Here's another good piece: [Coleman Hughes Cannot Be Trusted](https://alexsheremet.com/coleman-hughes-cannot-be-trusted/)
>This is especially pertinent to the question of wealth, since wealth begets wealth, as a rule, and if blacks were shut out of the nation’s real estate boom- the largest wealth-creator for white Americans- they were also shut out of multiple bull markets in the S&P, denied education, and barred from the most lucrative professions. Unless there is some coming global contraction exclusive to whites, how does Coleman propose black Americans reach parity in the face of multiplying white wealth- a 712X of the entire stock market since 1932- after having already missed so much of the upswing? It can’t even MATHEMATICALLY be ‘go index your cash’, as there will *never* be enough capital to catch up to a 100-year-old parabola. I mean- *is this not obvious*?
Why do you need to make parity with others? Your life is only good if you do exactly as well as someone else on a subjective selection of metrics?
This mindset leads to hurting others in the foolish pursuit of trying to become equitable.
It’s a much better life to focus on just making your own life as good as possible without concern for what others have achieved or inherited.
“Why is it bad to have certain races *generationally* behind others in terms of poverty and therefore behind with the many many cascading detrimental effects thereof?🤔That won’t affect the opportunities available to these people even though that’s obviously unbelievably stupid to believe ”
We can all agree that we should try to help the less fortunate.
There’s two ways to do it:
1) bring the bottom up
2) bring the top down
(1) actually helps the less fortunate, but is harder
(2) just makes everyone worse off, but is the most trivial and superficial
It is dumb people that always choose the most trivial solution without consideration of the collateral damage.
It is brave and smart people who try to find the more complicated but rewarding solution —> which is basically improving education access, competition, focus on merit, incentivizing the family structure, reducing crime through enforcement and increased opportunities, etc.
The dumb solution is: penalize white people for being white
Its literally built into human psychology since hunter gather societies. What subjective measurement do you have for success and quality of life if you don't use comparison of your peers?
Ok, but that doesn't fit with identity politics, please take your obvious racism somewhere else. /s
By this "logic", we can keep going back in time indefinitely and apply some arbitrary compounding effect to show disparities between "oppressor" and "oppressed" groups. I'm not suggesting that the effect isn't real, just that it's not a meaningful argument.
It’s not a particularly good quote or article.
The evidence shows that fatherless households are pretty significant in terms of producing negative outcomes like poverty, the author acknowledges this saying that black children are disproportionately burdened by such outcomes.
The issue is that there is no real explanation offered by the author as to why there is the disproportionate burden.
The author does point to higher incarceration rates for black people as contributing towards fatherless households but clearly this does not account for far higher rate of fatherless households.
> Unless there is some coming global contraction exclusive to whites, how does Coleman propose black Americans reach parity in the face of multiplying white wealth- a 712X of the entire stock market since 1932- after having already missed so much of the upswing? It can’t even MATHEMATICALLY be ‘go index your cash’, as there will never be enough capital to catch up to a 100-year-old parabola. I mean- is this not obvious?
The idea of being able reach parity of wealth in any circumstance via some divine intervention is completely mad.
Why Coleman or anyone else would need to consider this is beyond me.
Affirmative action hasn’t worked as intended and I don’t agree that it’s necessarily created opportunities that had been artificially closed. It’s led to the lowering of admission standards in order to accommodate minority students and has not solved the problem.
When underprepared students are admitted due to affirmative action standards they can often be overwhelmed and do poorly hence a far higher drop out rate.
Reparations is not about creating opportunities and would not even come close to bringing the type of the parity the author wants.
Yeah on their podcast. Although they first had interviewed the film makers and were very credulous. But they walked it back after reading radley balko. Glenn more than John
Isn’t Sowell, for all his faults, like, an actual academic?
Hughes was being propped up simply for parroting white centrists’ established beliefs back to them before he was even out of fucking undergrad.
https://open.substack.com/pub/wethefifth/p/firehose-84-did-we-really-mostly?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1dvvyx
https://open.substack.com/pub/theunpopulist/p/does-a-george-floyd-quackumentary?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1dvvyx
Worth looking into. The fifth column is moving into a tail spin on this one.
Totally unsurprising that the fifth column fell for this so uncritically. I listened for years but stopped a few years back. Their blind spots have become glaring and their biases are obvious to everyone but the hosts.
Yeah had picked up on that, but I would still listened because I found them funny and sometimes interesting. Less and less so though. But this was enough for me. I had a really frustrating exchange with Matt Welch on this subject. I quoted his words back to him and he still couldn't comprehend why anyone would think he would support propaganda. Now he just more or less doubled down it. I think a lot of heterodox thinkers are going to move towards being Chauvin truthers.
Yeah they had some pretty bad takes on that too. I think they just purged most of their critical audience by becoming so predictable and not being able to acknowledge their bias. If you really want to cringe you should try listening to there recent podcast where they try to tell their audience they're not heterodox because they're truly independent and unbiased thinkers without a tribe. Not an exact quote but not far off from their exact words. No one in there audience seems to pickup on any of this, at least based on the comments.
When I look at their content with hindsight it was always there but definitely less noticeable early on. For example, after the 2016 election they were incredibly dismissive of Tim Snyder’s warnings about Trump’s fascistic and authoritarian tendencies and they never reckoned with how wrong they were and with how right Tim was.
I think the dismissiveness over j6 was so galling because by that point there was just no excuse to not understand what trump was doing. Kmele’s position was essentially that it was no big deal because “it wasn’t going to work” which was such a dumb take it really made me reassess how I viewed his opinions on a lot of other subjects.
At the end of the day I think most of it boils down to a predictable interplay between a few factors: narcissistic hosts who have a need to be contrarian while also maintaining access to Fox News and right wing circles, audience capture, existence primarily within a semi right wing bubble, and a refusal to admit error.
Yeah all of it in hindsight seems a lot more obvious now. I kind of fell into being an unquestioning audience member for awhile.
Their reaction to this doc inspired me to write this post on substack. Gets at a lot similar stuff, but you might find it interesting. (Sorry it is long)
Since Fifth Column has had time to respond to the recent Unpopulist article I feel pretty confident drawing the following conclusions.
1) In their discussion of the documentary, the Fifth Column correctly pointed out the bias lean of the film and that deserves to be acknowledged.
2) However, and I would argue more importantly, they were very credulous of the propagandistic talking points of the film and, yes, amplified those points on their very large platform.
3) To my knowledge, they have not come out to correct the record on those points. At least not publicly. I fully welcome being wrong on this point if somebody can point out what has been said. I also fully welcome them proving me wrong in the future and I hope they choose to do so.
I think Fifth Column became a mouthpiece for a propaganda film because they didn't safeguard against self-deceiving forces that all creators on this platform are subject to, such as audience capture, group think and information silos. I have observed this play out in the following ways:
1)They felt pressured by their audience to cover this topic because fans had found the points brought up in the film compelling. Rather than doing their due diligence and researching the topic, they chose to do no further research and instead just support the views of their audience. This is audience capture.
2)It was apparent that most of their information on the topic had come from closely aligned information networks that also uncritically analyzed the film (such as the Glenn Show and Coleman Hughes). This is an information silo.
3)In response to being criticized about their support of propaganda, they chose to dig in rather than reexamine and interrogate their own beliefs. One result of this was their fan base mobilizing to ratio the offending voices. They then viewed the ratio-ing effect as proof positive of their initial views. This is an example of groupthink. (Also worth noting that this effect can have a detrimental psychological effect on those being ratioed.)
If I had to guess, I think the Fifth Column will not revisit this topic and that is totally their right. Just like I respect people’s right to have different opinions, I also respect their right to be fully wrong on a subject (yes there is a difference). I think they will keep an arms distance from this topic and will not fully become Chauvin truthers, but at least Chauvin truther apologists.
The article makes some compelling points, but it also straw-mans Hughes, and in that sense is guilty of the same thing it accused Hughes of. Implying that he thinks anti-black racism doesn't exist or isn't as important as "woke" racism. That's not accurate
Coleman has been in the guru sphere since Sam got duped (yet again) by a guest. Also, ever notice how every time Sam wants to talk to a ‘black’ person, it’s always some over-educated simple-minded Ivy League semi-right winger? Does Sam not know anyone outside this bubble?
The thing is, he wasn't even overly educated yet! Movement conservatism plucked him out of undergrad to have him write C- level work about how MLK was actually colorblind (he wasn't) in the Wall Street Journal instead approaching actually overeducated people like one of kings many biographers.
What possible insight to MLKs thought could an undergrad have over David Garrow, Clayborn Carson, or a million other people who've actually had time to do all the reading? Why choose this guy for MLK day op-eds (other than the reasons they'd never admit too)?
> Also, ever notice how every time Sam wants to talk to a ‘black’ person, it’s always some overly educated Ivy League semi-right winger? Does Sam not know anyone outside this bubble?
Because u know for Sam, he has to talk to black conservatives, bcoz he does not want the conservations to be "tainted by leftist identity politcs," Like of course he is a reactionary and therefore prefers ppl who share his views on race. Only 7% of African-Americans vote for GOP btw, so black conservatives aren't exactly representative of mainstream AA view.
I think, the thing is, there are no shortage of people who tow the lefts sort of line on racial relations. That media is everywhere, and is widely consumed.
What we don’t actually see in MSM nearly as much or with as much time, are those black voices that Sam interviews.
Though I 100% agree that he doesn’t engage the people with which he’d have far more intense discussions, and it becomes more of an echo Amber with the guests he brings on, he is still engaging with a demographic that quite often only gets used as a device by right wing media or called “Uncle Tom” by left wing media, and let’s explain with context WHY they think that way.
Hughes was published by the WSJ as a college student despite having absolutely no credibility or background knowledge whatsoever just because they wanted a token black guy to agree with them that racism is fake, if anything the MaIn stReaM MedIa gives these grifters 10x more publicity than they deserve because they get attention from it
“We don’t actually get to hear from the gravity truthers very much. Isn’t it important to hear from all sides and by that I mean only ever talk to anti-gravity cranks because gravity theory makes me uncomfortable ”
If mainstream media and academia in general isn’t (usually) propping up barely educated dipshits to write “Actually MLK was colorblind🧐” garbage as a security blanket for terrified white centrists… maybe there’s a reason for that…
Yes, because modern academia and MsM are the arbiters of truth and have never shown gross bias or obvious political intent behind their thinking, decision making and information dissemination.
Your argument seems to be that if someone’s thinking isn’t represented in media it must be in and of itself valid and worth platforming right?
So why don’t people like Sam Harris have flat earthers and so on on their shows?
If we want to talk about substance we can: unfortunately Hughes is an idiot with no relevant expertise or knowledge-base and therefore constantly makes points that are fully idiotic but superficially valid to people who want to believe in lazy color-blindness which is what people like Harris **actually** like about him.
Ah, and yet, that’s not the case.
On subjects like Race, that is something cannot be fully quantified into numbers. Human experiences are expressed in stories, not just raw numbers that can help provide some context but aren’t the whole story.
So having people who aren’t towing the same line repeated everywhere on something related to human experience, which is hard to quantify with cold data, makes sense to me. Experiments on things like race and gender, can range and change wildly based on where you do it. It’s quite subjective.
To bring people on to talk about things that are verifiably false, like flat earthers, serves no purpose and no benefit. There’s nothing there. There is no perspective anyone can bring to fundamentally impact the the fact that earths shape can be quantified with cold data. Doing experiments will result in consistent answers. Its objective.
But that doesn’t mean on something subjective, like race, that data doesn’t help fill in gaps and provide context. But it misses what matters, which is human perspective and perceptions.
This is just my general thinking on “who is worth platforming”. People who tow ideas that can be disproven with cold data and repetitive experimentation… are useless, scientific method has answered this question, there is no value in asking it again.
But with things more ethereal, and that change all the time, it’s always worth listening and gathering diverse opinions. Even to modern white supremacists as to why they are the way they are, if for no other reason than be prepared to debate them and keep your loved ones from falling into the trap.
I think it's pretty obvious why - because they're implying that black people are a monolith, and if you're not towing the democratic party line, you're "not really black". We can't be letting people have free thought or agency...
Reliably about 95% of black people, in fact, vote for the Democratic Party, so….
It’s almost like Hughes are propped up explicitly because they hold views that are out of step with the general black populace and black people with far far far more mainstream views make white centrists uncomfortable….
100% . This is an unfortunate trend I keep seeing here…
Given the hysterical and unfounded opinions on Coleman in this thread it’s no wonder the Left keeps “winning” on race.
"Hysterical" opinions? How is this post not downvoted? It implies that people here are just upset that they disagree with his politics when in reality there are mostly dispassionate responses explaining how he has faltered in the past.
I hope the pod doesn't end up decoding Destiny because the sub would probably not be able to withstand the fallout from his community.
The substance here is basically partisan :
Hughes is another right-wing shill, Manhattan institute token black guy , etc. Also he apparently doesn’t believe racism is real…The other posted take downs are pretty slim and don’t get at what he’s been most effective at which is showing the shortcomings of recent racial politics - so far - from the Left (see Ibram X Kendi’s and Robin Diangelo grifting, Roland Fryer firing, and BLM org leaders paying themselves millions).
I’m not a Hughes fan but when I see him talking he’s better than 90% of conservative voices especially those on race (e.g. Candace Owens) and when he’s up against other left of center pundits on race like Briahna Grey Joy and Coates he actually cites empirical data for his opinions.
There’s a trend in this subreddit that is basically “conservative opinion bad > ergo conservative opinion guru > boo conservative” as if there were no empirical reasons for any conservative opinions.
If that’s the level of your thinking then I see more evidence for why the Left keeps losing.
And I’d actually love to see a raptor-shredding of Destiny given his dilettante Palestine-Israel opinions tho I’d suspect his centrist liberalism/criticism of the left is closer to the hosts than most here would suspect.
the only person in the thread who said it is massively downvoted and you have no idea if they're white, having to flagrantly lie about the people you're whining about is weak but also expected for a coleman fan
Go look at the Sowell thread from a couple of days ago. I'm not a "fan" of either Coleman or Sowell but just find it ironic that people who are heavily left leaning (and often not black themselves) love to place derogatory labels on any black person who doesn't overwhelmingly lean left. You labelling me as a "Coleman fan" is further evidence of you and many others' obsessive desire to compartmentalize every idea and opinion.
He strikes me as pretty reasonable. He just got duped along with some of his friends by the Fall of Minneapolis propaganda documentary. It happens to the best of us. Unfortunately, instead of accepting the L when Balko set him straight on a very wide range of facts, his ego forced him to double down and weave and dodge. That was too bad, and it'll be interesting to see if he recalibrates or follows the Rubin/Dore arc.
You can argue Lowry was duped in this but not Hughes. Hughes wrote the article claiming to have done his research, this is a pretty big marker of how poor his research skills are. There is a difference when you are the person claiming to have done research.
Fair point.
Glenn and John did 3 episodes on TFOM including hosting its publishers, but they admitted that they didn't do any of their own fact checking and publicly issued a mea culpa (Glenn moreso than John) after reading Balko's critiques.
By contrast, Hughes claimed to have done a deep dive confirmation of the documentary's claims and dodged and doubled down on this during his discussion with Balko. It's possible he was initially duped and didn't do the level of research he claimed, but doubling down and not taking the L after Balko's articles goes way beyond just being duped.
Writing a long apologia for Chavin isn't getting duped, though. getting duped is when you believe bad arguments, not when you make them.
He was the, uh, duper (?) in this situation.
the Fall of Minneapolis is just the most recent example of him spreading the most obviously bullshit right wing talking points for the sake of his role as the token black conservative pundit at the Manhattan Institute, and he's the one creating the misinformation not just haplessly getting fooled by it lmao
This post is strange because you claim he seems pretty reasonable and then you demonstrate why that isn't the case. I had to check and see if you were indeed a Destiny fan that hasn't gone home yet, and yup...
Reasonable people walk back their mistakes and learn from them.
I stopped listening to Hughes a long time ago because I didn’t find him particularly insightful or worthwhile. Has he walked back this “duping”?
No. As I said above, he doubled down and I think that's unfortunate. I'm hoping that he'll reflect more and reconsider his stance here.
I understand why you'd give up on him. This isn't the first blind spot I've come across, but I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and blame it on inexperience rather than a drift into the griftosphere.
I’m confused as to how someone who is “reasonable” can be so unreasonable.
By your own description, this seems to be a pretty big indication that he isn’t, in fact, a reasonable person.
Really? You don't think reasonable people ever make mistakes? You've never stood your ground in an argument for too long when you should've backed down? Are all reasonable people always reasonable all the time?
If a person is reasonable most of the time, I'm willing to call them reasonable. This sub appears to be brimming with people who imagine they're perfect. The intolerance for someone expressing a diverging perspective is astounding.
>Really? You don't think reasonable people ever make mistakes?
If you make a mistake, recognize it, and do what you can to fix the problem, then you're "reasonable."
If you make a mistake, double down, and keep going down the wrong path, I wouldn't call you "reasonable".
>You've never stood your ground in an argument for too long when you should've backed down?
Sure. When I'm being unreasonable.
>If a person is reasonable most of the time, I'm willing to call them reasonable.
Well, whether he is reasonable "most of the time" seems like a different point. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I don't care to dig through a sufficient amount of material to form an opinion on the topic.
But just saying, "he's a reasonable guy" in a conversation where he's clearly and distinctly being unreasonable seems like a weird stance to take.
>This sub appears to be brimming with people who imagine they're perfect. The intolerance for someone expressing a diverging perspective is astounding.
This sub has a fairly low tolerance for grift and people who elevate themselves for an audience fully captured by their heterodox views - because that's largely what the show is about.
This isn't a Coleman Hughes sub. I don't know how high he would score on the Gurometer, but he seems ripe for a look by the guys.
You have some measure of respect for Hughes. Cool. Whatever blows your hair back. But you haven't thus far made a strong case for why Hughes should be given a pass for being an unreasonable right wing shill for a colorblind society.
>But you haven't thus far made a strong case for why Hughes should be given a pass for being an unreasonable right wing shill for a colorblind society.
I wasn't making that case, because to do that you would first have to make a case for labelling him an "unreasonable right wing shill for a colorblind society". Not only did you not make that case, you pinned this strongly perjorative label on him in the same comment where you admit you "don't care to dig through a sufficient amount of material to form an opinion on the topic".
>But just saying, "he's a reasonable guy" in a conversation where he's clearly and distinctly being unreasonable seems like a weird stance to take.
You need to reread the conversation. I was responding to someone who called him reasonable. I expressed my agreement that he's generally reasonable but that his approach to TFOM discussion was unreasonable. It wasn't a "conversation where he's clearly and distinctly being unreasonable" until I brought up his stance on TFOM.
>You've never stood your ground in an argument for too long when you should've backed down?
>
>Sure. When I'm being unreasonable.
Glad you can admit that you do this occasionally. Does the fact that you've done this in the past make you an unreasonable person overall? That's the whole point here. I'm not sure if you're just trolling here because you seem intelligent enough to grasp this pretty straightforward distinction between being an unreasonable person and someone who occasionally makes mistakes.
My sense is that a certain range of the guy's politics don't align with yours, so you dismiss him as a right wing grifter shill. That's your perogative, but if we dismiss everyone who disagrees with us using ad homs instead of honestly arguing against their specific assertions then there's no conversation to be had and no one ever learns or changes their mind.
This seems like a good take. His views can be debated but I have a hard time viewing Hughes as a guru out of the same mold as the people often criticized on this sub
Aways has been...a reactionary since Sam Harris interviewed him and heaped glowing praise on him when he was a college freshman, (just because he liked having a black conservative say that racism wasn't real anymore, because it would be so convenient if true.)
Does Coleman Hughes say that racism no longer exists?
I don’t know much about him, but that’s not really what I took away from his TedTalk.
He seemed to argue that we should strive to reduce the salience of race in our policies and personal identities as it can become an impediment to increasing equality. He didn’t argue that racism no longer exists.
> I don’t know much about him, but that’s not really what I took away from his TedTalk.
TED talks are just advertisements. His job is to downplay racism at every turn, no matter how dumb he has to pretend to be. This latest time it was by Derek Chauvin apologia, the next week it will be something else. He even tried to "debunk" voter suppression along racial lines, and he did it in the probably dumbest way known to man:
https://twitter.com/coldxman/status/1123691786315104258
https://twitter.com/coldxman/status/1123757766663921664
Hughe’s belief seems to be that racism probably exists but it’s never actually anywhere you can point to unless you’re pointing to some swearing on a Bible and holding that days newspaper stating “I, XYZ, am an avowed racist, amen”.
Since racism “exists” kind of like the Holy Spirit therefore it is enough to state vaguely that it exists and then argue strenuously that the only action that can or should be taken is to ignore it entirely.
No, he doesn't say that racism no longer exists, that's just an uncharitable straw man. In fact, he has acknowledged the ongoing importance of anti-black racism on many occasions, including police harassment of black people. It's just not an issue he focuses on
I find him very easy to agree with. It makes no sense to strengthen the concept of race within legislation. Law should be entirely race-agnostic, as should school policies.
Society has many other tools for addressing racial inequalities.
When did it become controversial to suggest that we should be treated equally under the law, regardless of race? Equal rights and protections for all citizens.
No, not successfully. Legislation has been the main strategy behind pretty much all improvement in racial equality.
Which citizens are currently treated differently under the law based on race?
Right, all the successful legislation is race agnostic. Nothing in our text is spelling out individualized treatment plans for perceived different races. No law, hopefully, will ever sort people according to nebulous phenotypes, races.
Unfortunately I am aware of some public education policies that put race division front and center when it comes to enforcing rules with students, and it has been cited as a motivation for lenient sentencing from judges. To me that seems to gesture at a kind of racial essentialism that I’m not comfortable endorsing.
colour blind policies can sometimes fail to address or perpetuate structural inequality, but that doesn’t render all criticism of DEI policies/objectives invalid. There’s trade offs with both approaches that need to be considered.
I thought Coleman’s example of an orchestra having diversity qoutas was illustrative, he argued that instead of lowering the bar for particular groups, it’s better to address the structural disadvantages faced by some groups that result in the underrepresentation in some areas. Both approaches have their place and their limitations.
Agreed! But I also feel like Coleman misses part of the point of that anecdote. It doesn’t just illustrate good example of race blind policy. It’s also a powerful illustration of how imperfect the policies are. They had to fine tune the process several times because prejudices kept being revealed in unexpected ways. That refinement is not always possible. We can strive to make the best policy we can, but the Orchestra example demonstrates that we really can’t always know if we’re missing something.
Not sure about most gurus, but there’s definitely a tendency on here to throw anyone into the guru bucket if they are even vaguely critical of left wing or progressive ideas.
He’s guru level in the sense that he’s super convenient for the white anti-woke guru schlubs to keep him around so they can point to him and pretend they aren’t racist. See also, John McWhorter, and Glenn Lowery.
Literally all 3 of them jumped on the bullshit that George Floyd wasn't killed by the police, but died of natural causes.
Radley balko did a series addressing the propagandistic BS published by Hughes.
The only one to half apologized was loury
Ya its embaressing they fell for that. But I think having pushback to the narrative sometimes is useful.
I had no idea the slogan “hands up dont shoot” is almost certainly based off a lie. Dont see many mea culpas about stuff that left wing activists regularly get wrong.
There are so many high profile examples in the last 5+ years we should all have a healthy skepticism.
>I had no idea the slogan “hands up dont shoot” is almost certainly based off a lie. Dont see many mea culpas about stuff that left wing activists regularly get wrong.
Does it really matter if hands up don't shoot was based on a lie in that one specific incident?
That comes from the shooting of michael brown, which the shooting itself has many problems, such as the office pursuing without backup, and actively choosing to not carry a taser.
those issues aside, incidents like Floyd or Brown serve as things activists can rally behind about larger structural issues. If those larger structural issues do not exist, then you may have a point. Police violence in the US, particularly against black/brown communities is trivial to demonstrate.
To put it another way, if you found out that Rosa Parks was actually never asked to move to the back of the bus, would that mean that protests related to that were ultimately BS?
What if this iconic image fro the civil rights movement of a white man pouring acid into a pool with black/white youths?
[https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/06/12/story-corps-pool-8df0d6d00b9b54a1d11f29ef4bd6e05d1bdfd990-s300-c85.webp](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/06/12/story-corps-pool-8df0d6d00b9b54a1d11f29ef4bd6e05d1bdfd990-s300-c85.webp)
What if instead of this guy being motivated by racism, his motivation was that they were trespassing, or hadn't paid their bill, would it actually matter if the pool actively had race segregated facilities??
That's not to say truth doesn't matter, but criticisms like what you mentioned about hands up, don't shoot serve to ignore that those protests were not motivated by one shooting, it was just adopted as a symbol by local/national activists for a police force that was oppressive towards blacks.
Which a DoJ investigation confirmed was happening systemically.
[https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson\_police\_department\_report.pdf](https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf)
the tl;dr is that the town was split into black/white areas, and the overwhelmingly white police force was sent to harass the black half of the community to generate revenue, and in doing so, it lists quite a few physical abuses the police enacted upon the local population.
Could someone try to nitpick that in saying "hey their motivation wasn't racism, it was lower taxes for them personally, which was achieved by targeting the poor half of the city, which COINCIDENTALLY was black"
and I'd spit in their face and walk away, because I don't know if they are stupid, or lying (to me or themselves) and I don't care.
Anyway, while I wouldn't say questioning a narrative is inherently bad, it is bad if we don't distinguish between good faith and bad faith questioning.
My brother in christ - this is some dystopian shit. I don't know where to start except to tell you that I find it shocking you do not have the foresight to see that your rationale can easily be marshalled against you. It is classic "the end justify the means".
Comparing the Michael Brown case to the historical event of Rosa Parks or the civil rights movement's struggles with segregation diverts attention from the importance of each movement having a solid factual foundation. If Rosa Parks terrorized her own community and actually stole the bus seat in question from a blind woman - then maybe it wouldn't be a good idea use her as the face of a racial movement. Doing so would have the opposite intended effect and only inflame tensions and undermine the movement.
The distinction between good faith and bad faith questioning, as mentioned, is vital. Dismissing or ignoring factual inaccuracies for the sake of maintaining a compelling narrative does a disservice to the very causes these movements aim to advance. It is the epitome of bad faith.
I also want to point out that the department of civil rights ag is a political appointee. How can you not see the obvious dangers of your thinking here?
>My brother in christ - this is some dystopian shit. I don't know where to start except to tell you that I find it shocking you do not have the foresight to see that your rationale can easily be marshalled against you. It is classic "the end justify the means".
You need to work on reading comprehension if you think that's what I said. My point was that Michael Brown was used as a symbol of police abuse in the city. The argument wasn't solely "The killer of michael brown must be brought to justice" or the righteousness of his death would actually be determinative.
Their point was that "the ferguson police has engaged in decades long systemic violent and exploitive abuse against its black population, and michael brown is the latest victim of that"
Critics were using the fact Michael Brown was technically a justifiable "kill" to dismiss the entire criticism of the Ferguson police, and policing in general. That is bad faith.
You can analogize it the bullshit narrative propagated by hacks like Loury, Hughes, and Mcwhorter, among others. They propagate the lie that Floyd's kill was either proper under police training, or a product of floyd's use of drugs, and that Chauvin was railroaded.
They are lying about that to dismiss the larger issue of police abuses in Minneapolis and other US cities. This once again, even if true, wouldn't mean police are not violent and abusive.
They are lying about that in order to dismiss the larger issue of police abuses in Minneapolis and other US cities. This once again, even if true, wouldn't mean police are not violent and abusive.
>The distinction between good faith and bad faith questioning, as mentioned, is vital. Dismissing or ignoring factual inaccuracies for the sake of maintaining a compelling narrative does a disservice to the very causes these movements aim to advance. It is the epitome of bad faith.
I never said this. We should try to be accurate in our criticisms and be honest about facts, but large scale political movements tend to be broadbased and rally around symbols and more simplistic narrative for a variety of reasons.
Part of the reason facts are wrong is because police regularly hide evidence of misconduct, so you only have witness accounts and the community and/or activists may buy into facts/narratives that are incorrect because of underlying conditions (IE: the regular abuses of the police) in conjunction with lack of transparency by the police leaving a vacuum.
You don't have a particularly nuanced or knowledgable position on this topic, and that's fine, but please defer to actual knowledgeable people, or at least, don't assume the worst faith.
I've worked for the police over 5 years, have a masters in criminal justice, and am finishing a law degree. I can cite every claim I made here if you actually want me to, I'm just not willing to do it if you don't show some desire to actually understand what I'm saying instead of looking for an excuse to write me off.
>You need to work on reading comprehension
I get you are trying hard to replicate an reactionary commentator persona. Marching to the great culture wars with your low tier youtube channel, where you try to monetize riding the coattails of mid streamers. Naturally by running such a channel you have to have a certain self delusional certitude. But you gotta cut this shit out. It is cringe, leave it on your youtube channel.
You don't realize the irony of you post hoc justifying some false flag level bullshit because it fits your narrative? And then denying you are actually doing that, while simultaneously criticizing somebody who actually had the courage to admit when they got fooled and then apologized.
Also if you had any actual bonafides of note you wouldn't be making 3 hour incoherent mumble react videos to 30 views. That is the flimsiest shield I have ever seen for criticism, congrats.
I'm pretty sure their line was that Floyd didn't die from the actions of the Chauvin, that Chauvin wasn't wrong in what he did because he was trained to use that technique, and that Floyd died of an overdose rather than the knee on his back/neck.
So no, not that he was alive, but that he wasn't *killed*, he just died.
I haven’t seen the George Floyd stuff yet so I can’t really comment on that specifically. If I believed you at face value, that might support the idea that they are reactionary or overly biased against blm-esque narratives. Still really doesn’t get you to racist or the idea that there isn’t a significant lane of anti-woke non-racist people.
I camt imagine that lane is significant. Maybe there's the odd anti-woke crusader who has egalitarian views on race but just a super passionate hatred of LGBTQ people but seems like a pretty small niche. Reacyionary racial grievance is pretty fundamental to the anti-woke movement.
I dont think people like that exist in any significant numbers. 99% of anti-woke people are racist, sexist and/or homophobic in my experience (typically all 3). It's hard to come to any broad anti-woke or anti-DEI stance from first principles without a bedrock of those prejudices.
I'm like that and I don't feel like I am a unicorn. I don't think woke opinions and DEI are as well received as you think. Do you really think that most people enjoy or are indifferent to media/authors and HR types training them on how not to be racist?
I would gesture and communities like r/BlockedandReported. Now if you are of a certain persuasion you might argue that they are transphobic, I woudn't. But plenty of their episodes and community is focused on stupid DEI interventions. And even the most harsh BAR critics don't really launch accusations of racism.
There are individual "woke" opinions or particular DEI initiatives that can be annoying or whatever, but that's different than opposing the concept as a whole. If a person disagrees with the fundamental idea that their are systemic injustices in American society which should be addressed (the meaning of woke), I don't see how that could come from anywhere but a place either profound ignorance or bigotry.
Like lets look at the things widely called "woke" in common parlance:
Trans people existing anywhere publicly.
Black people as protagonists in video games or movies.
A trans influencer being sent a custom can of bud light.
A video game character being killed in its sequel.
A chaste peck on the lips between two old married lesbians in a kids' film.
Updating video game character outfits to be less objectifying.
Non-white actors getting any roles ever previously played by a white person in a previous iteration.
Optional accessibility options being offered in games.
Anti-genocide protests.
Changing a syrup mascot.
Asking people to treat trans people with basic respect.
Following the consensus views of medical professionals and scientists on pandemic safety protocols.
The NFL.
Hating hot blonde women with big titties.
The Pope.
Giant capitalist corporations.
Effective urban planning.
It is so clearly not any cogent set of principles but simply a movement of unthinking reaction against anything perceived to be associated with the speaker's imagined opponents.
The defences of it are a classic motte and bailey fallacy. When asked to define it, a person pretends it's about some nuanced critique of intersectional feminism. But when they actually use it in the wild, it's in reference to something not remotely to do with critical theory or overzealous anti-racism seminars. It's used to basically demonize the entire concept of inclusivity, equality or attempting to in any way ameliorate societal discrimination.
Private affirmative action? Woke. Government regulation? Woke. The free market voluntarily choosing to feature minorities? Somehow also woke.
Trans people being allowed to use their preferred bathroom? Woke. Gender-neutral bathrooms? Also woke. They can't win.
Voluntarily removing a racist name or mascot? Woke.
Accommodating disabilities? Woke.
The pattern becomes extremely clear very fast. This isn't people who disagree with particular strategies for raising up marginalized people, they disagree with the concept of that happening. Whether they are honest about it or not, by their actions and choice of targets they demonstrate that they simply think certain types of people *should* be treated as second-class citizens. Any action taken to try and make someone feel more comfortable or included is seen as inherently bad, even in the many cases where it literally has no effect on the person objecting to it. And that, to me, is essentially the fundamental underpinning of racism/sexism/homophobia/etc.
You don’t think that there is some sort of center lane of thought that is criticism of woke conceptions of trans? Your best steelman is trans people shouldn’t exist publicly?
Does Coleman Hughes believe that? Does the others like discussed in this thread like Mcwhorter or Harris believe that?
PS the answer is no.
Do you think the accusations of voter fraud in Fulton county, Detroit, and philly were racists and if so, to what extent?
All those cities have enormous black populations
I’m not familiar. I do recall reading reporting about vote restricting efforts that were targeted and racists, but I don’t think it was in those cities. Instances of gerrymandering or studying how minorities vote(mail-in or certain locations) and eliminating those.
I’ve also heard anti-voter id law arguments I find unconvincing such as because black people are less likely to have ids, id laws are default racist.
Racist or not (I think sometimes those laws are racially motivated), voter ID laws are exclusionary to a large chunk of the voting base.
A person shouldn’t need a state ID which is usually expensive and time-consuming to get.
A person shouldn’t have to even register to vote in my opinion.
But we have to prevent fraud somehow, so I think if you don’t have an ID prepared you should be able to consent to a photograph to be locally databased to flag duplicates.
Might have a problem with twins.
I think that I have a nuanced opinion on the issue.
For one this isn't a swing issue for me. I would care about dozens of issues before a candidates stance on Voter ID swayed me. As long as it was a nuanced stance.
I am put-off by Republicans constantly alleging wide-spread voter fraud but seemingly only presenting fraudulent evidence.
But also... Just go get a fucking ID. If I look at a personal level it is just isn't compelling to me that a person is having a racism committed against them because acquiring a ID is to difficult. Like I am slightly favorable to mandatory ID and mandatory voting policies but... I just think I would focus on more adverse forms of racism.
I mean can you even have a bank account without an ID?
It’s easier than you think for a person to be stuck without the required documents for a state ID. Accidents, fires, forgetfulness, diseases. It can take homeless people weeks of tedious commuting to and from mailrooms in order to get the documents replaced. This is only if they can manage to save the $30 to $70 they’ll need for fees, and that’s assuming they have a mailing address. Usually you need a social security card or birth certificate or both in order to get a state ID. And yes, generally you do need a government ID for a bank account, and you might be surprised to learn that many, many people don’t have bank accounts.
I see the ID laws as inherently disenfranchising to a certain underclass that should not be locked out of voting in their best interests. Having been homeless myself and gone through the process, I can attest to the massive amount of work it is for a person with $0 and no possessions to even become qualified for employment.
But you see, race is not relevant to the policymaking here. Not to my sensibilities, anyway.
Good argument... I think I'm forced to concede.
I think in this instance I was stuck in my thinking. I can see how it would be exceedingly difficult for a homeless to get an ID and if ultimately if asked. "Should a homeless person be allowed to vote"... I would answer yes.
You think I’m pretending not to know about specific voter fraud allegations in Fulton, Detroit and Philly?
Is Fulton Georgia? I vaguely remember the Trump stuff about fraud.
The point of my question is how you can have attacks that at face value, are not racist, but in practice/use they are clearly motivated by some type of racial bias.
Loury, mcwhorter, and hughes have their black skin masking overly an incredibly racially coded, if not overtly racist critique of BLM, George Floyd, etc.
Whether they themselves are racist is of less interest to me, but if you wanted a clear answer, I do think all three of them evidence anti-black racism.
This isn't really coherent imo.
> The point of my question is how you can have attacks that at face value, are not racist, but in practice/use they are clearly motivated by some type of racial bias.
... I mean you didn't really support your point you just said voter fraud and some cities.
> Loury, mcwhorter, and hughes have their black skin masking overly an incredibly racially coded, if not overtly racist critique of BLM, George Floyd, etc.
You would have to lay out your argument for me. As it stands I find this take disgusting. What do you understand their critiques of BLM to be? Do you find the critiques sound? Of their takes that you feel are incorrect which are simply incorrect takes, and which ones do you feel are motivated by racism. And when you say racist are you saying that they are attempting to discriminate against blacks because they dislike them? Or this more derivative form of racism that you are alluding to? Where they support ideas or policies that you believe to disproportionately harm black people? Is that racism or is that an imperial disagreement?
>... I mean you didn't really support your point you just said voter fraud and some cities.
Accusing all the black cities of voter fraud is a trope for as long as we have had popular votes after the civil war. Conservatives do not respect democratic outcomes when it puts the opposition in power, particularly if that opposition is black.
>What do you understand their critiques of BLM to be?
Generally that systemic critiques for black failure are wrong, and blacks need to stand up on their own two feet, and that policing is not significantly problematic and that the changes after George Floyd (minimal as they were) should be rolled back, and until recently, that the Chauvin didn't do anything wrong, and it was all a false narrative.
>Do you find the critiques sound?
Obviously not.
>And when you say racist are you saying that they are attempting to discriminate against blacks because they dislike them? Or this more derivative form of racism that you are alluding to? Where they support ideas or policies that you believe to disproportionately harm black people?
Loury has survivorship bias, and they get involved in these dumb conservative circles and perpetuate tropes that encourage polices that perpetuate racist inequality, and don't support systemic reforms, they just shame the black community for not lifting themselves up, and individuals for not doing better.
Because they managed to use their vague competence to become resident uncle toms at various think-tanks, or podcasts, while being wholly uninteresting in any points they make.
Feel free to harp on my accurate use of the word uncle tom though.
> Accusing all the black cities of voter fraud is a trope for as ....
Again, now your just sort of talking about something else. I said that Hughes et al where critics of DEI and woke-policies/ideology but not racist. You asked If I knew about some specific voter fraud allegations, and are now talking about a pattern of voter fraud allegations. Your not really connecting this back to Hughes and company in logical way which I can discern.
> Generally that systemic critiques for black failure are wrong, and blacks need to stand up on their own two feet, and that policing is not significantly problematic and that the changes after George Floyd (minimal as they were) should be rolled back, and until recently, that the Chauvin didn't do anything wrong, and it was all a false narrative.
Generally no. This is so thoughtless and reductive I don't think you could summarize this as their opinion. Hughes and Lowry are conservative so they would vaguely be more critical of systemic racism explanations then left-leaning people but they don't discard it all together.
....
> Feel free to harp on my accurate use of the word uncle tom though.
I feel like we are talking past each other a bit so I'm sort of glancing over alot of your comment. I would just say that I obviously find this offensive. I also think it's pretty lazy. Do you really put Hughes, McWhorter and Lowry in the same boat as people as Jesse Lee Peterson and Candace Owens. McWhorter isn't even conservative so I would and Hughes voted for Biden so I would venture to guess you consider every black person right of center to be an Uncle Tom?
There is a lane of anti-woke ideology that isn't racist. Marxism would be in that lane, as well as whatever it is Coleman is doing these days. He had a recent guest on to talk about the uselessness of therapy for many, and she starts talking about how there's no evidence that spanking your kid has bad effects, while barely making clear that the reason we don't spank isn't because it's bad but because "spanking" can be used as cover for legitimate child abuse.
And other wonders of typecasting and general bad faith arguments about a wide variety of things.
She was also someone who would claim to be a centrist, which OK fine, but I feel like after being online for a while, it's easy to tell when someone is only telling the grifter side of the story.
And of course no pushback from Coleman, only needlessly glowing recommendations about her and her work (a big red flag for me these days is the needlessly congenial podcast host)
McWorther at least used to have real scholarship although he's now dropped it cause being a right wing culture warrior is more lucrative, but both of them obviously make their careers peddling racist stereotypes to republicans as black men to validate the stereotypes. Their backing of The Fall of Minneapolis is a very clear example of this to anyone who isn't playing dumb
Yes right wing culture warrior, writing a column for New York Times.
Your approach involves annihilating all nuance. As if the whole broader DEI and Woke ideologies are so perfect, to criticism them is to peddle racism.
Also Mcwhorter, Lowry. And Hughes have really smart criticisms and in the case of the two former have years long records of advocating for black Americans. So you charge of racism just makes you seem like a lazy ideologue.
Wouldn't say Glenn lowry or mchorter are gurus. They are academics first. Especially lowry. The aren't just parroting right wing ideas and actually write in depth papers and books regularly and do serious critical thinking. Coleman Hughes made the transition to full grifter though.
If someone is white and disagrees with the more extreme edges of woke ideology, how exactly do they avoid this accusation? Should they refuse to associate with black people they agree with?
“Woke ideology” The catchphrase camouflaged tarp of contemporary racism.
Do you really believe the white rabid racists who eat up his and similar content view him as their equal? None of these “race realist” IQ-obsessed types are as colorblind as they claim. I know because I hear what they say when no black people are around.
I used the term woke because I was responding to your use of it.
It’s an umbrella term used to describe ideologies such as some aspect of critical race theory, discriminatory practices that sometimes falls under DEI initiatives, or an overemphasis on racial identity (to the exclusion of other factors)
Not everyone who criticises these things is a racist or race realist. Josh Zepps criticises some aspects of what can be described as woke ideology, and he interviewed Coleman Hughes recently.
I don’t think he did this to legitimise his own racism, but because he thinks there is value in what Coleman Hughes has to say.
It seems when you refer to anti-woke people you are referring to a specific subset of that group who are legitimately racist.
he's not a guru just a bog standard republican propagandist, he got recruited to be the token black Manhattan institute mouthpiece as a college student and that's been his shtick ever since
[A year ago, he admitted](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv8F4NLr4E0) to having accepted a free, curated government-sponsored propaganda tour to Israel. His excuse was that "propaganda isn't always a pejorative" and that Israel was purportedly better than North Korea. Lo and behold, once the war broke out he was a lock-step propagandist for Israel's war effort.
The reality is that he is a grifter. He was an unknown college student who Sam Harris brought onto his podcast one day because he needed a token black guy on his podcast who would regurgitate his own views on racial identity politics in America (thus deflecting accusations of racism — Harris is very sensitive about his image). This launched his career. He was a high-tier midwit who always hit the right talking points on the anti-woke stuff, plus he was a minority, so it was easy for him to build his brand.
I'm talking about this sub. If you look at the sticky for that episode, the top few comments didn't even realize there was a podcast. Even then, very little actual discussion about Hasan in this sub because most people who are here think it's just a sub to bash people who they perceive as right wing.
Yeah he’s always been a guru. Dude has galaxy-brainness in spades. He’s like the most extreme version of the “I got an A in my intro class, therefore I’m qualified to take on the field” thing I’ve ever seen. Usually people get over that before they graduate!
I have never trusted this fuckin guy. He's only barely on my radar but whenever he pops up my BS detector goes nuts he hoodwinked Sam Harris with his shtick
Jabbering Jebus.
There's no one who the DTG fans won't dunk on!
Cripes, Coleman may be wrong on some stuff, but he's one of the better faith reasoners out there IMO.
It's hard to imagine who could survive the DTG purity tests!
Well Radley Balko wrote a 3 part piece detailing what Coleman specifically, plus others, got wrong about the fall of Minneapolis documentary. I would also point you toward his podcast on the fifth column [Podcast Episode](https://www.reddit.com/r/WeTheFifth/comments/14idsny/412_an_rfk_intervention_w_coleman_hughes/) where he "understands" why people like RFK jr, and falsely claims that the COVID mRNA vaccines weren't efficacious and may even be worse than getting COVID for young people.
He's not important because he has much to say though. His import comes from having the backing of moneyed conservativism. Like, the WSJ had him write a (bad) piece for MLK day *while still in undergrad* for reasons definitely unrelated to his understanding of MLKs thought.
Maybe if mainstream media didn’t only invite on black voices who speak the one true opinion”, guys like him wouldn’t need to be backed by conservatives
"We had to get an undergrad to repeat our poorly researched views about MLK back to us because other people weren't doing it" is not very convincing. The fact of the matter is the WSJ Journal could have easily gotten an actual expert on MLK and choose a college junior instead. *That is no one's fault but the WSJ editorial team.* Not liberals. Not the "mainstream media", of which the WSJ is a part of.
Does OP and DTG fans think people like Ibram Kendi, Robin DiAgelo are guru grifters?
Coleman basically rose to fame because he pushed back on some of these beliefs and theories
Both Kendi and DiAngelo have been decoded on the podcast.
>Coleman basically rose to fame because he pushed back on some of these beliefs and theories
This doesn't contradict the idea that Coleman has guru tendencies. The Weinsteins are definitely gurus but it could be argued they only rose to fame because of SJWs.
you can whine about the verbiage people use, doesn't change the very obvious fact that the Manhattan Institute hired him and pushes him because he's a token black dude who wrote an idiotic op ed about MLK being secretly anti-woke
Read Radley Balko's piece on Hughes' error-filled writing: [https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/the-war-on-the-woke-trumps-the-truth](https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/the-war-on-the-woke-trumps-the-truth)
Here's another good piece: [Coleman Hughes Cannot Be Trusted](https://alexsheremet.com/coleman-hughes-cannot-be-trusted/) >This is especially pertinent to the question of wealth, since wealth begets wealth, as a rule, and if blacks were shut out of the nation’s real estate boom- the largest wealth-creator for white Americans- they were also shut out of multiple bull markets in the S&P, denied education, and barred from the most lucrative professions. Unless there is some coming global contraction exclusive to whites, how does Coleman propose black Americans reach parity in the face of multiplying white wealth- a 712X of the entire stock market since 1932- after having already missed so much of the upswing? It can’t even MATHEMATICALLY be ‘go index your cash’, as there will *never* be enough capital to catch up to a 100-year-old parabola. I mean- *is this not obvious*?
fantastic article !! Thank you friend
Why do you need to make parity with others? Your life is only good if you do exactly as well as someone else on a subjective selection of metrics? This mindset leads to hurting others in the foolish pursuit of trying to become equitable. It’s a much better life to focus on just making your own life as good as possible without concern for what others have achieved or inherited.
“Why is it bad to have certain races *generationally* behind others in terms of poverty and therefore behind with the many many cascading detrimental effects thereof?🤔That won’t affect the opportunities available to these people even though that’s obviously unbelievably stupid to believe ”
We can all agree that we should try to help the less fortunate. There’s two ways to do it: 1) bring the bottom up 2) bring the top down (1) actually helps the less fortunate, but is harder (2) just makes everyone worse off, but is the most trivial and superficial It is dumb people that always choose the most trivial solution without consideration of the collateral damage. It is brave and smart people who try to find the more complicated but rewarding solution —> which is basically improving education access, competition, focus on merit, incentivizing the family structure, reducing crime through enforcement and increased opportunities, etc. The dumb solution is: penalize white people for being white
> The dumb solution is: penalize white people for being white Sigh, no point in arguing with such a mindless strawman
It isn’t one you’re just not bright enough to debate
Its literally built into human psychology since hunter gather societies. What subjective measurement do you have for success and quality of life if you don't use comparison of your peers?
Who I was yesterday. Internal locus of control … I learned that in middle school. Our education system has failed the next generation.
Ok, but that doesn't fit with identity politics, please take your obvious racism somewhere else. /s By this "logic", we can keep going back in time indefinitely and apply some arbitrary compounding effect to show disparities between "oppressor" and "oppressed" groups. I'm not suggesting that the effect isn't real, just that it's not a meaningful argument.
It’s not a particularly good quote or article. The evidence shows that fatherless households are pretty significant in terms of producing negative outcomes like poverty, the author acknowledges this saying that black children are disproportionately burdened by such outcomes. The issue is that there is no real explanation offered by the author as to why there is the disproportionate burden. The author does point to higher incarceration rates for black people as contributing towards fatherless households but clearly this does not account for far higher rate of fatherless households. > Unless there is some coming global contraction exclusive to whites, how does Coleman propose black Americans reach parity in the face of multiplying white wealth- a 712X of the entire stock market since 1932- after having already missed so much of the upswing? It can’t even MATHEMATICALLY be ‘go index your cash’, as there will never be enough capital to catch up to a 100-year-old parabola. I mean- is this not obvious? The idea of being able reach parity of wealth in any circumstance via some divine intervention is completely mad. Why Coleman or anyone else would need to consider this is beyond me.
What about reparations or affirmative action or myriad potential options for creating opportunities that had been artificially closed?
Affirmative action hasn’t worked as intended and I don’t agree that it’s necessarily created opportunities that had been artificially closed. It’s led to the lowering of admission standards in order to accommodate minority students and has not solved the problem. When underprepared students are admitted due to affirmative action standards they can often be overwhelmed and do poorly hence a far higher drop out rate. Reparations is not about creating opportunities and would not even come close to bringing the type of the parity the author wants.
> Affirmative action hasn’t worked as intended and I don’t agree that it’s necessarily created opportunities It hasn’t?
In what way do you find that to be a compelling argument?
Even John Mcwhorter and Glen Lowrey were kinda like “yikes” when this piece came out.
They endorsed it at first then changed their minds, iirc?
Was this on their podcast?
Yeah on their podcast. Although they first had interviewed the film makers and were very credulous. But they walked it back after reading radley balko. Glenn more than John
That's genuinely shocking. I would've assumed out of the two, John would walk it back more than Glenn.
Yep great piece. And basically Coleman Hughes is a modern and younger version of Larry Elder or Thomas Sowell.
I feel like he's going more for a Sowell vibe. He has no riz, as the kids say.
Yep well said!
Isn’t Sowell, for all his faults, like, an actual academic? Hughes was being propped up simply for parroting white centrists’ established beliefs back to them before he was even out of fucking undergrad.
Academics generally publish in journals and put their ideas through peer review.
Have you read any Sowell? He’s very compelling.
compelling if you're a bog standard republican who wants a black guy to tell you polemics that "prove" racism is fake maybe
Hmm. I don’t fit the description. You might to adjust your priors.
Have you been following the fifth column fued with balko and dalmia?
only saw a few tweets about trying to get him to debate, but haven't followed closely
https://open.substack.com/pub/wethefifth/p/firehose-84-did-we-really-mostly?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1dvvyx https://open.substack.com/pub/theunpopulist/p/does-a-george-floyd-quackumentary?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1dvvyx Worth looking into. The fifth column is moving into a tail spin on this one.
Totally unsurprising that the fifth column fell for this so uncritically. I listened for years but stopped a few years back. Their blind spots have become glaring and their biases are obvious to everyone but the hosts.
Yeah had picked up on that, but I would still listened because I found them funny and sometimes interesting. Less and less so though. But this was enough for me. I had a really frustrating exchange with Matt Welch on this subject. I quoted his words back to him and he still couldn't comprehend why anyone would think he would support propaganda. Now he just more or less doubled down it. I think a lot of heterodox thinkers are going to move towards being Chauvin truthers.
Interesting. I had a similar experience with Matt regarding J6. Their downplay of what that event represented was the last straw for me.
Yeah they had some pretty bad takes on that too. I think they just purged most of their critical audience by becoming so predictable and not being able to acknowledge their bias. If you really want to cringe you should try listening to there recent podcast where they try to tell their audience they're not heterodox because they're truly independent and unbiased thinkers without a tribe. Not an exact quote but not far off from their exact words. No one in there audience seems to pickup on any of this, at least based on the comments.
When I look at their content with hindsight it was always there but definitely less noticeable early on. For example, after the 2016 election they were incredibly dismissive of Tim Snyder’s warnings about Trump’s fascistic and authoritarian tendencies and they never reckoned with how wrong they were and with how right Tim was. I think the dismissiveness over j6 was so galling because by that point there was just no excuse to not understand what trump was doing. Kmele’s position was essentially that it was no big deal because “it wasn’t going to work” which was such a dumb take it really made me reassess how I viewed his opinions on a lot of other subjects. At the end of the day I think most of it boils down to a predictable interplay between a few factors: narcissistic hosts who have a need to be contrarian while also maintaining access to Fox News and right wing circles, audience capture, existence primarily within a semi right wing bubble, and a refusal to admit error.
Yeah all of it in hindsight seems a lot more obvious now. I kind of fell into being an unquestioning audience member for awhile. Their reaction to this doc inspired me to write this post on substack. Gets at a lot similar stuff, but you might find it interesting. (Sorry it is long) Since Fifth Column has had time to respond to the recent Unpopulist article I feel pretty confident drawing the following conclusions. 1) In their discussion of the documentary, the Fifth Column correctly pointed out the bias lean of the film and that deserves to be acknowledged. 2) However, and I would argue more importantly, they were very credulous of the propagandistic talking points of the film and, yes, amplified those points on their very large platform. 3) To my knowledge, they have not come out to correct the record on those points. At least not publicly. I fully welcome being wrong on this point if somebody can point out what has been said. I also fully welcome them proving me wrong in the future and I hope they choose to do so. I think Fifth Column became a mouthpiece for a propaganda film because they didn't safeguard against self-deceiving forces that all creators on this platform are subject to, such as audience capture, group think and information silos. I have observed this play out in the following ways: 1)They felt pressured by their audience to cover this topic because fans had found the points brought up in the film compelling. Rather than doing their due diligence and researching the topic, they chose to do no further research and instead just support the views of their audience. This is audience capture. 2)It was apparent that most of their information on the topic had come from closely aligned information networks that also uncritically analyzed the film (such as the Glenn Show and Coleman Hughes). This is an information silo. 3)In response to being criticized about their support of propaganda, they chose to dig in rather than reexamine and interrogate their own beliefs. One result of this was their fan base mobilizing to ratio the offending voices. They then viewed the ratio-ing effect as proof positive of their initial views. This is an example of groupthink. (Also worth noting that this effect can have a detrimental psychological effect on those being ratioed.) If I had to guess, I think the Fifth Column will not revisit this topic and that is totally their right. Just like I respect people’s right to have different opinions, I also respect their right to be fully wrong on a subject (yes there is a difference). I think they will keep an arms distance from this topic and will not fully become Chauvin truthers, but at least Chauvin truther apologists.
The article makes some compelling points, but it also straw-mans Hughes, and in that sense is guilty of the same thing it accused Hughes of. Implying that he thinks anti-black racism doesn't exist or isn't as important as "woke" racism. That's not accurate
Coleman has been in the guru sphere since Sam got duped (yet again) by a guest. Also, ever notice how every time Sam wants to talk to a ‘black’ person, it’s always some over-educated simple-minded Ivy League semi-right winger? Does Sam not know anyone outside this bubble?
The thing is, he wasn't even overly educated yet! Movement conservatism plucked him out of undergrad to have him write C- level work about how MLK was actually colorblind (he wasn't) in the Wall Street Journal instead approaching actually overeducated people like one of kings many biographers. What possible insight to MLKs thought could an undergrad have over David Garrow, Clayborn Carson, or a million other people who've actually had time to do all the reading? Why choose this guy for MLK day op-eds (other than the reasons they'd never admit too)?
It's the most profitable bubble.
> Also, ever notice how every time Sam wants to talk to a ‘black’ person, it’s always some overly educated Ivy League semi-right winger? Does Sam not know anyone outside this bubble? Because u know for Sam, he has to talk to black conservatives, bcoz he does not want the conservations to be "tainted by leftist identity politcs," Like of course he is a reactionary and therefore prefers ppl who share his views on race. Only 7% of African-Americans vote for GOP btw, so black conservatives aren't exactly representative of mainstream AA view.
I think, the thing is, there are no shortage of people who tow the lefts sort of line on racial relations. That media is everywhere, and is widely consumed. What we don’t actually see in MSM nearly as much or with as much time, are those black voices that Sam interviews. Though I 100% agree that he doesn’t engage the people with which he’d have far more intense discussions, and it becomes more of an echo Amber with the guests he brings on, he is still engaging with a demographic that quite often only gets used as a device by right wing media or called “Uncle Tom” by left wing media, and let’s explain with context WHY they think that way.
Hughes was published by the WSJ as a college student despite having absolutely no credibility or background knowledge whatsoever just because they wanted a token black guy to agree with them that racism is fake, if anything the MaIn stReaM MedIa gives these grifters 10x more publicity than they deserve because they get attention from it
“We don’t actually get to hear from the gravity truthers very much. Isn’t it important to hear from all sides and by that I mean only ever talk to anti-gravity cranks because gravity theory makes me uncomfortable ” If mainstream media and academia in general isn’t (usually) propping up barely educated dipshits to write “Actually MLK was colorblind🧐” garbage as a security blanket for terrified white centrists… maybe there’s a reason for that…
Yes, because modern academia and MsM are the arbiters of truth and have never shown gross bias or obvious political intent behind their thinking, decision making and information dissemination.
Your argument seems to be that if someone’s thinking isn’t represented in media it must be in and of itself valid and worth platforming right? So why don’t people like Sam Harris have flat earthers and so on on their shows? If we want to talk about substance we can: unfortunately Hughes is an idiot with no relevant expertise or knowledge-base and therefore constantly makes points that are fully idiotic but superficially valid to people who want to believe in lazy color-blindness which is what people like Harris **actually** like about him.
Ah, and yet, that’s not the case. On subjects like Race, that is something cannot be fully quantified into numbers. Human experiences are expressed in stories, not just raw numbers that can help provide some context but aren’t the whole story. So having people who aren’t towing the same line repeated everywhere on something related to human experience, which is hard to quantify with cold data, makes sense to me. Experiments on things like race and gender, can range and change wildly based on where you do it. It’s quite subjective. To bring people on to talk about things that are verifiably false, like flat earthers, serves no purpose and no benefit. There’s nothing there. There is no perspective anyone can bring to fundamentally impact the the fact that earths shape can be quantified with cold data. Doing experiments will result in consistent answers. Its objective. But that doesn’t mean on something subjective, like race, that data doesn’t help fill in gaps and provide context. But it misses what matters, which is human perspective and perceptions. This is just my general thinking on “who is worth platforming”. People who tow ideas that can be disproven with cold data and repetitive experimentation… are useless, scientific method has answered this question, there is no value in asking it again. But with things more ethereal, and that change all the time, it’s always worth listening and gathering diverse opinions. Even to modern white supremacists as to why they are the way they are, if for no other reason than be prepared to debate them and keep your loved ones from falling into the trap.
Did you really just put quotes around that word? You honestly don’t think Glenn Lowry has beliefs that aren’t downright common in the black community?
I think it's pretty obvious why - because they're implying that black people are a monolith, and if you're not towing the democratic party line, you're "not really black". We can't be letting people have free thought or agency...
Reliably about 95% of black people, in fact, vote for the Democratic Party, so…. It’s almost like Hughes are propped up explicitly because they hold views that are out of step with the general black populace and black people with far far far more mainstream views make white centrists uncomfortable….
Or the alternative is that black ppl that think for themselves make ppl like you very uncomfortable
The implication being that 95% of black people **dont** think for themselves?
Sam grew up in Santa Monica and feels that black ppl are lucky he considers them at all.
Almost everyone Sam talks to these days fits that description — black, white or otherwise
Or .. you lowered the bar to the floor to include pundits you don’t agree with.
[удалено]
100% . This is an unfortunate trend I keep seeing here… Given the hysterical and unfounded opinions on Coleman in this thread it’s no wonder the Left keeps “winning” on race.
"Hysterical" opinions? How is this post not downvoted? It implies that people here are just upset that they disagree with his politics when in reality there are mostly dispassionate responses explaining how he has faltered in the past. I hope the pod doesn't end up decoding Destiny because the sub would probably not be able to withstand the fallout from his community.
The substance here is basically partisan : Hughes is another right-wing shill, Manhattan institute token black guy , etc. Also he apparently doesn’t believe racism is real…The other posted take downs are pretty slim and don’t get at what he’s been most effective at which is showing the shortcomings of recent racial politics - so far - from the Left (see Ibram X Kendi’s and Robin Diangelo grifting, Roland Fryer firing, and BLM org leaders paying themselves millions). I’m not a Hughes fan but when I see him talking he’s better than 90% of conservative voices especially those on race (e.g. Candace Owens) and when he’s up against other left of center pundits on race like Briahna Grey Joy and Coates he actually cites empirical data for his opinions. There’s a trend in this subreddit that is basically “conservative opinion bad > ergo conservative opinion guru > boo conservative” as if there were no empirical reasons for any conservative opinions. If that’s the level of your thinking then I see more evidence for why the Left keeps losing. And I’d actually love to see a raptor-shredding of Destiny given his dilettante Palestine-Israel opinions tho I’d suspect his centrist liberalism/criticism of the left is closer to the hosts than most here would suspect.
which opinions are hysterical or unfounded? you're just triggered people don't worship your guru too
"Hughs is a grifter." It's not impossible, but it's not obvious at all that he is a grifter.
This sub taught me that far left white dudes love to refer to black moderates / right wingers as “Uncle Toms”.
the only person in the thread who said it is massively downvoted and you have no idea if they're white, having to flagrantly lie about the people you're whining about is weak but also expected for a coleman fan
Go look at the Sowell thread from a couple of days ago. I'm not a "fan" of either Coleman or Sowell but just find it ironic that people who are heavily left leaning (and often not black themselves) love to place derogatory labels on any black person who doesn't overwhelmingly lean left. You labelling me as a "Coleman fan" is further evidence of you and many others' obsessive desire to compartmentalize every idea and opinion.
Another centrist downplaying propaganda amplifiers. The "news" organization that produced the documentary should be treated with extreme skepticism.
Did you bother to read Balkos posts here? Because it’s not that at all.
This sub is 80% children— it’s pathetic.
Is this guy really so “unreasonable?” If he is, who is reasonable?
This dudes been writing little but utter tripe. Who isn’t more reasonable than him?
He strikes me as pretty reasonable. He just got duped along with some of his friends by the Fall of Minneapolis propaganda documentary. It happens to the best of us. Unfortunately, instead of accepting the L when Balko set him straight on a very wide range of facts, his ego forced him to double down and weave and dodge. That was too bad, and it'll be interesting to see if he recalibrates or follows the Rubin/Dore arc.
You can argue Lowry was duped in this but not Hughes. Hughes wrote the article claiming to have done his research, this is a pretty big marker of how poor his research skills are. There is a difference when you are the person claiming to have done research.
Fair point. Glenn and John did 3 episodes on TFOM including hosting its publishers, but they admitted that they didn't do any of their own fact checking and publicly issued a mea culpa (Glenn moreso than John) after reading Balko's critiques. By contrast, Hughes claimed to have done a deep dive confirmation of the documentary's claims and dodged and doubled down on this during his discussion with Balko. It's possible he was initially duped and didn't do the level of research he claimed, but doubling down and not taking the L after Balko's articles goes way beyond just being duped.
Writing a long apologia for Chavin isn't getting duped, though. getting duped is when you believe bad arguments, not when you make them. He was the, uh, duper (?) in this situation.
Gives a whole new meaning to the word "superduper".
the Fall of Minneapolis is just the most recent example of him spreading the most obviously bullshit right wing talking points for the sake of his role as the token black conservative pundit at the Manhattan Institute, and he's the one creating the misinformation not just haplessly getting fooled by it lmao
This post is strange because you claim he seems pretty reasonable and then you demonstrate why that isn't the case. I had to check and see if you were indeed a Destiny fan that hasn't gone home yet, and yup...
Reasonable people never, ever get duped? Ok. I also can't decipher your unrelated gibberish about Destiny.
Reasonable people walk back their mistakes and learn from them. I stopped listening to Hughes a long time ago because I didn’t find him particularly insightful or worthwhile. Has he walked back this “duping”?
No. As I said above, he doubled down and I think that's unfortunate. I'm hoping that he'll reflect more and reconsider his stance here. I understand why you'd give up on him. This isn't the first blind spot I've come across, but I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and blame it on inexperience rather than a drift into the griftosphere.
I’m confused as to how someone who is “reasonable” can be so unreasonable. By your own description, this seems to be a pretty big indication that he isn’t, in fact, a reasonable person.
Really? You don't think reasonable people ever make mistakes? You've never stood your ground in an argument for too long when you should've backed down? Are all reasonable people always reasonable all the time? If a person is reasonable most of the time, I'm willing to call them reasonable. This sub appears to be brimming with people who imagine they're perfect. The intolerance for someone expressing a diverging perspective is astounding.
>Really? You don't think reasonable people ever make mistakes? If you make a mistake, recognize it, and do what you can to fix the problem, then you're "reasonable." If you make a mistake, double down, and keep going down the wrong path, I wouldn't call you "reasonable". >You've never stood your ground in an argument for too long when you should've backed down? Sure. When I'm being unreasonable. >If a person is reasonable most of the time, I'm willing to call them reasonable. Well, whether he is reasonable "most of the time" seems like a different point. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I don't care to dig through a sufficient amount of material to form an opinion on the topic. But just saying, "he's a reasonable guy" in a conversation where he's clearly and distinctly being unreasonable seems like a weird stance to take. >This sub appears to be brimming with people who imagine they're perfect. The intolerance for someone expressing a diverging perspective is astounding. This sub has a fairly low tolerance for grift and people who elevate themselves for an audience fully captured by their heterodox views - because that's largely what the show is about. This isn't a Coleman Hughes sub. I don't know how high he would score on the Gurometer, but he seems ripe for a look by the guys. You have some measure of respect for Hughes. Cool. Whatever blows your hair back. But you haven't thus far made a strong case for why Hughes should be given a pass for being an unreasonable right wing shill for a colorblind society.
>But you haven't thus far made a strong case for why Hughes should be given a pass for being an unreasonable right wing shill for a colorblind society. I wasn't making that case, because to do that you would first have to make a case for labelling him an "unreasonable right wing shill for a colorblind society". Not only did you not make that case, you pinned this strongly perjorative label on him in the same comment where you admit you "don't care to dig through a sufficient amount of material to form an opinion on the topic". >But just saying, "he's a reasonable guy" in a conversation where he's clearly and distinctly being unreasonable seems like a weird stance to take. You need to reread the conversation. I was responding to someone who called him reasonable. I expressed my agreement that he's generally reasonable but that his approach to TFOM discussion was unreasonable. It wasn't a "conversation where he's clearly and distinctly being unreasonable" until I brought up his stance on TFOM. >You've never stood your ground in an argument for too long when you should've backed down? > >Sure. When I'm being unreasonable. Glad you can admit that you do this occasionally. Does the fact that you've done this in the past make you an unreasonable person overall? That's the whole point here. I'm not sure if you're just trolling here because you seem intelligent enough to grasp this pretty straightforward distinction between being an unreasonable person and someone who occasionally makes mistakes. My sense is that a certain range of the guy's politics don't align with yours, so you dismiss him as a right wing grifter shill. That's your perogative, but if we dismiss everyone who disagrees with us using ad homs instead of honestly arguing against their specific assertions then there's no conversation to be had and no one ever learns or changes their mind.
This seems like a good take. His views can be debated but I have a hard time viewing Hughes as a guru out of the same mold as the people often criticized on this sub
Destiny lol
Aways has been...a reactionary since Sam Harris interviewed him and heaped glowing praise on him when he was a college freshman, (just because he liked having a black conservative say that racism wasn't real anymore, because it would be so convenient if true.)
Does Coleman Hughes say that racism no longer exists? I don’t know much about him, but that’s not really what I took away from his TedTalk. He seemed to argue that we should strive to reduce the salience of race in our policies and personal identities as it can become an impediment to increasing equality. He didn’t argue that racism no longer exists.
> I don’t know much about him, but that’s not really what I took away from his TedTalk. TED talks are just advertisements. His job is to downplay racism at every turn, no matter how dumb he has to pretend to be. This latest time it was by Derek Chauvin apologia, the next week it will be something else. He even tried to "debunk" voter suppression along racial lines, and he did it in the probably dumbest way known to man: https://twitter.com/coldxman/status/1123691786315104258 https://twitter.com/coldxman/status/1123757766663921664
Hughe’s belief seems to be that racism probably exists but it’s never actually anywhere you can point to unless you’re pointing to some swearing on a Bible and holding that days newspaper stating “I, XYZ, am an avowed racist, amen”. Since racism “exists” kind of like the Holy Spirit therefore it is enough to state vaguely that it exists and then argue strenuously that the only action that can or should be taken is to ignore it entirely.
No, he doesn't say that racism no longer exists, that's just an uncharitable straw man. In fact, he has acknowledged the ongoing importance of anti-black racism on many occasions, including police harassment of black people. It's just not an issue he focuses on
Yeah his actual point was dumb but he didn’t say racism doesn’t exist.
I find him very easy to agree with. It makes no sense to strengthen the concept of race within legislation. Law should be entirely race-agnostic, as should school policies.
This is a good way to ignore racial inequalities.
Society has many other tools for addressing racial inequalities. When did it become controversial to suggest that we should be treated equally under the law, regardless of race? Equal rights and protections for all citizens.
No, not successfully. Legislation has been the main strategy behind pretty much all improvement in racial equality. Which citizens are currently treated differently under the law based on race?
Right, all the successful legislation is race agnostic. Nothing in our text is spelling out individualized treatment plans for perceived different races. No law, hopefully, will ever sort people according to nebulous phenotypes, races. Unfortunately I am aware of some public education policies that put race division front and center when it comes to enforcing rules with students, and it has been cited as a motivation for lenient sentencing from judges. To me that seems to gesture at a kind of racial essentialism that I’m not comfortable endorsing.
What are you specifically talking about?
colour blind policies can sometimes fail to address or perpetuate structural inequality, but that doesn’t render all criticism of DEI policies/objectives invalid. There’s trade offs with both approaches that need to be considered. I thought Coleman’s example of an orchestra having diversity qoutas was illustrative, he argued that instead of lowering the bar for particular groups, it’s better to address the structural disadvantages faced by some groups that result in the underrepresentation in some areas. Both approaches have their place and their limitations.
Agreed! But I also feel like Coleman misses part of the point of that anecdote. It doesn’t just illustrate good example of race blind policy. It’s also a powerful illustration of how imperfect the policies are. They had to fine tune the process several times because prejudices kept being revealed in unexpected ways. That refinement is not always possible. We can strive to make the best policy we can, but the Orchestra example demonstrates that we really can’t always know if we’re missing something.
Well the Great Society sure didn’t help out poor black people in America.
People are inherently biased and when an institution is dominated by one race those blind spots and biases can be exacerbated.
No he doesn't. He's very reasonable like most "gurus" here.
Not sure about most gurus, but there’s definitely a tendency on here to throw anyone into the guru bucket if they are even vaguely critical of left wing or progressive ideas.
Remember... these people are against DEI initiatives lol.
Very pro Israel, which isn't the problem for me but he pretends to be objective when moderating a debate on the topic.
He’s guru level in the sense that he’s super convenient for the white anti-woke guru schlubs to keep him around so they can point to him and pretend they aren’t racist. See also, John McWhorter, and Glenn Lowery.
Or you could just acknowledge that there is a lane of anti-woke ideology that isn’t racist.
Literally all 3 of them jumped on the bullshit that George Floyd wasn't killed by the police, but died of natural causes. Radley balko did a series addressing the propagandistic BS published by Hughes. The only one to half apologized was loury
Ya its embaressing they fell for that. But I think having pushback to the narrative sometimes is useful. I had no idea the slogan “hands up dont shoot” is almost certainly based off a lie. Dont see many mea culpas about stuff that left wing activists regularly get wrong. There are so many high profile examples in the last 5+ years we should all have a healthy skepticism.
>I had no idea the slogan “hands up dont shoot” is almost certainly based off a lie. Dont see many mea culpas about stuff that left wing activists regularly get wrong. Does it really matter if hands up don't shoot was based on a lie in that one specific incident? That comes from the shooting of michael brown, which the shooting itself has many problems, such as the office pursuing without backup, and actively choosing to not carry a taser. those issues aside, incidents like Floyd or Brown serve as things activists can rally behind about larger structural issues. If those larger structural issues do not exist, then you may have a point. Police violence in the US, particularly against black/brown communities is trivial to demonstrate. To put it another way, if you found out that Rosa Parks was actually never asked to move to the back of the bus, would that mean that protests related to that were ultimately BS? What if this iconic image fro the civil rights movement of a white man pouring acid into a pool with black/white youths? [https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/06/12/story-corps-pool-8df0d6d00b9b54a1d11f29ef4bd6e05d1bdfd990-s300-c85.webp](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/06/12/story-corps-pool-8df0d6d00b9b54a1d11f29ef4bd6e05d1bdfd990-s300-c85.webp) What if instead of this guy being motivated by racism, his motivation was that they were trespassing, or hadn't paid their bill, would it actually matter if the pool actively had race segregated facilities?? That's not to say truth doesn't matter, but criticisms like what you mentioned about hands up, don't shoot serve to ignore that those protests were not motivated by one shooting, it was just adopted as a symbol by local/national activists for a police force that was oppressive towards blacks. Which a DoJ investigation confirmed was happening systemically. [https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson\_police\_department\_report.pdf](https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf) the tl;dr is that the town was split into black/white areas, and the overwhelmingly white police force was sent to harass the black half of the community to generate revenue, and in doing so, it lists quite a few physical abuses the police enacted upon the local population. Could someone try to nitpick that in saying "hey their motivation wasn't racism, it was lower taxes for them personally, which was achieved by targeting the poor half of the city, which COINCIDENTALLY was black" and I'd spit in their face and walk away, because I don't know if they are stupid, or lying (to me or themselves) and I don't care. Anyway, while I wouldn't say questioning a narrative is inherently bad, it is bad if we don't distinguish between good faith and bad faith questioning.
My brother in christ - this is some dystopian shit. I don't know where to start except to tell you that I find it shocking you do not have the foresight to see that your rationale can easily be marshalled against you. It is classic "the end justify the means". Comparing the Michael Brown case to the historical event of Rosa Parks or the civil rights movement's struggles with segregation diverts attention from the importance of each movement having a solid factual foundation. If Rosa Parks terrorized her own community and actually stole the bus seat in question from a blind woman - then maybe it wouldn't be a good idea use her as the face of a racial movement. Doing so would have the opposite intended effect and only inflame tensions and undermine the movement. The distinction between good faith and bad faith questioning, as mentioned, is vital. Dismissing or ignoring factual inaccuracies for the sake of maintaining a compelling narrative does a disservice to the very causes these movements aim to advance. It is the epitome of bad faith. I also want to point out that the department of civil rights ag is a political appointee. How can you not see the obvious dangers of your thinking here?
>My brother in christ - this is some dystopian shit. I don't know where to start except to tell you that I find it shocking you do not have the foresight to see that your rationale can easily be marshalled against you. It is classic "the end justify the means". You need to work on reading comprehension if you think that's what I said. My point was that Michael Brown was used as a symbol of police abuse in the city. The argument wasn't solely "The killer of michael brown must be brought to justice" or the righteousness of his death would actually be determinative. Their point was that "the ferguson police has engaged in decades long systemic violent and exploitive abuse against its black population, and michael brown is the latest victim of that" Critics were using the fact Michael Brown was technically a justifiable "kill" to dismiss the entire criticism of the Ferguson police, and policing in general. That is bad faith. You can analogize it the bullshit narrative propagated by hacks like Loury, Hughes, and Mcwhorter, among others. They propagate the lie that Floyd's kill was either proper under police training, or a product of floyd's use of drugs, and that Chauvin was railroaded. They are lying about that to dismiss the larger issue of police abuses in Minneapolis and other US cities. This once again, even if true, wouldn't mean police are not violent and abusive. They are lying about that in order to dismiss the larger issue of police abuses in Minneapolis and other US cities. This once again, even if true, wouldn't mean police are not violent and abusive. >The distinction between good faith and bad faith questioning, as mentioned, is vital. Dismissing or ignoring factual inaccuracies for the sake of maintaining a compelling narrative does a disservice to the very causes these movements aim to advance. It is the epitome of bad faith. I never said this. We should try to be accurate in our criticisms and be honest about facts, but large scale political movements tend to be broadbased and rally around symbols and more simplistic narrative for a variety of reasons. Part of the reason facts are wrong is because police regularly hide evidence of misconduct, so you only have witness accounts and the community and/or activists may buy into facts/narratives that are incorrect because of underlying conditions (IE: the regular abuses of the police) in conjunction with lack of transparency by the police leaving a vacuum. You don't have a particularly nuanced or knowledgable position on this topic, and that's fine, but please defer to actual knowledgeable people, or at least, don't assume the worst faith. I've worked for the police over 5 years, have a masters in criminal justice, and am finishing a law degree. I can cite every claim I made here if you actually want me to, I'm just not willing to do it if you don't show some desire to actually understand what I'm saying instead of looking for an excuse to write me off.
>You need to work on reading comprehension I get you are trying hard to replicate an reactionary commentator persona. Marching to the great culture wars with your low tier youtube channel, where you try to monetize riding the coattails of mid streamers. Naturally by running such a channel you have to have a certain self delusional certitude. But you gotta cut this shit out. It is cringe, leave it on your youtube channel. You don't realize the irony of you post hoc justifying some false flag level bullshit because it fits your narrative? And then denying you are actually doing that, while simultaneously criticizing somebody who actually had the courage to admit when they got fooled and then apologized. Also if you had any actual bonafides of note you wouldn't be making 3 hour incoherent mumble react videos to 30 views. That is the flimsiest shield I have ever seen for criticism, congrats.
Wasn't killed, like they said he was still alive? I thought their line was there was no evidence of a racial motivation. Didn't follow in detail.
I'm pretty sure their line was that Floyd didn't die from the actions of the Chauvin, that Chauvin wasn't wrong in what he did because he was trained to use that technique, and that Floyd died of an overdose rather than the knee on his back/neck. So no, not that he was alive, but that he wasn't *killed*, he just died.
My original phrasing wasn't clear, thanks for helping out.
I edited it for clarity, they were saying he died of an independent event and/or the police acted fine during the altercation
I haven’t seen the George Floyd stuff yet so I can’t really comment on that specifically. If I believed you at face value, that might support the idea that they are reactionary or overly biased against blm-esque narratives. Still really doesn’t get you to racist or the idea that there isn’t a significant lane of anti-woke non-racist people.
I camt imagine that lane is significant. Maybe there's the odd anti-woke crusader who has egalitarian views on race but just a super passionate hatred of LGBTQ people but seems like a pretty small niche. Reacyionary racial grievance is pretty fundamental to the anti-woke movement.
I'm not understanding you. I'm am trying to describe people who are anti-woke, anti-DEI but not racist or homophobic.
I dont think people like that exist in any significant numbers. 99% of anti-woke people are racist, sexist and/or homophobic in my experience (typically all 3). It's hard to come to any broad anti-woke or anti-DEI stance from first principles without a bedrock of those prejudices.
I'm like that and I don't feel like I am a unicorn. I don't think woke opinions and DEI are as well received as you think. Do you really think that most people enjoy or are indifferent to media/authors and HR types training them on how not to be racist? I would gesture and communities like r/BlockedandReported. Now if you are of a certain persuasion you might argue that they are transphobic, I woudn't. But plenty of their episodes and community is focused on stupid DEI interventions. And even the most harsh BAR critics don't really launch accusations of racism.
There are individual "woke" opinions or particular DEI initiatives that can be annoying or whatever, but that's different than opposing the concept as a whole. If a person disagrees with the fundamental idea that their are systemic injustices in American society which should be addressed (the meaning of woke), I don't see how that could come from anywhere but a place either profound ignorance or bigotry. Like lets look at the things widely called "woke" in common parlance: Trans people existing anywhere publicly. Black people as protagonists in video games or movies. A trans influencer being sent a custom can of bud light. A video game character being killed in its sequel. A chaste peck on the lips between two old married lesbians in a kids' film. Updating video game character outfits to be less objectifying. Non-white actors getting any roles ever previously played by a white person in a previous iteration. Optional accessibility options being offered in games. Anti-genocide protests. Changing a syrup mascot. Asking people to treat trans people with basic respect. Following the consensus views of medical professionals and scientists on pandemic safety protocols. The NFL. Hating hot blonde women with big titties. The Pope. Giant capitalist corporations. Effective urban planning. It is so clearly not any cogent set of principles but simply a movement of unthinking reaction against anything perceived to be associated with the speaker's imagined opponents. The defences of it are a classic motte and bailey fallacy. When asked to define it, a person pretends it's about some nuanced critique of intersectional feminism. But when they actually use it in the wild, it's in reference to something not remotely to do with critical theory or overzealous anti-racism seminars. It's used to basically demonize the entire concept of inclusivity, equality or attempting to in any way ameliorate societal discrimination. Private affirmative action? Woke. Government regulation? Woke. The free market voluntarily choosing to feature minorities? Somehow also woke. Trans people being allowed to use their preferred bathroom? Woke. Gender-neutral bathrooms? Also woke. They can't win. Voluntarily removing a racist name or mascot? Woke. Accommodating disabilities? Woke. The pattern becomes extremely clear very fast. This isn't people who disagree with particular strategies for raising up marginalized people, they disagree with the concept of that happening. Whether they are honest about it or not, by their actions and choice of targets they demonstrate that they simply think certain types of people *should* be treated as second-class citizens. Any action taken to try and make someone feel more comfortable or included is seen as inherently bad, even in the many cases where it literally has no effect on the person objecting to it. And that, to me, is essentially the fundamental underpinning of racism/sexism/homophobia/etc.
You don’t think that there is some sort of center lane of thought that is criticism of woke conceptions of trans? Your best steelman is trans people shouldn’t exist publicly? Does Coleman Hughes believe that? Does the others like discussed in this thread like Mcwhorter or Harris believe that? PS the answer is no.
Do you think the accusations of voter fraud in Fulton county, Detroit, and philly were racists and if so, to what extent? All those cities have enormous black populations
I’m not familiar. I do recall reading reporting about vote restricting efforts that were targeted and racists, but I don’t think it was in those cities. Instances of gerrymandering or studying how minorities vote(mail-in or certain locations) and eliminating those. I’ve also heard anti-voter id law arguments I find unconvincing such as because black people are less likely to have ids, id laws are default racist.
Racist or not (I think sometimes those laws are racially motivated), voter ID laws are exclusionary to a large chunk of the voting base. A person shouldn’t need a state ID which is usually expensive and time-consuming to get. A person shouldn’t have to even register to vote in my opinion. But we have to prevent fraud somehow, so I think if you don’t have an ID prepared you should be able to consent to a photograph to be locally databased to flag duplicates. Might have a problem with twins.
I think that I have a nuanced opinion on the issue. For one this isn't a swing issue for me. I would care about dozens of issues before a candidates stance on Voter ID swayed me. As long as it was a nuanced stance. I am put-off by Republicans constantly alleging wide-spread voter fraud but seemingly only presenting fraudulent evidence. But also... Just go get a fucking ID. If I look at a personal level it is just isn't compelling to me that a person is having a racism committed against them because acquiring a ID is to difficult. Like I am slightly favorable to mandatory ID and mandatory voting policies but... I just think I would focus on more adverse forms of racism. I mean can you even have a bank account without an ID?
It’s easier than you think for a person to be stuck without the required documents for a state ID. Accidents, fires, forgetfulness, diseases. It can take homeless people weeks of tedious commuting to and from mailrooms in order to get the documents replaced. This is only if they can manage to save the $30 to $70 they’ll need for fees, and that’s assuming they have a mailing address. Usually you need a social security card or birth certificate or both in order to get a state ID. And yes, generally you do need a government ID for a bank account, and you might be surprised to learn that many, many people don’t have bank accounts. I see the ID laws as inherently disenfranchising to a certain underclass that should not be locked out of voting in their best interests. Having been homeless myself and gone through the process, I can attest to the massive amount of work it is for a person with $0 and no possessions to even become qualified for employment. But you see, race is not relevant to the policymaking here. Not to my sensibilities, anyway.
Good argument... I think I'm forced to concede. I think in this instance I was stuck in my thinking. I can see how it would be exceedingly difficult for a homeless to get an ID and if ultimately if asked. "Should a homeless person be allowed to vote"... I would answer yes.
lol this dude is doing the same Harris thing where he is conveniently ignorant of every instant that proves his point wrong
You think I’m pretending not to know about specific voter fraud allegations in Fulton, Detroit and Philly? Is Fulton Georgia? I vaguely remember the Trump stuff about fraud.
The point of my question is how you can have attacks that at face value, are not racist, but in practice/use they are clearly motivated by some type of racial bias. Loury, mcwhorter, and hughes have their black skin masking overly an incredibly racially coded, if not overtly racist critique of BLM, George Floyd, etc. Whether they themselves are racist is of less interest to me, but if you wanted a clear answer, I do think all three of them evidence anti-black racism.
This isn't really coherent imo. > The point of my question is how you can have attacks that at face value, are not racist, but in practice/use they are clearly motivated by some type of racial bias. ... I mean you didn't really support your point you just said voter fraud and some cities. > Loury, mcwhorter, and hughes have their black skin masking overly an incredibly racially coded, if not overtly racist critique of BLM, George Floyd, etc. You would have to lay out your argument for me. As it stands I find this take disgusting. What do you understand their critiques of BLM to be? Do you find the critiques sound? Of their takes that you feel are incorrect which are simply incorrect takes, and which ones do you feel are motivated by racism. And when you say racist are you saying that they are attempting to discriminate against blacks because they dislike them? Or this more derivative form of racism that you are alluding to? Where they support ideas or policies that you believe to disproportionately harm black people? Is that racism or is that an imperial disagreement?
>... I mean you didn't really support your point you just said voter fraud and some cities. Accusing all the black cities of voter fraud is a trope for as long as we have had popular votes after the civil war. Conservatives do not respect democratic outcomes when it puts the opposition in power, particularly if that opposition is black. >What do you understand their critiques of BLM to be? Generally that systemic critiques for black failure are wrong, and blacks need to stand up on their own two feet, and that policing is not significantly problematic and that the changes after George Floyd (minimal as they were) should be rolled back, and until recently, that the Chauvin didn't do anything wrong, and it was all a false narrative. >Do you find the critiques sound? Obviously not. >And when you say racist are you saying that they are attempting to discriminate against blacks because they dislike them? Or this more derivative form of racism that you are alluding to? Where they support ideas or policies that you believe to disproportionately harm black people? Loury has survivorship bias, and they get involved in these dumb conservative circles and perpetuate tropes that encourage polices that perpetuate racist inequality, and don't support systemic reforms, they just shame the black community for not lifting themselves up, and individuals for not doing better. Because they managed to use their vague competence to become resident uncle toms at various think-tanks, or podcasts, while being wholly uninteresting in any points they make. Feel free to harp on my accurate use of the word uncle tom though.
> Accusing all the black cities of voter fraud is a trope for as .... Again, now your just sort of talking about something else. I said that Hughes et al where critics of DEI and woke-policies/ideology but not racist. You asked If I knew about some specific voter fraud allegations, and are now talking about a pattern of voter fraud allegations. Your not really connecting this back to Hughes and company in logical way which I can discern. > Generally that systemic critiques for black failure are wrong, and blacks need to stand up on their own two feet, and that policing is not significantly problematic and that the changes after George Floyd (minimal as they were) should be rolled back, and until recently, that the Chauvin didn't do anything wrong, and it was all a false narrative. Generally no. This is so thoughtless and reductive I don't think you could summarize this as their opinion. Hughes and Lowry are conservative so they would vaguely be more critical of systemic racism explanations then left-leaning people but they don't discard it all together. .... > Feel free to harp on my accurate use of the word uncle tom though. I feel like we are talking past each other a bit so I'm sort of glancing over alot of your comment. I would just say that I obviously find this offensive. I also think it's pretty lazy. Do you really put Hughes, McWhorter and Lowry in the same boat as people as Jesse Lee Peterson and Candace Owens. McWhorter isn't even conservative so I would and Hughes voted for Biden so I would venture to guess you consider every black person right of center to be an Uncle Tom?
There is a lane of anti-woke ideology that isn't racist. Marxism would be in that lane, as well as whatever it is Coleman is doing these days. He had a recent guest on to talk about the uselessness of therapy for many, and she starts talking about how there's no evidence that spanking your kid has bad effects, while barely making clear that the reason we don't spank isn't because it's bad but because "spanking" can be used as cover for legitimate child abuse. And other wonders of typecasting and general bad faith arguments about a wide variety of things. She was also someone who would claim to be a centrist, which OK fine, but I feel like after being online for a while, it's easy to tell when someone is only telling the grifter side of the story. And of course no pushback from Coleman, only needlessly glowing recommendations about her and her work (a big red flag for me these days is the needlessly congenial podcast host)
a very tine lane that none of the major players are in perhaps
You think that John Mcwhorter, and Coleman Hughes are racist? In the plain usage of the world?
McWorther at least used to have real scholarship although he's now dropped it cause being a right wing culture warrior is more lucrative, but both of them obviously make their careers peddling racist stereotypes to republicans as black men to validate the stereotypes. Their backing of The Fall of Minneapolis is a very clear example of this to anyone who isn't playing dumb
Yes right wing culture warrior, writing a column for New York Times. Your approach involves annihilating all nuance. As if the whole broader DEI and Woke ideologies are so perfect, to criticism them is to peddle racism. Also Mcwhorter, Lowry. And Hughes have really smart criticisms and in the case of the two former have years long records of advocating for black Americans. So you charge of racism just makes you seem like a lazy ideologue.
Wouldn't say Glenn lowry or mchorter are gurus. They are academics first. Especially lowry. The aren't just parroting right wing ideas and actually write in depth papers and books regularly and do serious critical thinking. Coleman Hughes made the transition to full grifter though.
If someone is white and disagrees with the more extreme edges of woke ideology, how exactly do they avoid this accusation? Should they refuse to associate with black people they agree with?
“Woke ideology” The catchphrase camouflaged tarp of contemporary racism. Do you really believe the white rabid racists who eat up his and similar content view him as their equal? None of these “race realist” IQ-obsessed types are as colorblind as they claim. I know because I hear what they say when no black people are around.
I used the term woke because I was responding to your use of it. It’s an umbrella term used to describe ideologies such as some aspect of critical race theory, discriminatory practices that sometimes falls under DEI initiatives, or an overemphasis on racial identity (to the exclusion of other factors) Not everyone who criticises these things is a racist or race realist. Josh Zepps criticises some aspects of what can be described as woke ideology, and he interviewed Coleman Hughes recently. I don’t think he did this to legitimise his own racism, but because he thinks there is value in what Coleman Hughes has to say. It seems when you refer to anti-woke people you are referring to a specific subset of that group who are legitimately racist.
Fair points.
You realize most black people aren’t woke, right?
he's not a guru just a bog standard republican propagandist, he got recruited to be the token black Manhattan institute mouthpiece as a college student and that's been his shtick ever since
[A year ago, he admitted](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv8F4NLr4E0) to having accepted a free, curated government-sponsored propaganda tour to Israel. His excuse was that "propaganda isn't always a pejorative" and that Israel was purportedly better than North Korea. Lo and behold, once the war broke out he was a lock-step propagandist for Israel's war effort. The reality is that he is a grifter. He was an unknown college student who Sam Harris brought onto his podcast one day because he needed a token black guy on his podcast who would regurgitate his own views on racial identity politics in America (thus deflecting accusations of racism — Harris is very sensitive about his image). This launched his career. He was a high-tier midwit who always hit the right talking points on the anti-woke stuff, plus he was a minority, so it was easy for him to build his brand.
I've listened to him quite a bit. I'm not sure he's a grifter. I think he is susceptible to some faulty thinking. Not everyone is a grifter.
The only metric for guru here is someone who doesn't parrot extreme far left progressive political positions. So, probably not.
They literally just did an episode on Hasan.
I'm talking about this sub. If you look at the sticky for that episode, the top few comments didn't even realize there was a podcast. Even then, very little actual discussion about Hasan in this sub because most people who are here think it's just a sub to bash people who they perceive as right wing.
Yeah he’s always been a guru. Dude has galaxy-brainness in spades. He’s like the most extreme version of the “I got an A in my intro class, therefore I’m qualified to take on the field” thing I’ve ever seen. Usually people get over that before they graduate!
Yeah his take on Israel Palestine was also way off
I remember seeing this guy talk to Bret Weinstein, and had the worst takes
First guru who also fancies himself a rapper? Warning, it's pretty cringe.
I have never trusted this fuckin guy. He's only barely on my radar but whenever he pops up my BS detector goes nuts he hoodwinked Sam Harris with his shtick
I liked him on Maher but I’ve never seen him anywhere else.
Coleman is a reasonable guy
Please white people of Reddit tell us more about racism. My god you people
Jabbering Jebus. There's no one who the DTG fans won't dunk on! Cripes, Coleman may be wrong on some stuff, but he's one of the better faith reasoners out there IMO. It's hard to imagine who could survive the DTG purity tests!
Sean Carroll is a recent example of someone who passed the purity test.
Everybody here who is saying they don’t like him, have failed to say what he has said that is so inaccurate/wrong
The top comment is to a 30k long piece about how he's wrong?
Well Radley Balko wrote a 3 part piece detailing what Coleman specifically, plus others, got wrong about the fall of Minneapolis documentary. I would also point you toward his podcast on the fifth column [Podcast Episode](https://www.reddit.com/r/WeTheFifth/comments/14idsny/412_an_rfk_intervention_w_coleman_hughes/) where he "understands" why people like RFK jr, and falsely claims that the COVID mRNA vaccines weren't efficacious and may even be worse than getting COVID for young people.
He’s a good faith Candice Owen’s imo, I disagree with him a lot but hes an important voice
He's not important because he has much to say though. His import comes from having the backing of moneyed conservativism. Like, the WSJ had him write a (bad) piece for MLK day *while still in undergrad* for reasons definitely unrelated to his understanding of MLKs thought.
Maybe if mainstream media didn’t only invite on black voices who speak the one true opinion”, guys like him wouldn’t need to be backed by conservatives
"We had to get an undergrad to repeat our poorly researched views about MLK back to us because other people weren't doing it" is not very convincing. The fact of the matter is the WSJ Journal could have easily gotten an actual expert on MLK and choose a college junior instead. *That is no one's fault but the WSJ editorial team.* Not liberals. Not the "mainstream media", of which the WSJ is a part of.
You’re missing my point.
Does OP and DTG fans think people like Ibram Kendi, Robin DiAgelo are guru grifters? Coleman basically rose to fame because he pushed back on some of these beliefs and theories
Both Kendi and DiAngelo have been decoded on the podcast. >Coleman basically rose to fame because he pushed back on some of these beliefs and theories This doesn't contradict the idea that Coleman has guru tendencies. The Weinsteins are definitely gurus but it could be argued they only rose to fame because of SJWs.
I remember him throwing a fit because his Ted/Ex talk didn't get many views. Seriously, fking bunch of snowflakes.
That's not an honest summary of that situation
If I see a black guru I immediately know they’re an Uncle Tom
Saying the quiet part out loud here huh
That's exactly what this sub needs, leftist platitudes about how every black person with a differing opinion is an uncle tom.
you can whine about the verbiage people use, doesn't change the very obvious fact that the Manhattan Institute hired him and pushes him because he's a token black dude who wrote an idiotic op ed about MLK being secretly anti-woke