Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

imadv8r2 t1_j5pkp9b wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in School students in Sq Hill by soparklion

Yep, take out only thanks to the actions of the those people and Starbucks corporate worried about even more backlash in Pittsburgh what with the ongoing unionization efforts.

To my knowledge, one barista stood up to those people and was reprimanded by corporate, while the rest of the staff took down “one student at a time” signs posted by police on detail, and continued to allow them in despite admonition by said police, and, thus, perpetuating the situation.

Regardless, it is incredibly sad that the actions of those people have, and continue to, make a once peaceful area virtually impassable during certain afternoon hours, make pedestrians cower and avoid businesses because of their actions.

The worst part is that no one is willing to do anything—except for question the vernacular used when referring to the perpetrators, rather than actually punishing them—or at least attempting real solutions to the problem.

−38

Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j5qnler wrote

People choose the soft bigotry of low expectations over confronting uncomfortable social realities.

4

aboutsider t1_j5tg4tb wrote

What's the uncomfortable social reality that you think people aren't confronting?

2

Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j5v8c3c wrote

That a greatly disproportionate amount of violent crime and antisocial behavior comes from young black males and there is no one easy answer to why the problem exists or what the solution is.

And because liberals/leftists are afraid to acknowledge this reality, they cede the narrative to conservatives who simplify it to one purely of cultural factors and largely carceral solutions, when what’s needed is a thorough revaluation of social welfare, educational, housing, criminal justice, and industrial policy.

−2

aboutsider t1_j5yb00h wrote

Where do you see leftists ignoring this reality? I see folks on the left side of the political spectrum talk about this stuff all the time-- the causes and solutions. They mention a lot of the stuff that you mention, in fact. Can you explain ceding the narrative to conservatives?

3

Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j61ujcw wrote

From my experience, most people on the proverbial left have a hard time recognizing the extent to which violent crime is so prevalent amongst young black males, and when they do, the root of the problem is reduced to “systemic racism,” and the solutions are viewed as abstractions like “dismantling white supremacy.” Not to say that historical realities like redlining don’t play a major part in this phenomenon, but racism is. often viewed as a sort of original sin that is to be addressed with repentance, not concrete political change.

When policy is discussed, the conversation tends to shift towards of over-correction of criminal justice mistakes of the past that borders on nihilism and runs counter to what the vast majority of black voters actually support. Attempts to address the class dynamics with a materialist analysis are met with charges of “economic reductionism” and acknowledgement of the cultural aspects, especially the decline of the black family, that while overemphasized by conservatives is still certainly a major factor, is met with outright hostility.

More importantly, as evidenced by this thread, when white “normies,” for lack of a better term, express their concerns about violent black teenagers causing harm to their businesses and the general quality of life of their neighborhoods, they’re met with derision from liberals/leftists and often accused of being straight up fascists for daring to care about the safety of themselves and their neighbors…. And when black normies say the same things, they’re straight up ignored because they’re not going along with the narrative that black people are helpless victims of an oppressive system with no agency.

In general, I think there’s a lot of white guilt that clouds people’s ability to recognize thr social causes that perpetuate racism, that the fear of “ghetto” blacks is based on, to use the parlance of our times, “lived experience.” Which of course is not to say that racism doesn’t unfairly harm the vast majority of black people, including young black men, who are just normal, law-abiding citizens trying to live their lives like everyone else. What it means is that until the complex socio-economic issues that cause the disparity in violent crime amongst young black men (which hurts working black women more than anyone!) are addressed, the social problems caused by that violence will continue to perpetuate racist sentiments, damaging the ability to create the political will through a diverse working class coalition to solve the root of these problems.

I do think there are plenty of serious political thinkers out there who have a good understanding of the problem and possible solutions, ranging from restructuring the welfare state to encourage family building, to delocalizing school funding, to tying industrial policy to vocational training programs in poor areas (both urban and rural) that lost their moorings during deindustrialization. The problem is the discourse is so fraught on the left, that talking outside of the narrow strictures of the culturally ascendent professional-managerial elite is severely frowned upon.

1

aboutsider t1_j636hfr wrote

I think you might need to explain the "decline of the black family". I've heard similar things said but it seems to be based on perceptions rather than reality. For instance, the notion that black fathers are typically absent is based on the fact that black parents are less likely to be married. But being married does not a family make.

Honestly, it seems like you're basing all of this off of how you see people respond on social media or in public forums. I'm not sure that that's the best method of determining the nuances of anyone's political position. You're taking the loudest, most extreme voices and using that to get a feel for what the left as a whole believes or thinks. I'm not sure I agree that what you've described is a good representation of the left.

Also, I think you might be ignoring the fact that some of those people being called names are actually saying shit that is racist, classist, and ageist. You can sincerely want to protect your neighborhood while doing all those things. In fact, wanting to "protect your neighborhood" can often make one more tribalistic and insular. I think it's important to point out those prejudices when we see them. I think most people are just too deluded or ashamed to see and admit that they harbor those prejudices.

1

Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j69qt2m wrote

I think you might need to explain the "decline of the black family". I've heard similar things said but it seems to be based on perceptions rather than reality.

From the book “Of Boys and Men:” “Black mothers are three times as likely as white mothers to be single parents (52% v. 16%) and half as likely to be living with a spouse (41% v. 78%).” That book is, in my opinion, downright cowardly in its failure to address the crime statistics for young black men and primary role that plays in perpetuating anti-black racism, but it does do a good job of explaining the social and financial pressures black women face compared to other “racial” groups.

Honestly, it seems like you're basing all of this off of how you see people respond on social media or in public forums.

Hon, I have 20+ years of experience off and on in left wing political orgs and social circles, and the loudest, most extreme voices on the internet are usually the loudest, most extreme voices in the room. It’s a one circle Venn diagram. Talking about racial issues in a way that is even remotely heterodox (i.e. the way most working class people of all “races” talk about them) is anathema.

Also, I think you might be ignoring the fact that some of those people being called names are actually saying shit that is racist, classist, and ageist. You can sincerely want to protect your neighborhood while doing all those things. In fact, wanting to "protect your neighborhood" can often make one more tribalistic and insular. I think it's important to point out those prejudices when we see them. I think most people are just too deluded or ashamed to see and admit that they harbor those prejudices.

And here you have made my argument better than I ever could have myself! “We must educate the ignorant masses to ignore their lying eyes” and “The scoldings will continue until moral improves;” a perfect encapsulation of the social half of why the left continues to fail to win an effective political majority!

1

aboutsider t1_j6cj7oq wrote

Yes, those are exactly the statistics to which I'm referring. They show marital and living status but don't actually detail parental involvement or family strength. Do you have stats on that?

Um, ok? I do too. And, I dunno what kind of organizations you belong to or people you associate with but all the leftists I know are working class. And, they may be extreme but they don't just talk. They're very active on all fronts. Sucks that you've only been surrounded by lazy ass elitists but you shouldn't assume that's representative of the whole.

And here you have proven my point-- your making some pretty prejudiced assumptions about the intent of those commenting on racist language. You ignore that it's racist or classist so you can scold leftists about taking some moral high ground and why this makes them political losers. You're cool with letting that racist shit be said because the thing which you find really objectionable is your perception that leftists are nothing but virtue signaling elitists. Which doesn't even make a whole lot of sense-- what political side doesn't take a moral high ground and virtue signal and scold those who don't follow it? Does that mean that no side will ever achieve an effective political majority?

1

Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j6eete8 wrote

Yes, those are exactly the statistics to which I'm referring. They show marital and living status but don't actually detail parental involvement or family strength. Do you have stats on that?

Here’s a starter pack for you, but feel free to do your own research if you don’t like what you see: https://fathers.com/the-consequences-of-fatherlessness/

It’s obvious that, even if the majority of the issues that correlate with fatherlessness are economic, then fatherlessness is a serious economic issues that perpetuates cycles of poverty and the associated social problems. The extent to which it’s a problem when controlling for class is in an interesting one, and I’m open to debate on that point.

Do you have any evidence saying that fatherlessness is not a serious problem? Because I haven’t found any that isn’t anecdotal or specious.

I dunno what kind of organizations you belong to or people you associate with but all the leftists I know are working class.

It sounds like you’ve never had the misfortune of being a heretic. I don’t recommend it for everyone, but there is something rather liberating about excommunication.

In the broadest definition, most lefties are working class. But if we’re going to have a serious discussion about modern class structure, then most hyper-active lefties are downwardly mobile PMC at best, or straight up Ivy League brats at worst.

You're cool with letting that racist shit be said because the thing which you find really objectionable is your perception that leftists are nothing but virtue signaling elitists.

Do you think scolding working class people for being concerned about criminal elements fucking up their neighborhoods because there are icky racial dynamics at play, and because they don’t phrase things using the delicate language of the academy, makes the left come off more or less like virtue-signally elitists?

Which doesn't even make a whole lot of sense-- what political side doesn't take a moral high ground and virtue signal and scold those who don't follow it?

The ones that win.

Do you think the average CIO organizer went around chastising steelworkers for their social prejudices? Or do you think they brought a diverse group of working class men together through common struggle, and let that shared material experience and struggle for dignity take the lead in overcoming the bigotry that the bosses tired incite?

1

aboutsider t1_j6hn2r8 wrote

I never said fatherlessness isn't a serious issue. I'm saying that you have yet to prove that it's an issue in the black community. You're taking statistics about marriage and living situation and conflating that with parental involvement. Just because two people aren't married or living together, doesn't mean that both parents aren't involved. Why do you keep making that assumption? Do you have any statistics that prove that black children are "fatherless" at a higher rate than white children?

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make about class? You said that most leftist rhetoric isn't working class. Ok, that's not my experience. Just because you're only listening to the loudest, richest, and most influential voices, doesn't mean that lots of leftists aren't discussing real world solutions that actually make sense for them as the working class. You've been trying to push this rigid definition of leftists but at every turn you seem to move the goal posts. So, are leftists out of touch with the working class or are they actually more likely to be working class while the minority of leftists are out of touch richies?

Hahaha, yes, dude. I, as an anti-authority, queer, disabled atheist woman who comes from a family of criminals living in a dying rust belt town, know nothing of being considered a heretic!

Can you not see that this is a deflection that kinda totally proves my point? I point out that you're more concerned with confronting leftists about appearances than confronting racists about their racism and you ask me how you think I appear as a leftist confronting racism? Um, I'm not too concerned with appearances, to be honest. I don't really care if people think I'm virtue signaling or scolding or whatever. I'm not in control of what other people think. I'm in control of what I do and say. And, I do and say based on what I believe is right. If you, like others, choose to focus on how offended you are because someone said that your behavior or words could be construed as racist rather than doing the hard work that comes with examining those claims then that's on you.

Hahaha, ok, which political party that's winning, doesn't take the moral high ground, doesn't scold, doesn't virtue signal?

No, I absolutely do not think that union heads were chastising workers for their social prejudices. Know why? Because it's pretty well known that the early unions were extremely racist and discriminatory. They didn't bring together a diverse group of working class men". In fact, you'd be amazed at how many unions were started because of or motivated by the threat of cheap black labor or simply integration. It's believed that black wealth has fallen so far behind in large part because of the discrimination and exclusion of black people in unions for decades. That bigotry was never overcome. Instead it was institutionalized. So, yeah, the union was successful... at improving the status of lots of white folks at the expense of black folks. Are you sure that this is the model that you'd like to follow?

1

Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j6j0jxc wrote

There’s clearly not a stat on black fatherhood that is going to force your head out of the sand. Not gonna keep kicking at a moving goal post.

Gonna skip ahead to your last paragraph, because oh boy, you have swallowed the race-reductionist, anti-labor, New Deal revisionism whole-heatedly, haven’t you? Don’t know what to tell you if you don’t think the CIO and the New Deal was beneficial for black wealth and planted the seeds for the Civil Rights movement. You might want to type A. Phillip Randolph into the old search engine as a good starting point.

0