Good food for thought when Bret Weinstein sits down with Joe Rogan to discuss the protests and the civil unrest. I haven't been buying the standard line that these sustained protests are driven completely by the homicide of George Floyd. That horrific incident is certainly what triggered the demonstrations. However, the duration and intensity of the unrest , the organic "leaderless" groundswell, the unfocused attacks on virtually every American institution (including universities and STEM) and the unhinged demands (e.g., where "defund the police" doesn't actually mean defund the police) have convinced me this unrest is about far more than police abuses. Weinstein believes that many Occupy Wall Street demonstrators (he supported this movement) turned to anarchy and have now combined with the many demonstrators who fall under the Black Lives Matter umbrella, as well as other participants.
Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist living in exile from Evergreen State with his wife, Heather Heying, also an evolutionary biologist. These two biologists somehow survived intact the abysmal failure of Evergreen to deal with its own unrest in 2016, an incident that gives Weinstein a unique perspective on the ongoing crisis. In the first 30 minutes of this podcast, Weinstein and Rogan focus on the failures of BOTH political parties to represent the interests of the American working class. Ever since Bill Clinton, both parties have catered almost exclusively to the needs of their "clients," large corporations, which have rigged the game to screw small business and working people. This trend of catering to big corporations and screwing workers has continued under the current administration. One result of this: Widespread joblessness and hopelessness in both big cities and small that is now exploding on the streets. This economic misery has hurt minorities living in urban areas especially hard, exacerbating their many concerns about institutional racism. Weinstein sees no short term or long term solution to this mess given the complete lack of political leadership, especially from the White House.
What is the relationship between the numbers of police on the street and rate of violent crime? In a recent Vox article, "The End of Policing left me convinced we still need policing," Matthew Yglesias offers some real numbers to counter rampant speculation we are hearing from the many people who are understandably upset with police misconduct. His conclusion: "One of the most robust, most uncomfortable findings in criminology is that putting more officers on the street leads to less violent crime.” Therefore, if you want to increase violent crime in rich and poor neighborhoods alike, simply remove police officers. Here are some specific cases summarized by Yglesias:
"Klick, John MacDonald, and Ben Grunwald looked at an episode when the University of Pennsylvania had its campus police increase patrols within its defined zone of Philadelphia, and used a regression discontinuity design to discover that crime fell about 60 percent (this time with a larger decline for violent crime) where the extra officers went.
Stephen Mello looked at a huge surge in federal funding for local police staffing associated with the 2009 stimulus bill. Exploiting quasi-random variation in which cities got grants, Mello showed that compared to cities that missed out, those that made the cut ended up with police staffing levels that were 3.2 percent higher and crime levels that were 3.5 percent lower — again with a larger drop in violent crime.
John MacDonald, Jeffrey Fagan, and Amanda Geller looked at a program in New York called Operation Impact that would surge additional officers into high-crime neighborhoods and found that a wide range of crime — assaults, robberies, burglaries, violent felonies, violent property crimes, and misdemeanor offenses — fell in response to the surge.
Richard Rosenfeld’s field experiments show that “hot spot” policing, where extra officers go to specific high-crime locations, not only reduces crime in the hot spots but reduces crime (in this case, specifically gun assaults) citywide.
Patrick Sharkey, a Princeton sociologist who is clearly sympathetic to the goals of the defunding movement, writes in a Washington Post piece arguing for a greater role for local leaders and communities in containing violence that “those who argue that the police have no role in maintaining safe streets are arguing against lots of strong evidence."
A girl in my grade school was repeatedly bullied, but the teachers (Catholic nuns) failed to intervene. Several of the boys formed a mob that picked on her, both in class and on the playground. They mocked her with nicknames. They chanted at her. They made fun of the way she looked, including the thick glasses she wore. They sneered at her, sometimes causing her to look very sad. Other students would sometimes try to intervene but it was at the risk of becoming targets themselves. Several decades later, this bullied girl had grown into a very impressive woman who told me that this bullying contributed to severe depression while she was a young adult.
As I reminisced about this sad chapter of grade school, I thought about how far we haven’t come. On social media (for me, FB and Twitter), I’ve seen similar boorish online behavior by numerous people, including intelligent people who I consider friends and who are offering ideas I consider valuable. The bad behavior is usually directed to people on the “opposing political team,” but that is no excuse. There is no excuse at all. Why do people who are generally decent and thoughtful stoop to the low bar set by the President? Do they think it’s OK to be like Trump?
Why do so many people think it’s OK to engage in name-calling, slurs, ad hominem attacks, guilt by association and numerous other fallacious and malicious forms of argument? These things are the broken windows and graffiti of social media and they are also symptoms of something much deeper. Why do grown educated adults make fun of the way other people look, including ridiculing the President’s obesity, lack of hair and skin color? Trump’s behavior repulses me, but I will keep my criticisms aimed only at his behavior, not his looks. What is the justification for doing otherwise in a civil society?
Many people justify their social media loutishness by pointing to the loutish behavior of members of the other political team, as though this justifies anything. We need to rise about this temptation and with a little discipline we can do it. Others have done it in much more trying circumstances. Ben Fainer, a friend of mine, died a few years ago. He was tortured and terrorized for six years at Buchenwald and other concentration camps during WWII. In his 2012 video, I asked him whether he hated the Nazis for what they did to him and his family. He said, “If I hate, I’m going to hurt myself.” The way that Ben discusses his survival in the camps is an inspiration to me (See minute 38:20). Truly, we can stay above the fray.
As new fault lines are becoming more apparent within the two traditional political teams, I’m seeing even more of this bad behavior online. Why is this OK? We don’t hurl weaponized language at each other in person. Why aren’t we taking special care on social media, given the increased risk of treating each other as floating words rather than as fully human?
Can’t we see that we are engaged in cheapest type of virtue signaling when we use low rent language and bullying tactics? For those of you who claim to be Christian how can you possibly justify this behavior? Is that how any of us were raised? Don’t we want to be good examples for our own children? Wouldn’t it be better for us to take our inspiration from real life great communicators like Martin Luther King rather than by plummeting to the coarse ignorance of Donald Trump?
In tumultuous times like this, when mortality salience is thick in the air, we are being poisoned by the ingroup bias. It binds and blinds far more than we realize. This group bias can make a pit of venomous snakes look like soft puppies and it can make puppies look like venomous snakes. Our deeply ingrained groupish tendencies can cause the confirmation bias run rampant and most of us are completely oblivious. Until we muster the discipline to take the red pill that allows us to see this cluttered world as a complex ecosystem rather than a Manichean battlefield, we will suffer a long succession of missed opportunities. Step one is to recognize the full humanity of each other while online.
If we have the better facts and persuasion, then let us educate and persuade each other. If our ideas are so undeniably correct, why not offer our ideas fairly and, yes, forcefully, after giving our opponents their best foot forward? Let’s make social media a place where we want to be both inspired and challenged. Let’s clean up all of this broken glass and graffiti. When we disagree with others, let us have the courage to work together to find out why we disagree. When we can’t seem to resolve our differences, let’s make sure that we always recognize the humanity in each other in the process. That is the only way we will stop this insanity.
I love this podcast. Daryl Davis set out on a personal mission to melt the hate residing within members of the Ku Klux Klan. He did it with kindness, curiosity and a superhuman amount of patience and courage. I suspect that his gentle nature and his love of music also played helped to pave the way. Here's an excerpt from the related article from FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education):
"Daryl Davis, a 58-year-old black man, grew up attending international schools and traveling the world with his parents who worked in the foreign service. ... “When I was overseas, I was multicultural. But when I would return home to the states, I was either in all black schools or black and white schools, depending on whether I was going to the newly integrated school or the still segregated one.”
Davis’ experience with segregation and racism in the United States led him to ask the question, “How can you hate me if you don’t even know me?” To find his answer, Davis began interviewing members of the Ku Klux Klan in the early ‘90s for a book he planned to write, ultimately titled “Klan-destine Relationships: A Black Man’s Odyssey in the Ku Klux Klan.” What he found in the course of researching his book was that while he was actively learning about Klan members, they were passively learning about him.
“If you spend five minutes with your worst enemy, you will find you have something in common,” said Davis. “If you spend 10 minutes, you’ll find you even have more in common. And the more you find that you have in common and build upon those things, the less the things that you have in contrast will begin to matter, like skin color.”
This open dialogue resulted in many of Davis’ interview subjects ultimately becoming his friends and giving up their prejudices. Today, he has dozens of Klan robes at his home that were given to him by former Klan members who shed their racist beliefs after meeting him.
The United States has an undeniably serious problem with racism. No doubt about that. We've seen this with more clarity since the election of Donald Trump, as the bigots among us have been more ever more willing to openly judge others based on physical appearance. It has been distressing to see this. We need to shame these people and prosecute them to the extent that they break the law. To the extent that governments and their agents act with bigotry, including police officers, we need to push back with even more vigor.
But the United States is an extremely complex case, so it would be wrong to judge the U.S. on any one of its many dimensions as a proxy for all of its many dimensions. Andrew Sullivan reminds us of both this reductionism and this complexity in "Is There Still Room For Debate?" Here is an excerpt:
That America is systemically racist, and a white-supremacist project from the start . . . This is an argument that deserves to be aired openly in a liberal society, especially one with such racial terror and darkness in its past and inequality in the present. But it is an argument that equally deserves to be engaged, challenged, questioned, interrogated. There is truth in it, truth that it’s incumbent on us to understand more deeply and empathize with more thoroughly. But there is also an awful amount of truth it ignores or elides or simply denies. It sees America as in its essence not about freedom but oppression . . . This view of the world certainly has “moral clarity.” What it lacks is moral complexity. No country can be so reduced to one single prism and damned because of it. American society has far more complexity and history has far more contingency than can be jammed into this rubric. No racial group is homogeneous, and every individual has agency. No one is entirely a victim or entirely privileged. And we are not defined by black and white any longer; we are home to every race and ethnicity, from Asia through Africa to Europe and South America.
And a country that actively seeks immigrants who are now 82 percent nonwhite is not primarily defined by white supremacy. Nor is a country that has seen the historic growth of a black middle and upper class, increasing gains for black women in education and the workplace, a revered two-term black president, a thriving black intelligentsia, successful black mayors and governors and members of Congress, and popular and high culture strongly defined by the African-American experience. Nor is a country where nonwhite immigrants are fast catching up with whites in income and where some minority groups now outearn whites. And yet this crude hyperbole remains . . .
The crudeness and certainty of this analysis is quite something. It’s an obvious rebuke to Barack Obama’s story of America as an imperfect but inspiring work-in-progress, gradually including everyone in opportunity, and binding races together, rather than polarizing them. In fact, there is more dogmatism in this ideology than in most of contemporary American Catholicism. And more intolerance. Question any significant part of this, and your moral integrity as a human being is called into question. There is little or no liberal space in this revolutionary movement for genuine, respectful disagreement, regardless of one’s identity, or even open-minded exploration.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
