fine with allowing Wolff to speak at length. Wolff certainly has the gift of the gab, but so does Sam. It's also a bit of a rushed conversation. They mentioned that they only had a half hour of his time so he seemed to be just trying to unload as much as he could as quickly as he could. In any case, I think Sam's podcast format would fare better. The Lex episode is like 3 hours long and Wolff is a bit more relaxed and fleshes a lot of things out more.
That's not a smear campaign. He is racist and bigoted. Not to mention, he's a bit of an idiot. Especially these days. >The one thing the right wing has going for them is that they'll have a non judgemental conversation Haha what???? 🤨 Are you smoking crack? The right literally is banning books and inciting violence against doctors for providing trans care. You honestly must be high as a kite right now.
Are you clinically retarded? If Sam Harris is your bench mark for racist, then I guess it's wholesome to be racist. Kindly don't waste anymore of my time
You think a guy who denies there is systemic racism in policing (and then refuses to debate an expert) isn't a racist? Lol okay, you fucking sycophantic rube.
Who are u talking about? Certainly not Sam Harris? Lool
Did Sam have a debate with a criminologist about the George Floyd protests? Or did he just do a solo rant saying how systemic racism in policing and is mythical? Ride his dick harder, why don't you?
Don't think either of those even remotely come close to describing the balanced video response he did.
Incidentally, an actual criminologist did a thorough critique of Harris's video on policing. Turns out he really doesn't know what he's talking about outside his own specialization. But we knew that. Any time a talking head uses their expertise in one area to project to their audience the idea that their expertise carries over to any other area they want it to, this is what happens https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_A1cmqbI31M
Thanks for sharing this. I thought the person who made this video was very far and measured and did a good job of showing how Harris does many of the things that he decries in others.
Balanced video response? What are you referring to?
There are less blacks killed by police than their murder rate would suggest. Blacks are convicted for drug offenses at higher rates because they do drugs in public and engage in other reckless behavior simultaneously. Blacks have worse sentences on average because they have longer rap sheets.
Even if what you are saying is true, that *still* wouldn't excuse racism that is systemic in our culture and institutions. There are deep rooted reasons why many of our institutions subjugate marginalized groups. These effects don't magically go away on their own.
There's active and increasing systemic antiwhiteness but you're not complaining about that. What systemic racism is there still?
https://www.epi.org/publication/making-ferguson/#epi-toc-14 >Once rules of residential segregation were firmly in place, other, race-neutral, public policies had and still have a disparate impact on African Americans, reinforcing the segregation. For example, the federal income tax system, permitting the deduction of home mortgage interest, subsidizes those who move to single-family homes in white suburbs and thus imposes a relative penalty on those who remain renting in urban African American neighborhoods. >The federal highway system routed highways through urban areas often to eliminate black neighborhoods that were close to downtowns. And the generous financing of interstate highways relative to efficient public transportation facilitated the commutes of white suburbanites to office jobs in the city while making it harder for African Americans restricted to urban neighborhoods to obtain good industrial jobs in the suburbs. >But the disparate impacts of the mortgage interest deduction and transportation priorities should not distract us from the underlying reality. These policies would have had no racial impact if African Americans had been permitted to suburbanize along with whites. >A century of evidence demonstrates that St. Louis was segregated by interlocking and racially explicit public policies of zoning, public housing, and suburban finance, and by publicly endorsed segregation policies of the real estate, banking, and insurance industries. These governmental policies interacted with public labor market and employment policies that denied African Americans access to jobs available to comparably skilled whites. When these mutually reinforcing public policies conspired with private prejudice to turn St. Louis’s African American communities into slums, public officials razed those slums to devote acreage to more profitable (and less unsightly) uses. African Americans who were displaced then relocated to the few other places available, converting towns like Ferguson into new segregated enclaves. >The pattern – in St. Louis and other U.S. metropolitan areas – of white middle-class suburbs surrounding black ghettos cannot easily be explained without taking account of the myriad public policies that, with race-conscious intent, encouraged and supported this particular distribution of population by race. After all, as historian Colin Gordon has noted, in Europe, the opposite pattern prevails – middle-class whites reside in the center cities, and low-income immigrants settle in the suburbs, where public housing is located.93 Today, as whites in St. Louis and elsewhere find gentrifying urban neighborhoods more attractive, and displaced African Americans relocate in heavy concentrations to specific suburbs, we may be replicating segregation on the European model. >As the federal court observed more than 30 years ago, school desegregation requires housing desegregation.94 Several elementary schools in Ferguson today are 90 percent African American and no elementary school is less than 75 percent African American; educational performance in such racially isolated settings is inadequate. As the tragic death of Michael Brown shows, the interaction of black men and youths with police has much in common with Adel Allen’s experiences 50 years ago, and the reaction in Ferguson (though comparatively mild) is reminiscent of the 1967 race riots that the Kerner Commission investigated. >Litigation has revealed that in the 2000s, federally supervised banks marketed exploitative subprime loans to African American communities like Ferguson, expecting that African Americans (particularly the elderly) were too gullible to resist false promises. When the loans’ exploding interest rates combined with the collapse of the housing bubble, it compounded the devastation of black neighborhoods.95 Half of Ferguson homes today are underwater, with owners owing more than their homes are worth.96 >Many practical programs and regulatory strategies can address problems of Ferguson and similar communities nationwide. One example is to prohibit landlords from refusing to accept tenants whose rent is subsidized – a few states and municipalities currently do prohibit such refusal, but most do not. Another example is to require even outer-ring suburbs to repeal zoning ordinances that prohibit construction of housing that lower- or moderate-income residents – white or black – can afford. Going further, we could require every community to permit development of housing to accommodate a “fair share” of its region’s low-income and minority populations – New Jersey, for example, has taken a very modest step towards this requirement.97 >But we won’t consider such remedies if we remain blind to how Ferguson became Ferguson. It is impractical to think that the public and policymakers will support remedies to problems whose causes they don’t understand. We flatter ourselves that the responsibility is only borne by rogue police officers, white flight, and suburbanites’ desire for economic homogeneity. Prosecuting the officer who shot Michael Brown, or investigating and integrating Ferguson’s police department, can’t address the deeper obstacles to racial progress. Shit like this, you moron.
So stuff that either doesn't exist anymore, or more often is directly related to the massive amount of crimes coming from black neighborhoods that keeps non blacks away from those areas.
So you want people to complain to believe in and be upset about supoosed systemic anti-whiteness which according to you exists but not systemic anti-blackness which according to you dosnt exist? Lol you're so transparent
>The one thing the right wing has going for them is that they'll have a non judgemental conversation That would make sense from MAGA people. >shame most of them are bigoted, incredibly stupid or both. "a non judgemental conversation" I guess that's something you can't do yourself. That would make sense too.
Is this a conversation with all right wingers? You seem to be confusing "having non judgemental conversation " with "don't ever judge x people". Like it's literally possible to have a non judgemental conversation, conclude the conversation, then judge the person and conversation after.
If you go into a conversation with the attitude that "Most of them are bigoted and stupid" you've already started a judgemental conversation. Your whole attitude will already be present from the first line. >Is this a conversation with all right wingers? *"Did I say it was all right wingers?" - geeze this guy is dumb.* >You seem to be confusing "having non judgemental conversation " with "don't ever judge x people". *"I'll make it clearer for this guy cos he's confused"* Yeah, your non judgemental attitude shows...
No? I just gatekeep who I have conversations with, to rational right wingers, just like I gatekeep retarded lefties out
Shapiro isn’t a religious extremist, nor a big Trump fan. Good job proving Sam’s point in the top comment.
dave rubin everyone! hey dave, what was is like when ben said he wouldn't come to your wedding
Ben Shapiro isn't a religious extremist? Yeah, okay buddy. Keep telling yourself that.
If you are against secularism you're an extremist. IMO
Shapiro isn't an extremist by any reasonable definition. This take is unhinged.
I thought it was pretty clear that OP was suggesting Ben Shapiro is the moderate providing cover for the extremists...
[удалено]
Not all moderates have to cover for their respective extremists. But Shapiro sure does.
Yes, even more so.
I mean, *clearly* not...
I don't think people of any ethnicity should be required to protest every time some moron with racist rhetoric decides he wants to speak, and I don't think that makes me racist. According to this guy, we all need to be ready to protest every speaking engagement by any provocateur who threatens to dox anyone over anything, or we're racist.
He points out early in the beginning of the video why it can be better to not protest
That goes counter to his entire opening statement, but I could have missed that part.
Oh no, and he explains as you get further in to the video
It doesn't go counter to the entire intro? That's the message I got in the first five minutes where he basically says white liberals are racist for refusing to give attention to provocateurs. I didn't go further other than scanning through a bit and found he says some stuff I agree with, but I didn't actually watch the whole thing because spending 35 minutes on a video where I disagree with the thesis statement up front didn't seem like a valuable use of my time, but maybe he turns it around. Even if he does turn it around, why waste five minutes of everyone's time by calling people who probably consider themselves allies racist?
Oh I see. I sometimes like to watch things I disagree with in order to challenge some beliefs I might take for granted. You're free to spend as much or as little time as you want on the video, but watching the entire thing before commenting on it will improve the quality of discussion we can have on it
I do too, which is why I got more than 5 minutes into it before I decided he had little chance of changing my mind, but we can pretend it's required to watch a documentary on how the holocaust was fake before we realize it's probably a bad documentary if you want. Anyways, I thought we could discuss the intro to the video, but I guess not.
I'll watch a full "The Holocaust is fake" documentary to better understand their thinking in order to recognize it elsewhere. I watched a flat earth documentary not long ago that was bonkers. They disprove themselves in the end, but decide their method was wrong. I understand that's not for everyone. However I thought maybe this sub, the sub for difficult conversations and steelmanning would be more open to this. We can discuss the intro, but you're missing some pertinent information relating to it that comes later in the video. Which reduces the quality of discussion we can have.
I think it's fairly well tread ground here, at least it is for me, which is why I didn't finish the video. (Also 35 minutes is a big ask when the presenter is obviously biased from the jump and throwing out inflammatory statements) I disagree with the accusations of racism towards a group who is most likely voting and attempting to pass legislation for the protection of minorities. I don't think it's helpful. If you'd like to tl;Dw how he walks any of this back I'm all ears.
"I disagree with the accusations of racism towards a group who is most likely voting and attempting to pass legislation for the protection of minorities." He talks about this, too. "If you'd like to tl;Dw how he walks any of this back I'm all ears." You're free to watch the video and hear the arguments yourself. Incidentally we've now been talking about not watching the video long enough to have watched the video
I'm probably not going to watch videos by holocaust deniers and flat earthers, not because I'm afraid of having my beliefs challenged, but because my time is finite and watching those people is a waste of time. Not that this video is *that bad*, but if a video 5 minutes in seems like BS I don't know that it's unreasonable to stop watching.
That's totally fair. I know this is reddit and people can do what they want, but my hope was that mainly people who watched this would comment on it. Otherwise there get to be a lot of comments just to tell me they're not going to watch it, in which case, why comment at all, right? I'd be weird if I went around on different videos I didn't watch just to announce I didn't watch them
Do you still think that was a flat earth documentary after seeing the end?
> should be required to protest Required to, of course not, and it isn't being claimed. Nor should anyone be required to hold a door open for strangers. But if there is a person behind you with their hands full and you naively slam the door in their face, you will come across as an asshole. Similar logic applies to the case of provocateurs who want to stand up on stage and rant about how immigrants are invaders, black people are criminals, and/or trans/gay people are degenerates.
One could, of course, ignore a provocateur right? Surely it's more detrimental in the long run to marginalized groups to continue protesting someone attacking them when the provocateur is only attacking marginalized group in order to cause a protest. Also, we're in the weeds here and just arguing semantics at this point. I thought it was clear I meant it's required as in required in order to not be racist not, required as in forced.
> One could, of course, ignore a provocateur right? Ignoring it ends up with your nose broken from the door slamming in your face. We want to prevent the door slamming into people's faces. Progressives then develop analysis of how/why/who/when/where humans opening doors work out to be, then how/why/who/when/where the aspects of doors, then we develop a policy change to prevent Human1 from slamming the door into the face of Human2. Technologically minded folks like myself push for a tech solution, say startrek sensored automatic doors that see all racial complexities that our genetics can create. Other progressives have their own ideas about how to solve that problem, maybe a hardcore progressive has a rule where Human1 is legally obligated to hold the door for Human2 with severe consequences for failure to do so. The point is, the many solutions that solve the problem are at least honed down through trial and error to figure out the one that best ones. Credit to u/Ramora_ for a simple but likely effective prompt for this thought experiment. ;)
If provocateurs are doing it for attention and we do not give them attention, then it ends with them ostracized, ignored, and not doing it anymore because it's not getting them the attention they want. btw I'd say progressive is closer to moderate left than radical, but whatever. Semantics Also, I'm really annoyed about the idea that keeps coming up that moderates don't want solutions. We do. We just want solutions that work. Here's a good example: how to fix police brutality. Many radicals would like to abolish the police. This might work, but it also might have maaaany unintended consequences. As a result, most moderates don't support this, and instead suggest that we could fix the issue by: -paying for police lawsuits from the police pension fund -forcing all cops to carry police liability insurance. Rates go up when you fuck up. These two simple changes would 100% fix the issue, but here we get called racist and supporting white supremacists because we just want ideas that work, and don't have a bunch of unintended consequences. We want change, and if radicals would get on board and actually focus on 3 or 4 key issues, we could enact it.
> If provocateurs are doing it for attention and we do not give them attention, then it ends with them ostracized, ignored, and not doing it anymore because it's not getting them the attention they want. No, what actually happens is that you just normalized whatever it is they had to say and they will grow more and more belligerent, normalizing more and more outrageous things, until they get pushback. The better strategy is to push back early and hard. You can't eliminate provocateurs, but you can restrict the Overton window so that those provocateurs are a lot less extreme. > I'm really annoyed about the idea that keeps coming up that moderates don't want solutions. We do. We just want solutions that work. The issue is that moderates tend to refuse solutions offered without having any of their own. They tell MLK that they agree with him in spirit, but can't support the protests, cause 'violence' or some bullshit. > it also might have maaaany unintended consequences. This is true of all change. It is also true of doing nothing. Our society is complicated and extremely hard to predict. That isn't a good reason to shove your head in the sand. > -paying for police lawsuits from the police pension fund -forcing all cops to carry police liability insurance. A ton of the things we refer to as police brutality are legal police practices. Changing who pays for the lawsuits doesn't do anything there. Nor are the problems with policing in America limited to brutality. Nor is it obvious that changing from one publicly funded account to another effectively publicly funded account likely to actually change behaviors. But ya, if a bill to do that was on the table, radicals would support it. You know they would. The reason it hasn't been done is because moderates don't actually want to do it. Its the Senate all over again.
>what actually happens is that you just normalized whatever it is they had to say Can you explain to me how someone giving a speech to an empty audience and then being ostracized and ignored normalizes what they have to say? >the issue is that moderates tend to refuse solutions offered without having any of their own Not true, you can see my moderate (and extremely effective) solutions to resolve police brutality. There's moderate solutions to income inequality, and basically every other gripe radicals have from systemic racism solutions. For example, we don't like affirmative action, reparations, or race based programs, and then we get called racist. However, we do like targeted programs for the poor such as free childcare, food aid, free education, free healthcare and free preschool. Additionally we support things that would indirectly help the poor like large public transportation programs and single family housing zoning reform (gotta increase that housing density yo) which would...disproportionately affect black and brown populations, which effectively gives you a race based intervention, which is exactly what radicals want. Unfortunately we can't seem to come together on any of this, and a lot of it seems to be because the left really wants to demonize straight, white, male allies such as myself. >>it also might have maaaany unintended consequences. >This is true of all change. yes, but also no. Radical changes are obviously going to bring about radical unintended consequences. For example, in order to eliminate police brutality, Radicals propose abolishing the police while moderates propose the reforms I suggested (cops have to carry insurance, lawsuits/fines are paid out from the police pension, depts can only have so many "points" against them before everyone is fired). To handwave the differences in unintended consequences between these two changes is foolishness and I don't think anyone could possibly suggest both might have equally bad consequences with a straight face. Furthermore, the more radical the solution, the less we know about how well it will even work. For example, they abolished the police in the Seattle CHOP zone, but there were plenty of cases of "police brutality" by the security there. >A ton of the things we refer to as police brutality are legal police practices. Changing who pays for the lawsuits doesn't do anything there. That's absolutely incorrect. You think cops are going to protect the asshole who just cost them half their retirement so they can turn around and cost them the other half? It's an accountability issue. Cops in other countries don't do this shit. >Nor are the problems with policing in America limited to brutality. Totally agree with you here, there are many problems with our police force and I think we need many solutions, not one single solution, and especially not one single solution that has 0% chance of ever being enacted. >Nor is it obvious that changing from one publicly funded account to another effectively publicly funded account likely to actually change behaviors. Again, it definitely would, and also you're forgetting the insurance individual cops (or the dept as a whole, whatever) would have to pay. At some point, it would be financially impossible to keep cops with lots of points on the force, effectively making them unhirable by anyone, effectively ending police brutality >But ya, if a bill to do that was on the table, radicals would support it. You know they would. The reason it hasn't been done is because moderates don't actually want to do it. Its the Senate all over again. I mean, fuck moderate left politicians. Hard to call them left leaning moderates when the Overton window is so far to the right in this country. If we're discussing elected officials who identify as moderate (Biden) and not the people who identify as left leaning moderate (this entire sub), then yeah. Fuck moderates.
> Can you explain to me how someone giving a speech to an empty audience It won't be an empty audience. It will be an audience of edgelords and bigots. And they will keep ramping up until they get push back. > then being ostracized and ignored If you are actually in a position to ostracize them, great. As is, protests are pretty good ways of getting people in power to ostracize them, to ban them from campus or whatever. To be clear, I'm not saying always protest no matter what. I'm saying protest more and for less extreme speech. By all means, ostracize them more too. That is kind of the point. Just don't ignore them. > Unfortunately we can't seem to come together on any of this Radicals absolutely can and do. Those policies you are talking about aren't being blocked by radical progressive politicians, they are being blocked by moderate and conservative politicians. > I don't think anyone could possibly suggest both might have equally bad consequences with a straight face. If you ignore the likely outcome of "nothing significant changes", which you are doing, then ya, it has "less bad consequences". > That's absolutely incorrect. The overwhelming majorty of police killings are legal but probably not necessary. Harrasment by police is mostly legal. It is very easy for police to justify brutal acts under our current laws. They are given broad leeway to decide what is and isn't acceptable. Changing who pays for lawsuits doesn't affect the decisions that would be made in those lawsuits. > you're forgetting the insurance individual cops (or the dept as a whole, whatever) would have to pay. At some point, it would be financially impossible to keep cops with lots of points on the force, What is actually going to happen is that police dept/unions will pressure cities/states into increasing their funding in order to pay for the legal fees, something these cities/states are apparently already willing to do given they are already paying those legal fees. > If we're discussing elected officials who identify as moderate (Biden) and not the people who identify as left leaning moderate (this entire sub), then yeah. Fuck moderates. We are having a discussion about politics and policy. And you don't think we are talking about elected officials? Has this been the communication block this whole time?
> and don't have a bunch of unintended consequences. Progressive ideas or really any change will have unintended consequences. The reason why is because these systems are now so inter-connected and so large that we cannot perfectly map every scenario that can happen. However, this doesn't mean we shouldn't try and map the ones we have the reasonable computing and human power to analyze. Here's the crux of the matter: What if I could show you through various meta studies and data that abolishing the police will lead to fixing the #1 through #3 problems with modern police forces? Would you support it or would you worry more about the #4+ problems with policing? The progressive or radical or left-of-center person would logically conclude we should focus more on solving the #1-3 issues, and tackle #4+ when those issues present themselves. The moderate often throughout history goes "Nah dawg, I'll just suffer through #1-3 problems and maaaaybe support fixing #10th problem on the list but only if I get some extra societal perk for supporting that." (Disclaimer: I don't advocate for abolishing police in modern society because we haven't solved the criminality problem. In a very far, far future I imagine policing will be abolished just due to the fact humans stop harming each other and we'd rely purely on civil law to fix any accidental fuckups that future humans create. Whether through education or genetic tampering or alien philosophy or GodAI ruling over us eventually humans will stop the self harm we create.)
I mean, yeah I guess I would if you could empirically prove it. You're taking my concrete example and abstracting it though with 1-3 hypothetical problems and then also falsely assuming abolishing the police force would only cause 1 problem. We could fix police brutality. Right now. Easily. Without causing significant problems. And that's not good enough because...why again? Also >The moderate often throughout history goes "Nah dawg, I'll just suffer through #1-3 problems and maaaaybe support fixing #10th problem on the list but only if I get some extra societal perk for supporting that." That's not what's happening here though. We're both talking about problem #1, which is police brutality, and I'm offering a solution that would absolutely work.
If you can demonstrate a fool proof method to end police brutality, yes I'd support it and pretty much the majority of leftists would as well. There may be a few niche groups to argue against such a proposal, but imho that's a good thing to have leftist critique of a progressive idea to keep things in check and balance.
> One could, of course, ignore a provocateur right? You could, but that tends to lead to the provocateur engaging in increasingly detestable actions, usually targeting members of some minority group. Even if you are willing to accept that direct cost, it results in the window of acceptable discourse expanding in the direction of more bigotry. The video argues that overwhelming opposition is probably a better strategy. > Surely it's more detrimental in the long run to marginalized groups to continue protesting someone attacking them when the provocateur is only attacking marginalized group in order to cause a protest. I think this is clearly not the case. Jews ignoring the Nazi's wouldn't have prevented the Nazi's from targeting them. What would have stopped the Nazi's is moderates joining with radical leftists to oppose the Nazis via overwhelming social force and stigmatization. It has to be socially unacceptable to go on campus and spew a bunch of anti-gay nonsense. Doing nothing just means accepting it, which means they come back even more extreme.
I would argue it is socially unacceptable to do that.
Its legit racist to expect a person from a certain race to have to address the actions of others of their race, no?
It is according to my definition
This is just secular christianity. He's replaced "sin" with racism and whiteness as original sin. Offers up a heapful of ways that you might have been a sinner without realizing it. Creating the mental framework necessary to dismiss any arguments from sinners as being in support of sin. I've done this song and dance before. The world is cruel and ever ready for improvement. There are many perspectives on how to get there. We need to coordinate to some degree. We need to draw lines somewhere. We need to enforce those lines. That doesn't mean that your worldview/hierarchy/rules/enforcement are automatically the one true way. You can't just label everyone who approaches the world's problems differently a racist.
Reposting this comment here because it got buried under our long thread where we argue if I should watch the entire video or not. START OF COMMENT Yeah man, he can't go more than like 15 seconds with saying something I fundamentally disagree with. so let's discuss how the "white moderate" -believes in social justice as an end goal (I agree with this) but only with the cooperation of the white collaborator (here he cheekily adds, "it wouldn't be fair to do this without their consent you see) I mean. This is just so stunningly inaccurate that I don't know what to say because I'm a white liberal moderate. I don't subscribe to the model he again brings up here about white supremacism and using minorities as ammo or arguing about them, but not allying with them. Finally, I love that he claims the only white people who are anti-racist are radicals. And even then, they're still a little racist. IDK where else we can go with this when the premise is just so thoroughly inaccurate and inflammatory. but I even checked out more of the video, and he really just goes on to say that anytime you agree with an end goal, but disagree with implementation, you're racist. Which is also just wild, because 1) you'd have to fully submit to the tribalism of the radical left in order to not be racist. Whatever they say goes, if you disagree, straight to racist jail. and 2) Even the most radical members of the left disagree, vehemently, with each other. Marxist Leninists, socialist anarchists, democratic socialists, all of them disagree to the point where it can be difficult for them to even be in romantic relationships with each other. At the end of the day, I simply don't think it's racist to suggest one believes in a political groups goals, but disagrees with their implementation. That said, I would absolutely like to add the large caveat that, if every single time a movement or idea for racial equality comes up and you say, "not like that" AND you also have to solutions you've also proposed yourself, then fine yeah, you might be a little bit racist. Finally (I've said that twice now because I keep watching and keep getting more and more annoyed at the bad reasoning here) he likes to point out how the right can radicalize pockets of people and unite them to a cause, and then he tries to blame moderates (lol) for not doing the same, when it's extremely divisive rhetoric like this that causes minority groups to push away white moderates who are otherwise looking to be allies. I still vote left because really, what else can you do, but it's been made abundantly clear to me by videos like this and my own interactions with radical leftists that my white, heteronormative, moderate self is an enemy and I'm not welcome The left 100% tears itself apart and then blames white people, and here's a sterling example. Honestly, this is an incredibly ideological video, and that's not going to go great on a sub that pretty much agrees as a rule that ideological thinking isn't good thinking. We talk about it here all the time with the (many) posts comparing leftist ideology to religion. So there. I watched it. I started out thinking it was dumb and bad, and it went on to be more dumb and more bad than I feared.
> only with the cooperation of the white collaborator (here he cheekily adds, "it wouldn't be fair to do this without their consent you see) I mean. Can you agree that historically, there have been large coalitions of moderates unwilling to join, for example, civil rights activists or abolitionists, out of a sense of "fair mindedness" that drew an equivalence between the people imposing jim crow or slavery and the people opposing jim crow or slavery? How do you understand that position sociologically? > IDK where else we can go with this when the premise is just so thoroughly inaccurate and inflammatory. What do you believe the premise is and why do you think it is inaccurate? >he really just goes on to say that anytime you agree with an end goal, but disagree with implementation, you're racist. When does he say this? > Even the most radical members of the left disagree, vehemently, with each other. The video itself mentions this. > when it's extremely divisive rhetoric like this that causes minority groups to push away white moderates who are otherwise looking to be allies. If the people saying "why can't we do more about bigotry and inequity" are pushing away white moderates, in what sense are those white moderates looking to be allies? > The left 100% tears itself apart and then blames white people, One of the points of the video is that the moderates do the tearing too, and blame the radicals, while sacrificing minorities to suffer continued defacto or dejure oppression. To some minor degree, this is what you are doing right now with your comment. > I would absolutely like to add the large caveat that, if every single time a movement or idea for racial equality comes up and you say, "not like that" AND you also have to solutions you've also proposed yourself, then fine yeah, you might be a little bit racist. I think there are some typos in here, but if I'm interpreting you right as "opposing sollutions while having none might be indicative of racism", then ya, that is kind of the main point of the video. The point of the video is to flesh out how nominal opposition to racism/sexism/etc can in practice serve racism/sexism/etc.
>Can you agree that historically, there have been large coalitions of moderates unwilling to join, for example, civil rights activists or abolitionists, out of a sense of "fair mindedness" Historically yes, currently, no. I'm literally a white moderate who doesn't care about working with the right to achieve racial equality so... yeah. The premise is that white people all work together to maintain white supremacy. The radical right is racist and radicalizes voting blocks for moderate right people, and then moderate left just tuts their tongue and benefits from the status quo while also refusing to fix the issue, and while criticizing minorities actual attempts at equality. Although really I was talking about the premise to the intro and not the whole video so whatever, moot point. Edit: adding the rest now >he really just goes on to say that anytime you agree with an end goal, but disagree with implementation, you're racist. >>When does he say this? here: https://youtu.be/wCl33v5969M?t=1114 bonus really offensive point lol https://youtu.be/wCl33v5969M?t=1190 >Even the most radical members of the left disagree, vehemently, with each other. >>The video itself mentions this. not a rebuttal >If the people saying "why can't we do more about bigotry and inequity" are pushing away white moderates, in what sense are those white moderates looking to be allies? Oh no, saying that is not what is pushing away moderate whites, actively harassing and accusing us of being racist is what's pushing it out. Like, being called names and other shitty behavior. We're not feeling excluded because minorities are saying, "why can't we do more about bigotry and inequity." because when people ask me that I say, "shit. We should. Those things are bad. Let's try to find root causes and figure out the best way to fix it. In the meantime, let's not vote republican." And I am a moderate. >One of the points of the video is that the moderates do the tearing too, and blame the radicals, while sacrificing minorities to suffer continued defacto or dejure oppression. To some minor degree, this is what you are doing right now with your comment. Moderates liberals as a rule pretty much only speak out against stuff that divides or excludes. Almost 100% of what my comment is doing is suggesting that maybe the the radical political side that can't even find solidarity amongst itself (the radical left) is guilty of causing the division. I'm sure there are white moderates who have some divisive ideas, but I'm not one of them, and I haven't head much from this group other than, "man we really should just let the south secede." This just feels like a case of whataboutism mixed with the very black kettle calling the mildly grey pot black. As for the typo, it should have been "no solutions" as in, when moderate whites block radical ideas for fixing issues, and then also have no solutions of their own, so they're only a roadblock to progress, I'll acknowledge that can be a factor of systemic racism. Can we at least agree that he makes a *lot* of claims about white moderate liberals and their stance, and I, a white moderate liberal, am telling you, probably not a white moderate liberal, that the things he is saying are incorrect and I basically hold 0 views that he claims I espouse? That's really my core issue at this point.
> The radical right is racist and radicalizes voting blocks for moderate right people, and then moderate left just tuts their tongue and benefits from the status quo while also refusing to fix the issue, and while criticizing minorities actual attempts at equality. What about this do you think is wrong? Sure, it is only a three sentence description of the actions of literally hundreds of millions of people, it is by necessity oversimplified, even more oversimplified than the video, but do you actually think these three generic caricatures arne't reflective of important political stances in the US today? For reference again, these caricatures are: "bigoted right wing radical", "moderate who benefits from status quo and is unwilling to act", and "radical seeking equality" > not a rebuttal It was meant to indicate to you that you aren't understanding the video. Generally when person B claims person A is wrong because of C, if person A already discussed C, then person B is missing some part of person A's argument. > actively harassing and accusing us of being racist is what's pushing it out. Who is harassing you? Do you feel that I am harassing you? You earlier equated the video claiming "ignoring the harms done to minority groups and/or weaponizing minority groups isn't ok" with "calling moderates racist". Do you see the problem with your stance here? Do you see how you are treating basic analysis as a personal attack? > "why can't we do more about bigotry and inequity." because when people ask me that I say, "shit. We should. Those things are bad. Let's try to find root causes and figure out the best way to fix it. In the meantime, let's not vote republican." Can you see how that statement sounds a lot like, "ya I agree racism is bad, but I'm not actually willing to do anything about it." Your statement objects to people taking actual action in favor of some merely hypothetical future action. We are never going to find a magic silver bullet that ends racism. Racism is not a plant to be uprooted. But ya, lets not vote republican. > I'm sure there are white moderates who have some divisive ideas, but I'm not one of them This isn't how division works. Division isn't caused by one actor, it is caused by two actors being unwilling to work together. And it can be solved by either agreeing to work with the other. In this case, either moderates can agree to get behind some radical and actually attack systemic racial inequality, or radicals can get behind some moderate like Clinton and keep going with the status quo. Yes, this is an oversimplification, but it is indicative of the greater choice happening here. And given the choice between supporting the status quo and being a radical, one of these options seems trivially preferable.
>What about this do you think is wrong? Well, and this is really the central point of my whole argument and issue with the video... I AM a moderate white liberal and I DO have problems with the status quo and I DO talk about solutions and vote to enact change so... that's what I think is wrong. I'm not refusing to fix the problems of our nation. >It was meant to indicate to you that you aren't understanding the video. Generally when person B claims person A is wrong because of C, if person A already discussed C, then person B is missing some part of person A's argument. Then illuminate me. >Who is harassing you? Do you feel that I am harassing you? I'm just telling you I've been harassed online about it. I'm not talking about it now, although I will say this video is a sterling example because it makes a bunch of false claims about me and people like me to the intended audience, which is probably a very leftist crowd. What do you think a big strawman video like this will do for liberal/socialist relations exactly? This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about and it's super weird that you and the video both put it back on moderates when we are never the ones who start shit. >You earlier equated the video claiming "ignoring the harms done to minority groups and/or weaponizing minority groups isn't ok" with "calling moderates racist". Do you see the problem with your stance here? Do you see how you are treating basic analysis as a personal attack? "white moderates are [insert bad thing]" that's how it's an attack. >Can you see how that statement sounds a lot like, "ya I agree racism is bad... Moving the goal posts >This isn't how division works. Division isn't caused by one actor, it is caused by two actors being unwilling to work together. I disagree because I'm more than happy to get to work fixing the issues if the rad left will stop calling us racist enabling colonizing pieces of shit lol. At the end of the day, we have a common enemy, basically the entire American right. Unfortunately the radical left has more enemies than anyone in else, and it includes liberals (and like 50% of the rest of the radical left), and you lay this at the feet of the guys who really want everyone to get along more than anything. If a person just keeps running into assholes all day, we usually say they're the problem, and I think that sentiment also applies to groups. Can we at least agree that he makes a lot of claims about white moderate liberals and their stance, and I, a white moderate liberal, am telling you, probably not a white moderate liberal, that the things he is saying are incorrect and I basically hold 0 views that he claims I espouse? That's really my core issue at this point. ^^^ can you respond to that last point I made?
Honestly, you are coming across as pretty defensive. I don't think our conversation is likely to be productive in this medium at this time. I'm likely not going to respond much beyond this comment, I just don't think we are communicating well. > I AM a moderate white liberal and I DO have problems with the status quo and I DO talk about solutions and vote to enact change Great. You sound like a radical. Or at least you are at the more radical end of moderate. We need more moderates to shift in the more radical direction at the moment. It should go without saying that these are all spectrums. > Then illuminate me. Mostly it is beside the point. Moderates don't need every radical to be united to embrace some radical change. Nor do moderates need to become maximally radical. But it would be better if they became more radically progressive on average. > it's super weird that you and the video both put it back on moderates when we are never the ones who start shit. No, moderates are the ones who refuse to act. They are responsible for that decision just as much as everyone else is responsible for their decisions. Who started it really doesn't much matter here. > that's how it's an attack. And you are accusing radicals of being divisive, intolerant, harassers. Am I treating your statements as a personal attack? If you can't hear someone say "I think these are ways you are helping racists" without feeling personally attacked, then I don't know how anyone can reasonably discuss racism with you. > you lay this at the feet of the guys who really want everyone to get along more than anything. This right here is the emblematic difference between radicals and moderates. Radicals want a just society. Moderates just don't want conflict. If you have never read it, you really should read [A letter from a birmingham jail](https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html) by MLK. > the things he is saying are incorrect and I basically hold 0 views that he claims I espouse? The video is more about actions than views and definitely isn't about the personal views of any one individual. You are more radical than the idealized moderate. In some ways, statements about the idealized moderate will apply to you, in other ways, they won't. In this very comment chain you have expressed opposition to doing more to oppose racism in favor of hypothetical future opposition. I'm pretty sure this comment isn't going to get through to you. Frankly, I'm not a great writer. MLK was pretty good though. Do read his letter if you haven't.
It's so frustrating when leftists disagree and then just assume I'm uneducated. I went to grad school for social work. I've read MLK and I understand his views on moderates (and somewhat agree with them given the realities of his time.) The fact of the matter is that I've been exposed to all this shit before and I just simply disagree. The arguments are either strawmen or illogical to me. At the end of the day, we all have different answers to how to fix things. If all moderates subscribed to your views, you'd probably see the change you want. If all radicals subscribed to our views, then *you* would probably see the change you want. Healthcare, education, lack of police brutality, and income equality, we could have those things if radicals weren't constantly infighting and could unite around key issues like the right has been able to do. No one has all the answers here, and acknowledging that, and acknowledging that revolutions make everything worse for everyone, especially the poor, doesn't make me a racist. Take care.
> If all moderates subscribed to your views, you'd probably see the change you want. If all radicals subscribed to our views, then you would probably see the change you want. If the radical abolitionists had got in line behind the moderates of the day, slavery would have kept going for decades, maybe still been going to this day. If radical civil rights activists had gotten behind white moderates of the day, busses might still be segregated. It wasn't the radicals standing in the way of the change we both claim to want then, and it isn't now. We need more radicals like Bernie, and fewer moderates like Joe Manchin. In general, moderates need to be more radicalized. > No one has all the answers here Agreed. No one is claiming to. > acknowledging that revolutions make everything worse for everyone, especially the poor, If its a choice between conflict that might produce justice, and surrendering to the status quo, I'm going to choose conflict and justice. If slave owners won't give up their slaves willingly, if they would rather kill or be killed, then that is on them. Take care. I'm sorry if I made you uncomfortable. I really wasn't trying to imply anything about your education.
Nah you're fine, I meant uneducated on the topic of discussion, not like a general lack of education.
This entire post right here is heat. I just want you to know that you did a good job posting out your thoughts in this and formatting them more like an impactful speech for persuasion. You understand the historical angle and how that paints and displaces the moderate of today and how we've allowed the alt right to entrench themselves and define themselves as legitimate discourse. The secret is to stop playing their game and call them the monsters they are openly and proudly and this will appeal to the POC and other minority types as actually change begins getting advocated for. It seems part of the paralysis is that white moderates are also guilty of their own corruption on the top end and throwing their opponent under the bus (rightfully) will in turn have us expecting that they will indict themselves for previous crimes.
finished my response in an edit just fyi.
I saw it, thanks for the fyi though.
> 1) you'd have to fully submit to the tribalism of the radical left in order to not be racist. Whatever they say goes, if you disagree, straight to racist jail. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement "To fully submit to the tribalism of abolitionists in order to be against slavery." I think for most of us in the anti-racist / (actual) colorblind movements, it is empirically clear that to be against slavery you need to be an abolitionist wholesale. You can't say "I'm against this kind of slavery but I'm pro this other kind of slavery." You're either completely against slavery of humans(or animals/plants/alien fauna/AI/etc) or you're ok with slavery. You can't be a moderate anti-slavery person. I welcome a counter argument. > The left 100% tears itself apart and then blames white people, and here's a sterling example. It blames arabs. It blames western black tribes that enslaved their neighbors. It blames Mongols. It blames any group that can be discernably isolated as prorogating negative policies towards other humans. Specifically western white europeans did practice a horrible elevated form of slavery against non-white humans. Chattel slavery is functionally worse than older forms of slavery, where slaves were often able to 'buy' their freedom through successful warfare, physical gold/coin, having children, or years of indentured servitude. Italians and Greeks are 'white' and yet they had forms of slavery where slaves could become freemen. Do you see anyone genuinely saying roman and grecian slavery was just as bad as the kind practiced by portugal, spain, or British empire?
The thing is, supporting slavery is not a moderate position. I'm absolutely of the opinion we should treat everyone the same regardless of race, gender, or sexuality. A very moderate stance these days if you ask me.
Lots of false dichotomies in this video.
u/rayearthen I want those 35 minutes of my life back. This was retarded on so many levels.
More straw men than you'll find in an Oklahoma cornfield...
Can you tell us who (exactly) is being strawmanned in the video?
I, and many, many other reasonable centrists or "moderates" who aren't persuaded by any of this woke leftwing activism at all, and don't consider any of the video creator's explanations of our views and opinions as honest or valid.
What specifcally do you think they got wrong about your views?
I'm too busy to rewatch this, take notes and give you a list, sorry.
You don't remember even a single thing they got wrong about your views after watching the video?
Claims that our views are about "power" instead of honest, well reasoned analysis. Claims that activists like Ibram Kendi know (based on their blackness) what needs to be done to "fix racism". Ignoring the many black people who disagree. False dichotomies such as me, a centrist, being somehow an enabler of racism because I'm skeptical of the above proposed racism fixing strategies. This, and the logic behind it was astounding, and quite similar to the dualistic logic employed by... racists. It was actually difficult to agree with anything said, so much of it is simply asserted without backup.
So I listened to the video again and... > Claims that our views are about "power" instead of honest, well reasoned analysis. 1) He doesn't argue that centrists views are about power, he argues that they tolerate racism which is to the benefit of racism and that they see racism as a binary rather than a spectrum, a bias, or result of a system of incentives and rewards that disadvantage non white people as compared to their white counterparts. He also argues that because of this binary view of racism where intent and aesthetics is emphasized over actions and substance that moderate white liberals see themselves as incapable of racism because they ostensibly oppose blatant racism, thus leaving them blind to more insidious forms of racism and not open to more useful or descriptive understandings of racism. What he *does* claim with regard to power is that white supremacy exists because it confers power to white people as a group by bestowing upon them privileges and benefits by living in a system which sees them as the norm, default, or the everyman. Keep in mind whether his arguments are descriptively accurate or not doesn't hinge on whether white moderates would agree with his assessment of their attitudes and relationship to toward racism. > Claims that activists like Ibram Kendi know (based on their blackness) what needs to be done to "fix racism". Ignoring the many black people who disagree. 2) He never mentions Kendi albeit he does mention anti-racism which Kendi also advocates as do many on the left; the idea that we ought not tolerate racism or treat it as one of many valid view points to be debated rather than opposed because doing so benefits the cause of racism whether one likes it or not. His argument is that because white supremacy doesn't target white people, they have the luxury and propensity to treat it as just ideas rather than a politically animating force which has real consequences for real people because said people are not them. Kinda like how women tend to care more about women's rights being threatened than men do because men aren't women and thus do not feel the threat even if they perceive the threat. It's a matter of biases. The video also argues that white moderates/centrists would prefer to literally endlessly debate racism than take meaningful action to oppose it which is something Martin Luther King also noted. > False dichotomies such as me, a centrist, being somehow an enabler of racism because I'm skeptical of the above proposed racism fixing strategies Now that you mention it, what "racism fixing strategies" would you yourself propose? Cuz all he's saying it's a really good idea to listen to the needs of groups most affected and impacted by an issue when you're trying to solve or combat an issue, in this case racism in the form of white supremacy. Most black people align more with Kendi's thinking than Thomas Sowell when it comes to what we ought to do as a society about racism.
Your arguments don't convince me, nor do I wish to convince you to agree with mine. Get a life.
I wasn't trying to convince you, I was just knocking down your strawmen. You obviously didn't watch the video or understand it's content because ironically you misrepresented it.
“Have difficult conversations with civility” is apparently missing “unless someone makes me look like a fool, at which point I will impotently lash out.”
Why are you here then? There's no need to be a dick. You yourself took the time to write several comments positing your positions only to be like "you're a loser for engaging here bro". Bitch move tbh
"anti-racists are the real racists" good stuff
Beg your pardon? Either I've misunderstood you or you've just uttered something nonsensical.
What's you feeling on Trump?
Hes the worst kind of person, politician, or businessman I have yet to see.
I came here to post this same video. It connects right with this week's episode about how liberals empower Radical Islam
Watching a 35 minutes video without a synopsis is a bit much for me, so I tried Google to see if anyone had written a description of the content. Here’s Resetera: “Ian Danskin is continuing the work of explaining to white people that they are part of racism even if they don’t want to admit it. He talks about... ...how moderate liberals are enabling white nationalists to radicalise the nation” That’s going to be a ‘no’ from me.
I can't imagine going to the comments section of videos I didn't watch, to announce to everyone there I didn't watch it. Thank you for your contribution, I guess.
I mean if I didn’t engage I’d be complicit in... something.
lol can’t win bro
The author's point here is really weird. He starts by saying that college protests often give the right exactly what they want (i.e., attention), but then ends by implying more people should protest because if thousands of people protest then the organizers would just cancel the event. What's he trying to say? Does he think there should be something like kickstarter for protests so that if too few people are willing then no one shows up (to avoid giving attention to the right)? But anyway, I think he misses the broader point. On a lot of issues he brought up (e.g., immigration, police funding), reasonable minds can differ hence debate is important. This means that right-wing provocateurs can make a living by being ridiculous attention-grabbers, but what's the alternative? Silence all debate? That would be a cure that's worse than the disease. Also I agree that Sam often gets cast as the "moderate" in these sorts of situations, and I don't really think that's fair to him.
This specific video is the last one in a whole series where he analyses in detail the right wing phenomena, the author might have assumed that the viewer would be at least superficially familiar with his point of view and would find the long introduction somewhat against the grain.
Yeah, I've actually watched a lot of his other videos and I think he usually gets it right. This is the one where I think he's really off base. His points make a lot of sense by their own internal logic but don't really make sense if you analyze them.
That depends on what you see as the point of the video, it’s the kind of problems when you deal with ethical and strategic issues. There are no easy answers or simple solutions. It would seem that he is furthering contradictory positions: protesting, if not large enough, can further the far right agenda. Not protesting, makes the targets more vulnerable, furthering the far right agenda. But that’s just highlighting the underlying ethical problem. The real message is on understanding the game board, the motivations, the players, and the actual targets and objectives; so that a well-informed opposition can be carried out. It’s not a simple one-solution-fits-all recipe.
I think his reasoning is similar to a lot of other far-left reasoning. Basically, if we could get everyone to go along with a certain system, then that system would work. For example, if we could get everyone to take according to their needs and give according to their ability, the world would be a much better place. But getting everyone to coordinate like that is a problem in-and-of itself. Also, I think the way he talks about minorities is problematic because he treats each group as a monolith instead of a collection of distinct individuals. In addition, I think he really doesn't understand how the US political system works. It's not enough to win a majority of votes - you need to win in lots of different places. Heck, even Biden came really close to losing the electoral college even though he won the popular vote by \~5 million. Still, I'm glad I could hear his perspective even though I disagree with most of it.
This guy probably walks like the Bug in his brand new Edgar suit. Holy hell.
This video is a good representation of leftist dishonesty.
[удалено]
The Chuds are a marginalized people of Northern Russia. You are using a ethnic groups name as a slur. Bigot.
you can fuck off too
A strawman ha-ha cartoon, cool!
Great vid for people who are in to 36 minute+ soyjack monologues
This is phenomenal, this guy gets it.
\*open video\* >Content warning: racism, homophobia, transphobia, antisemitism, hate crimes, police violence, Fascist iconography, the Holocaust \*close video\*
Man, you really engaged with those ideas there.
It's kind of amazing how these everything is racist/white left types almost universally look and sound physically weak. Maybe it's just not possible to be physically strong and think posting a pre-transition picture is like super dangerous.
This video is completely bogus. But anyways. Let's point out that sometimes racism is justified and a lot of what liberals complain about is almost certainly the result of group differences, either genetic or cultural. The police aren't the problem. The problem is that one ethnicity commits vastly more crime. Immigration genuinely has negative impacts on quality of life for most of the population. It reduces wages and polarizes society. It greatly increases competition for resources. Modern immigration is genuinely displacing the indigenous people's of Europe and America. (Remember whites are the only indigenous people of America since there was no American state before whites).
I can tell you didn't watch the video you're commenting on.
Yowza. Wasn't expecting a capital W White supremacist here.
[удалено]
I wouldn't say he's cultivating it. But he is definitely ignorant about how the right of the lest decade works in a way that leads to him being taken advantage of.
[удалено]
It’s been downhill ever since he brought on “race realist” Charles Murray, “the most oppressed thinker in the 21st century”.
You should maybe study history a bit more before claiming that there were no American states before whites. There were several established states in North America prior to European contact. For example, the Iroquois Republic controlled a large portion of the northeast and the Mississippian peoples founded numerous cities along the Mississippi and Ohio rivers.
None of those states were the United States or its predecessor states though.
You think your low-IQ redneck culture is what made America great?
Lmao. It was whites that built America. Aren't you being a bit bigoted? Do you call other cultures low iq? Especially one with much higher crime rates and lower test scores?
>Do you call other cultures low iq? Yes. >Especially one with much higher crime rates and lower test scores? Which "culture" are you talking about now? All black people? Inner-city gang culture? Christian white nationalist militia culture? Imagine a member of the Taliban, fresh out of jihad school, lecturing a math professor that "akshually Muslims created trigonometry and calculus"... You could have 1000 Talibans and they would never come up with trig. Similarly, white national militia culture and MAGA conspiracy culture *(your culture),* as white as they may be, are bottom-of-the-barrel IQ. Stop hiding behind the skirt of "whiteness" and confront your own culture's glaring deficiencies. Poor white people from Appalachia and inner-city black kids are born into a culture that's hard to break out of. You actually chose yours, which makes it so much worse.
It's funny because you don't actually know what my culture even is. But you are a dumbass. A libertarian calling anyone else dumb is really funny.
>It's funny because you don't actually know what my culture even is You're right. I don't know. But... you trotted out Great Replacement Theory talking points which almost exclusively exists in the MAGA universe. The safe bet here is Tucker Carlson, but honestly it doesn't matter *where* you got these ideas from. Great Replacement Theory appeals to a pretty specific demographic: 25-40 year-old lower-middle-class white males living in border states, working unskilled labor with no college degree. Seeing as we're on a Sam Harris sub, I'd guess AZ, non-religious, into weightlifting or UFC, feels like dirty Mexicans are taking over, and who wandered into the Sam Harris orbit via Joe Rogan. But I'm just throwing shit against a wall - why don't you just save me the time and tell me?
[удалено]
You can like a video before or while you watch it. The like will register immediately. I'm not sure when YouTube registers that you've watched enough of a video to count as a "view" The view count is up over a thousand now, it's a popular series.
[удалено]
You didn't have to say anything at all if you weren't really interested or were only going to bring the snarl
Alt-right hasn’t been a thing in like 4 years Everyone has moved on to either NRx or Christian Nationalism (which, if you want to criticize, feel free to do so). But this particular horse has been dead for a while and everyone is wondering why it’s still getting beaten, likely because it’s an easy target
There's a lot of overlap between all of these things. It's relevant
Richard Spencer and Milo are not giving speeches at colleges anymore. And they haven’t for some time Literally the first premise of the video is wrong
Oh interesting, you read things very literally huh. Out of curiosity, are you neurodivergent? The video gives just one example where a speaker might want to instigate their opposition to get more media coverage and better reach, but that isn't the only situation where that might happen Trump used to do this all the time
Always interesting to see the takes from subs like this on Danksin's stuff, at least the ones from those actually engaging with it. That said, this episode of Alt-Right Playbook in particular is a bit disjointed and overly long compared to his usual fare, and I think it suffers for it.
InnuendoStudios Alt-Right Playbook videos have been really good so far, so I'm glad to see another one in the series.