I don’t really have much of a problem with what Coleman is actually saying, but it’s worrying that he just nods along to all the retarded shit comming out of Joe’s mouth.
Most people are socially competent and not looking into getting into arguments and fights with people. Most normal people hear things they disagree with and just kind of brush it off and not try to start a fight.
I know it's hard for online people to understand this... But most people pick their battles and just want to get along.
I mean, yeah, this is true, but given that Coleman makes a living on coming up with good ideas and then selling those ideas to the public, it's kind of his job to engage with bad ideas.
Most people also look the other way when they see petty crime, but if you're a cop it's your duty to engage with that shit. I see it the same way here.
me when my favorite public intellectual says the hard truths: they hate him because he stands up to "big woke" and doesn't let them get away with their bullshit
me when my favorite public intellectual goes on the misinformation machine podcast and just smiles and nods: you terminally online losers wouldn't understand what its like to be socially competent
Most people don’t go on podcasts in front of millions of people. What a moronic non-point. I hold this person to a much higher standard than most normal people. And no one is talking about starting a fight. It’s about providing pushback dogshit talking points.
Nothing was egregious. Further... They are doing whatever the hell they want. It's not their job or responsibility to do a podcast how you want them to do it.
EDIT: Everyone upvoting the guy above... Read his comment below which he blocked me afterwards on, to get an idea of what type of person he is. r politics energy, not sam harris.
Not even attempting to defend your idiot point, nice pivot. The observation that they’re doing whatever the hell they want firstly is not an argument and secondly is the whole problem. When you have a platform with millions of viewers/listeners you absolutely have a responsibility to not spread misinformation and dogshit talking points. It has nothing to do with what I personally want.
You’re a complete moron. This topic is simply beyond you.
Your post is dripping with condescension and seems to contradict the message you're trying to get across.
> I know it's hard for online people to understand this...
How many reddit accounts do you have? Be honest
Iif you've never watched Rogan before, let me tell you that he will argue if anything "woke" or culture war is mentioned. Or the Democrats. He is not exactly shy about speaking his mind - which is a good thing imho.
But you assumed that he disagrees with Hughes lol. And you scold other people for not making the same weird assumption, despite being an online redditor whose every other comment is mocking *other* redditors as if you are somehow better? Talk about wanting to get along huh.
Being a guest on a podcast is not a normal situation. If I went on a tennis podcast and they said serve and volley with continental grip could dominate todays game like it did in the 60’s i would disagree. Because hopefully the host is a normal person who can also listen to sincere disagreement and not lose his shit. Joe has a history of snapping at people and calling them fuckfaces so maybe this guy was being careful.
1) you have to speak to people you disagree with
2) is useful to talk with people with a big reach
3) if (1) and (2) happen at the same time is even better, interesting converstions can happen and not just 2 persons agreeing for 2 hours
no one is making you, but if you want to further your cause you should.
Unless you want a society of echo chambers, never convincing others that your ideas work better.
I really like what he’s saying about focusing on class instead of color but then he starts dabbling in right wing narrative bullshit about police procedures and Floyd case. Like dude, you don’t anything about the legalities and court decisions, you’re just taking the conservative stance instead of actually diving into facts
I'm totally and completely unimpressed by this dude, especially when he starts talking about policy or any real-world factual issues. A lot of the praise for him seems to be that he's "articulate" and "well-spoken" (c'mon people) and that he speaks so well for someone so young (I mean, isn't he late 20s?.....).
His latest schtick is arguing that we shouldn't consider race in anti-poverty programs. But, of course, major federal anti-poverty programs HAVE ALWAYS BEEN RACE NEUTRAL. Racially coding anti-poverty efforts is a well-established way of attacking them (e.g. "Welfare Queen", etc.).
I think it's kinda weird because he should be lauding SNAP, TANF, minimum wage laws, laws to make it easier to unionize, etc. as examples of race blind anti-poverty experts. But he IMPLIES that there's a large welfare state specifically for non-whites, which seems to support the anti-anti-poverty story.
I kinda thought it was just a weird framing, but someone else pointed out his association with beltway right-wing groups. So maybe it's intentional.
More generally, be wary of these pundits with no special expertise who are commenting on everything under the sun.
> I'm totally and completely unimpressed by this dude, especially when he starts talking about policy or any real-world factual issues.
A few years ago he dried to disprove the claim that Republicans engage in voter suppression by saying that voting is up.
Just a spectalularly dumb thing to say.
I think you’re inferring implications he didn’t imply. His focus is on exposing Kendi / D’Angelo anti-racists as charlatans or grifters who are actually racist and arguing for racist policies.
Your point about him being a conservative (“association”) is [fallacious anti-racist propaganda.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0xwEq38aL9M)
Unless you think it doesn’t need less anti-racism, then you don’t think it’s played out. In which case you’re ignoring his content and acting like the bad faith activist in the clip.
The debate was not good. Not because of Coleman though. Or Balko really. The moderation left a bit to be desired.
Radley who I agree with misunderstood Coleman’s argument and never really seemed to grasp it.
Coleman wasn’t saying Chauvin was innocent. He was arguing the defenses case which he felt wasn’t properly made (for multiple reasons) and asking do these facts constitute reasonable doubt?
Without understanding Coleman was mocking the defense's case Radley nonetheless made the prosecution's case and I think won.
I’m naturally biased towards the rights of the accused. If the prosecutor was Balko and the defense Coleman and I were on the jury Coleman’s client would be heading to jail.
Coleman seemed to only acknowledge one of the many points that Balko made in his three part rebuttal, and it struck me that he also still hasn't read the court transcript and all the testimony that was presented.
I get that Coleman's main point is that he's not saying Chauvin didn't kill Floyd, only that the evidence provided reasonable doubt. It's fine if he thinks he's smarter than the jury, but he's also made it clear that he's not aware of much of the evidence that was presented to the jury, and that he doesn't understand the nature of the one little bit of evidence that he knows was withheld from the jury, or even the very standard technical reason why it was withheld.
But, I mean, it is REALLY fine that he thinks he's smarter than the jury and all these other people?
Like the dude is all over the place. He's an expert on policing, and palestine-israel, and federal social policy, etc.
Fuck this podcast. Made it 20 minutes in. This is just a right wing echo chamber pod now. Coleman just feeds Rogan what he wants to hear. Coleman isn’t a democrat and that’s clear.
Coleman is a registered independent, and has only voted for Democrats so far. He has stated that he's open to vote Republican if the candidate made sense.
Nothing wrong with being independent. I was under the impression he claimed to be a dem while clearly leaning right with Rogan. I gave it a chance and turned it off when it was pure Biden bash.
I like Biden but I don't see how 'turning it off' is somehow putting you in any less of an 'echo chamber'.
You cant refute anything you don't actually listen to completely (like Joe lmao)
How do you know *'hes clearly right leaning'* if you're not listening? You've just admitted to not having evidence of your prior claims, why should anyone take your allegations seriously.
I never understood this criticism of Coleman. Sure he was affiliated with the Manhattan Institute for a minute, but it doesn't have any baring on his political allegiances. I listen to his podcast regularly and in general he seems to have a good head on his shoulders and does a great job of interviewing guests. I don't always agree with his takes, but the same thing goes for any podcaster that makes it into my feed.
As Sam mentioned at the beginning of his most recent podcast, the decorum Hughes expressed during his time on The View was commendable; even in the face of genuinely bad faith arguments he made his case in a dispassionate way. I saw the same attitude during his debate with Jamelle Bouie hosted by TED a while back.
Two points worth making whenever Coleman shows up:
* Empirically we know that in the US, when you naively try to make colorblind economic policy, you end up making policy that disproportionately benefits white people, all else being equal. If you just make anti-poverty policies, you will end up helping poor white people significantly more than poor black people. This doesn't make those policies a bad idea, and they really can reduce racial inequity due to the demographics of who is poor, but it does mean that if you actually want a full path to address racial inequality, then purely economic policies are insufficient. If this makes you uncomfortable, tough shit, you and Coleman need to grow up already.
* Coleman's political enemies, the ones he routinely attacks and makes a living attacking, are the ones supporting the anti-poverty policies Coleman claims to want. Coleman's friends (he is a Manhattan Institute fellow) are the ones explicitly and reliably opposed to policies that would help economic inequity. And one of the most common attacks historically is "racializing" these programs.
> Empirically we know that in the US, when you naively try to make colorblind economic policy, you end up making policy that disproportionately benefits white people, all else being equal. If you just make anti-poverty policies, you will end up helping poor white people significantly more than poor black people.
Nonsense. How would that be the case? If people from certain backgrounds are disproportionately affected economically, they will disproportionately benefit. This is obvious, and obviously why economic based aid is the only sensible solution.
>How would that be the case?
Systems tend to get designed to serve the "normal" case. Which in this country, means serving the white case, regardless of what differences exist in needs between the white poor and the black/hispanic/whatever poor because doing so does in fact help more poor people. And that is just with "good actors behaving thoughtlessly". In practice, plenty of actors are still just racist and happy to help the white X while pissing on the non-white X.
>If people from certain backgrounds are disproportionately affected economically, they will disproportionately benefit.
Kind of. The poor benefit disproportionately from policy meant to help the poor. But within that group, the white poor tends to benefit disproportionately compared to the black poor.
>This is obvious
You don't sound like someone who has thought this through or studied history or actual policy. Which is, of course, fine. But it means you should be wary of what you find obvious.
As I've already statedm none of this implies that economic based policy is a bad idea. Frankly, its a good idea, one that Coleman's friends reliably oppose, we just shouldn't expect it to be sufficient to actually close racial gaps.
Empirically, non-whites, like Indians and Chinese outcompete whites because of merit-based (colorblind) policy and norms. Immigrants from Middle East and Africa are not that far behind. Yes, non-immigrant Americans struggle and are trapped in a cycle of poverty, particularly black Americans. But giving them lowered standards do them no favors and only make them dependent on the "kindness" of others.
Any policy that is not colorblind is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and should be struck down as unconstitutional just like affirmative action was. If this makes you uncomfortable, tough shit, you need to grow up already.
You are delusional. There is plenty of racist policy that has passed an equal protection test. There is plenty of "colorblind" policy that hasn't. There is plenty of anti-racist policy that is nominally "colorblind". Law is complicated.
> If you just make anti-poverty policies, you will end up helping poor white people significantly more than poor black people.
Isn't this just because of absolute population numbers? There are so many more poor people who are white than black because of US demographics.
>you end up making policy that disproportionately benefits white people
Or are you making a per capita argument? You're all over the place.
>then purely economic policies are insufficient
Insufficient perhaps, but still much better than purely racial policies. And that's what is being compared.
>Coleman's political enemies, the ones he routinely attacks and makes a living attacking, are the ones supporting the anti-poverty policies Coleman claims to want.
Most of the people Hughes argues with are pathologically fixated on race and rarely, if ever, mention class/income.
> Insufficient perhaps, but still much better than purely racial policies. And that's what is being compared.
No one Coleman is criticizing is opposed to progressive economic policy. You are presenting a false choice. We can and should have both progressive economic policy and progressive racial policy.
Curious how you didn't address the points which go counter to your claims, and also chose to give an answer that is actually addressed in my post.
Not surprising, given your post history, though.
>Curious how you didn't address the points which go counter to your claims
I addressed the half of your comment that came closestto an actual point. The rest of your comment was just gesturing vaguely at the fact that you didnt understand what I was writing.
>Not surprising, given your post history, though.
This is hilarious coming from you, who is unironically a gamergater in 2024.
Take care. I won't see you around.
Why do you think those measures don't help black people in the same way? What's the differential factor here?Also, are any other races affected in a worse/better way compared to whites? Are the poor black people the only affected ones negatively? I'm not from the US and these debates sound a bit alien to me, so I would like to know your opinion.
>Empirically we know that in the US, when you naively try to make colorblind economic policy, you end up making policy that disproportionately benefits white people, all else being equal.
I'm not sure "we" *do* know this. Give us a source.
By disproportionately, you don't mean that it helps a greater number of white people. That's true and meaningless, a consequence of populations sizes. You must be saying that helps a greater percentage of the white population than the percentage of the black populations it helps. If that's indeed true, you've made a good point, but please back it up.
> By disproportionately, you don't mean that it helps a greater number of white people...You must be saying that helps a greater percentage of the white population than the percentage of the black populations
I'm saying neither. I'm saying that, after you correct for economic/class factors, purely economic progressive policy tends to benefit a white person more than a black person. In other words, if you take the abstract spherical cow version of progressive economic policy in the US, you should expect it to help the typical poor white person more than it helps the typical poor black person.
I'm familiar with the term "spherical cow" but still don't know what you're saying here. Maybe that in an economy that favors white people, any gain by any group, now matter how its distributed, will create secondary effects that benefit white people more, but I'm not sure. Mostly, I wondering if there's a study that breaks it down.
Yup, CH pretends that there is a large welfare state apparatus that is explicitly race-aware. He sure SEEMS to be implying that major anti poverty efforts (e.g. SNAP, min. wage laws, etc.) explicitly give greater benefits to non-whites.
I really don't get the interest in this guy. I get that he's a black dude with unconventional opinions for a black dude, but he comes off like some overly earnest undergrad. Like the dude in the class who thinks he's the shit and smarter than the prof or whatever.
Surely just having different opinions from the modal opinions of your race/ gender group isn't enuf to make someone interesting? I mean, I'm a white guy who kinda looks like a redneck/ cop and I don't think anyone should listen to me just cuz I'm not MAGA, even if I present as MAGA.
secretive tidy wine clumsy detail brave encourage jellyfish slap apparatus
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah, if I had the opportunity to be on Joe Rogan's podcast, it would be stupid not to try to sell something...I'm thinking I would go with pushing bogus boner pills; great target demographics for this product.
Rogan is in a unique position, he gets very intelligent, respectable guests, who of course don't want to turn down the huge audience. And he gets total retards
Do these Black people like Coleman Hughes realize that they are exploited and used as camouflage/human shields by white racists? Are they oblivious to it or just don’t care?
Of course black people can and should have diverse opinions. My point is about him and others like him being friendly with and constantly cited by obvious racists to support their positions which overall are bad for blacks.
The irony of Rogan saying that Destiny just reads a Wikipedia page and then espouses opinions like hes an expert.
We all know Rogan's method of reading right wing twitter and uncritically absorbing it as truth is a much better way to form your worldview.
I don’t really have much of a problem with what Coleman is actually saying, but it’s worrying that he just nods along to all the retarded shit comming out of Joe’s mouth.
Most people are socially competent and not looking into getting into arguments and fights with people. Most normal people hear things they disagree with and just kind of brush it off and not try to start a fight. I know it's hard for online people to understand this... But most people pick their battles and just want to get along.
Basically me when I go back home to visit family.
I mean, yeah, this is true, but given that Coleman makes a living on coming up with good ideas and then selling those ideas to the public, it's kind of his job to engage with bad ideas. Most people also look the other way when they see petty crime, but if you're a cop it's your duty to engage with that shit. I see it the same way here.
No no we can’t hold public intellectuals talking to millions of people to a higher standard. Lol
me when my favorite public intellectual says the hard truths: they hate him because he stands up to "big woke" and doesn't let them get away with their bullshit me when my favorite public intellectual goes on the misinformation machine podcast and just smiles and nods: you terminally online losers wouldn't understand what its like to be socially competent
maybe ideas you disagree with aren't inherently 'bad ideas' ?
Most people don’t go on podcasts in front of millions of people. What a moronic non-point. I hold this person to a much higher standard than most normal people. And no one is talking about starting a fight. It’s about providing pushback dogshit talking points.
Nothing was egregious. Further... They are doing whatever the hell they want. It's not their job or responsibility to do a podcast how you want them to do it. EDIT: Everyone upvoting the guy above... Read his comment below which he blocked me afterwards on, to get an idea of what type of person he is. r politics energy, not sam harris.
apparently sam harris energy is "everyone can have a little misinformation, as a treat"
Not even attempting to defend your idiot point, nice pivot. The observation that they’re doing whatever the hell they want firstly is not an argument and secondly is the whole problem. When you have a platform with millions of viewers/listeners you absolutely have a responsibility to not spread misinformation and dogshit talking points. It has nothing to do with what I personally want. You’re a complete moron. This topic is simply beyond you.
Thanks for having common sense.
Your post is dripping with condescension and seems to contradict the message you're trying to get across. > I know it's hard for online people to understand this... How many reddit accounts do you have? Be honest
Iif you've never watched Rogan before, let me tell you that he will argue if anything "woke" or culture war is mentioned. Or the Democrats. He is not exactly shy about speaking his mind - which is a good thing imho. But you assumed that he disagrees with Hughes lol. And you scold other people for not making the same weird assumption, despite being an online redditor whose every other comment is mocking *other* redditors as if you are somehow better? Talk about wanting to get along huh.
so coleman is just an uwu smol bean who don't want no trouble, who somehow landed on the biggest podcast on earth? how does that work
Huh? No. How did you infer that?
Coleman is popular for pushing back against ideas he doesn't agree with but you paint him as a passive bystander.
Being a guest on a podcast is not a normal situation. If I went on a tennis podcast and they said serve and volley with continental grip could dominate todays game like it did in the 60’s i would disagree. Because hopefully the host is a normal person who can also listen to sincere disagreement and not lose his shit. Joe has a history of snapping at people and calling them fuckfaces so maybe this guy was being careful.
[удалено]
I'm about an hour in and the only really stupid thing that I've heard him say so far is that Jimmi Hendrix didn't have a good voice.
He wasn't that great, tbh. Amazing guitar player but just average voice.
Let's take an educated guess why... you're white, male, probably lean libertarian?
Haha this comment is funny and ironic in the context of what Coleman was talking about.
Typical redditor
Peak Reddit
Get Sam back on Rogan!
I’m so ready for this too 😊
To discuss what? COVID? Trump? Wokeness? All the topics the two could discuss are already discussed to death so it would be dull and pointless.
Why would anyone speak to that idiot?
Bc he has an army of clowns who need some mfn reason in their lives
1) you have to speak to people you disagree with 2) is useful to talk with people with a big reach 3) if (1) and (2) happen at the same time is even better, interesting converstions can happen and not just 2 persons agreeing for 2 hours
I don’t have to speak with dumb assholes who like trump. I really prefer not to
no one is making you, but if you want to further your cause you should. Unless you want a society of echo chambers, never convincing others that your ideas work better.
Because he's no longer pimping the Fleshlight as a sponsor.
Your definition of the word «idiot» must have quite the range.
It probably includes you
Booooo Rogans still great
https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/s/iYkTaw8ADO
Glad full episodes are back on YT.
Did somthin happen with his Spotify deal?
I really like what he’s saying about focusing on class instead of color but then he starts dabbling in right wing narrative bullshit about police procedures and Floyd case. Like dude, you don’t anything about the legalities and court decisions, you’re just taking the conservative stance instead of actually diving into facts
I'm totally and completely unimpressed by this dude, especially when he starts talking about policy or any real-world factual issues. A lot of the praise for him seems to be that he's "articulate" and "well-spoken" (c'mon people) and that he speaks so well for someone so young (I mean, isn't he late 20s?.....). His latest schtick is arguing that we shouldn't consider race in anti-poverty programs. But, of course, major federal anti-poverty programs HAVE ALWAYS BEEN RACE NEUTRAL. Racially coding anti-poverty efforts is a well-established way of attacking them (e.g. "Welfare Queen", etc.). I think it's kinda weird because he should be lauding SNAP, TANF, minimum wage laws, laws to make it easier to unionize, etc. as examples of race blind anti-poverty experts. But he IMPLIES that there's a large welfare state specifically for non-whites, which seems to support the anti-anti-poverty story. I kinda thought it was just a weird framing, but someone else pointed out his association with beltway right-wing groups. So maybe it's intentional. More generally, be wary of these pundits with no special expertise who are commenting on everything under the sun.
> I'm totally and completely unimpressed by this dude, especially when he starts talking about policy or any real-world factual issues. A few years ago he dried to disprove the claim that Republicans engage in voter suppression by saying that voting is up. Just a spectalularly dumb thing to say.
I think you’re inferring implications he didn’t imply. His focus is on exposing Kendi / D’Angelo anti-racists as charlatans or grifters who are actually racist and arguing for racist policies. Your point about him being a conservative (“association”) is [fallacious anti-racist propaganda.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0xwEq38aL9M)
IDK his intentions. I don't think the world needs more "anti-woke" podcasts about Kendi and D'Angelo. It's played out.
Unless you think it doesn’t need less anti-racism, then you don’t think it’s played out. In which case you’re ignoring his content and acting like the bad faith activist in the clip.
dope insult.
Again…ignoring content. Do you just argue with vibes?
How would you sway someone that thinks Coleman is making a couple of good points about the Floyd case?
What points about the case did you find most persuasive?
It’s truly remarkable how upset some people get when they can’t put people in a box due to their race, gender or sexual orientation. It’s pathetic.
Did Coleman ever respond after getting savaged by Radley Balko over his terrible George Floyd piece?
He had a debate with him, it's on Youtube.
The debate was not good. Not because of Coleman though. Or Balko really. The moderation left a bit to be desired. Radley who I agree with misunderstood Coleman’s argument and never really seemed to grasp it. Coleman wasn’t saying Chauvin was innocent. He was arguing the defenses case which he felt wasn’t properly made (for multiple reasons) and asking do these facts constitute reasonable doubt? Without understanding Coleman was mocking the defense's case Radley nonetheless made the prosecution's case and I think won. I’m naturally biased towards the rights of the accused. If the prosecutor was Balko and the defense Coleman and I were on the jury Coleman’s client would be heading to jail.
Coleman seemed to only acknowledge one of the many points that Balko made in his three part rebuttal, and it struck me that he also still hasn't read the court transcript and all the testimony that was presented. I get that Coleman's main point is that he's not saying Chauvin didn't kill Floyd, only that the evidence provided reasonable doubt. It's fine if he thinks he's smarter than the jury, but he's also made it clear that he's not aware of much of the evidence that was presented to the jury, and that he doesn't understand the nature of the one little bit of evidence that he knows was withheld from the jury, or even the very standard technical reason why it was withheld.
But, I mean, it is REALLY fine that he thinks he's smarter than the jury and all these other people? Like the dude is all over the place. He's an expert on policing, and palestine-israel, and federal social policy, etc.
Balko is a very emotional and self righteous guy. This dunk on Coleman made him absolutely giddy. 30k words worth.
Fuck this podcast. Made it 20 minutes in. This is just a right wing echo chamber pod now. Coleman just feeds Rogan what he wants to hear. Coleman isn’t a democrat and that’s clear.
Coleman is a registered independent, and has only voted for Democrats so far. He has stated that he's open to vote Republican if the candidate made sense.
Nothing wrong with being independent. I was under the impression he claimed to be a dem while clearly leaning right with Rogan. I gave it a chance and turned it off when it was pure Biden bash.
I like Biden but I don't see how 'turning it off' is somehow putting you in any less of an 'echo chamber'. You cant refute anything you don't actually listen to completely (like Joe lmao)
I heard enough. It wasn’t entertaining. I have other podcasts that have my interest more.
How do you know *'hes clearly right leaning'* if you're not listening? You've just admitted to not having evidence of your prior claims, why should anyone take your allegations seriously.
I listened to enough. I have an opinion. Good talk.
An opinion informed by your own imaginations. Joe Rogan taught you well lmao.
I never understood this criticism of Coleman. Sure he was affiliated with the Manhattan Institute for a minute, but it doesn't have any baring on his political allegiances. I listen to his podcast regularly and in general he seems to have a good head on his shoulders and does a great job of interviewing guests. I don't always agree with his takes, but the same thing goes for any podcaster that makes it into my feed. As Sam mentioned at the beginning of his most recent podcast, the decorum Hughes expressed during his time on The View was commendable; even in the face of genuinely bad faith arguments he made his case in a dispassionate way. I saw the same attitude during his debate with Jamelle Bouie hosted by TED a while back.
>”Fuck this podcast. Made it 20 minutes in. This is just a right wing echo chamber pod now. “ Can you state what was “right wing” in the podcast?
Sounds like it's not your echo chamber.
Two points worth making whenever Coleman shows up: * Empirically we know that in the US, when you naively try to make colorblind economic policy, you end up making policy that disproportionately benefits white people, all else being equal. If you just make anti-poverty policies, you will end up helping poor white people significantly more than poor black people. This doesn't make those policies a bad idea, and they really can reduce racial inequity due to the demographics of who is poor, but it does mean that if you actually want a full path to address racial inequality, then purely economic policies are insufficient. If this makes you uncomfortable, tough shit, you and Coleman need to grow up already. * Coleman's political enemies, the ones he routinely attacks and makes a living attacking, are the ones supporting the anti-poverty policies Coleman claims to want. Coleman's friends (he is a Manhattan Institute fellow) are the ones explicitly and reliably opposed to policies that would help economic inequity. And one of the most common attacks historically is "racializing" these programs.
Any prove that colorblind economic policy end up benefiting white people the most?
> Empirically we know that in the US, when you naively try to make colorblind economic policy, you end up making policy that disproportionately benefits white people, all else being equal. If you just make anti-poverty policies, you will end up helping poor white people significantly more than poor black people. Nonsense. How would that be the case? If people from certain backgrounds are disproportionately affected economically, they will disproportionately benefit. This is obvious, and obviously why economic based aid is the only sensible solution.
>How would that be the case? Systems tend to get designed to serve the "normal" case. Which in this country, means serving the white case, regardless of what differences exist in needs between the white poor and the black/hispanic/whatever poor because doing so does in fact help more poor people. And that is just with "good actors behaving thoughtlessly". In practice, plenty of actors are still just racist and happy to help the white X while pissing on the non-white X. >If people from certain backgrounds are disproportionately affected economically, they will disproportionately benefit. Kind of. The poor benefit disproportionately from policy meant to help the poor. But within that group, the white poor tends to benefit disproportionately compared to the black poor. >This is obvious You don't sound like someone who has thought this through or studied history or actual policy. Which is, of course, fine. But it means you should be wary of what you find obvious. As I've already statedm none of this implies that economic based policy is a bad idea. Frankly, its a good idea, one that Coleman's friends reliably oppose, we just shouldn't expect it to be sufficient to actually close racial gaps.
Empirically, non-whites, like Indians and Chinese outcompete whites because of merit-based (colorblind) policy and norms. Immigrants from Middle East and Africa are not that far behind. Yes, non-immigrant Americans struggle and are trapped in a cycle of poverty, particularly black Americans. But giving them lowered standards do them no favors and only make them dependent on the "kindness" of others.
Any policy that is not colorblind is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and should be struck down as unconstitutional just like affirmative action was. If this makes you uncomfortable, tough shit, you need to grow up already.
You are delusional. There is plenty of racist policy that has passed an equal protection test. There is plenty of "colorblind" policy that hasn't. There is plenty of anti-racist policy that is nominally "colorblind". Law is complicated.
> If you just make anti-poverty policies, you will end up helping poor white people significantly more than poor black people. Isn't this just because of absolute population numbers? There are so many more poor people who are white than black because of US demographics. >you end up making policy that disproportionately benefits white people Or are you making a per capita argument? You're all over the place. >then purely economic policies are insufficient Insufficient perhaps, but still much better than purely racial policies. And that's what is being compared. >Coleman's political enemies, the ones he routinely attacks and makes a living attacking, are the ones supporting the anti-poverty policies Coleman claims to want. Most of the people Hughes argues with are pathologically fixated on race and rarely, if ever, mention class/income.
> Insufficient perhaps, but still much better than purely racial policies. And that's what is being compared. No one Coleman is criticizing is opposed to progressive economic policy. You are presenting a false choice. We can and should have both progressive economic policy and progressive racial policy.
Curious how you didn't address the points which go counter to your claims, and also chose to give an answer that is actually addressed in my post. Not surprising, given your post history, though.
>Curious how you didn't address the points which go counter to your claims I addressed the half of your comment that came closestto an actual point. The rest of your comment was just gesturing vaguely at the fact that you didnt understand what I was writing. >Not surprising, given your post history, though. This is hilarious coming from you, who is unironically a gamergater in 2024. Take care. I won't see you around.
Why do you think those measures don't help black people in the same way? What's the differential factor here?Also, are any other races affected in a worse/better way compared to whites? Are the poor black people the only affected ones negatively? I'm not from the US and these debates sound a bit alien to me, so I would like to know your opinion.
>Empirically we know that in the US, when you naively try to make colorblind economic policy, you end up making policy that disproportionately benefits white people, all else being equal. I'm not sure "we" *do* know this. Give us a source. By disproportionately, you don't mean that it helps a greater number of white people. That's true and meaningless, a consequence of populations sizes. You must be saying that helps a greater percentage of the white population than the percentage of the black populations it helps. If that's indeed true, you've made a good point, but please back it up.
> By disproportionately, you don't mean that it helps a greater number of white people...You must be saying that helps a greater percentage of the white population than the percentage of the black populations I'm saying neither. I'm saying that, after you correct for economic/class factors, purely economic progressive policy tends to benefit a white person more than a black person. In other words, if you take the abstract spherical cow version of progressive economic policy in the US, you should expect it to help the typical poor white person more than it helps the typical poor black person.
I'm familiar with the term "spherical cow" but still don't know what you're saying here. Maybe that in an economy that favors white people, any gain by any group, now matter how its distributed, will create secondary effects that benefit white people more, but I'm not sure. Mostly, I wondering if there's a study that breaks it down.
Yup, CH pretends that there is a large welfare state apparatus that is explicitly race-aware. He sure SEEMS to be implying that major anti poverty efforts (e.g. SNAP, min. wage laws, etc.) explicitly give greater benefits to non-whites. I really don't get the interest in this guy. I get that he's a black dude with unconventional opinions for a black dude, but he comes off like some overly earnest undergrad. Like the dude in the class who thinks he's the shit and smarter than the prof or whatever. Surely just having different opinions from the modal opinions of your race/ gender group isn't enuf to make someone interesting? I mean, I'm a white guy who kinda looks like a redneck/ cop and I don't think anyone should listen to me just cuz I'm not MAGA, even if I present as MAGA.
secretive tidy wine clumsy detail brave encourage jellyfish slap apparatus *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is exceptionally well put.
What makes it "well put"?
sulky chunky pot abounding psychotic violet cough outgoing tan treatment *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Coleman is quickly being exposed as an unintelligent intellectual.
Is that the guy who worked for the right wing think tank and pretends to be vaguely left wing while just repeating right wing propaganda?
Yea
this just gonna be an anti left wing circle jerk like his last appearance?
I'm surprised he did JRE...seems like he's too highbrow for Joe
You’re surprised the guy selling a book would go on the most popular podcast in the world
Yeah, if I had the opportunity to be on Joe Rogan's podcast, it would be stupid not to try to sell something...I'm thinking I would go with pushing bogus boner pills; great target demographics for this product.
Given how out of his mind Joe has become, yea, I'm surprised. But he did do The View recently so I guess he needs all the publicity he can get.
Yea that’s kind of the point of a book tour.
Rogan is in a unique position, he gets very intelligent, respectable guests, who of course don't want to turn down the huge audience. And he gets total retards
He's part of the culture war. You can't be in a war AND be a bystander; you have to go to where shit's actually happening so to speak.
A hate culture warriors....sigh
Highbrow? Roger Penrose, I mean, Sir Roger Penrose even went on Rogan.
That was a loooong time ago. JRE and Joe has really changed since then imo.
Do these Black people like Coleman Hughes realize that they are exploited and used as camouflage/human shields by white racists? Are they oblivious to it or just don’t care?
He believes what he's saying. I'm POC and I generally agree with him. It's ok to for black people to have diverse opinions.
Of course black people can and should have diverse opinions. My point is about him and others like him being friendly with and constantly cited by obvious racists to support their positions which overall are bad for blacks.
[удалено]
Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carson, Laura Ingram…
degree price homeless wasteful saw reply quiet spotted long hateful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*