5 ms·
> If you look at the laws of practically every developed country, there is no "tribalism." The laws may not be tribalistic, but their enforcement certainly is.
by thomascgalvin 5y ago
> If you look at the laws of practically every developed country, there is no "tribalism."
The laws may not be tribalistic, but their enforcement certainly is.
Take, for example, drugs. This report from the U.S. Department of Justice[1] indicates that arrests for the selling of drugs disproportionately targets black people by 33%, and arrests for possession of drugs disproportionately targets black people by 26%.
The same is true of voter suppression laws. For example, the closure of voting places in minority communities, which lead to people of color waiting, on average, 29% longer to vote than white people[2].
The January insurrection is also a perfectly valid example of tribalism. A majority of Republicans falsely believe that this crime was perpetrated by Democrats, Antifa, or even the Capitol Police themselves[3]. We cannot have a serious discussion about the morality of armed insurrection when tribalism causes such a large number of people to reject reality wholesale.
[1]: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rdusda.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rdusda.pdf
[2]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.00024.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.00024.pdf
[3]: https://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/article/republicans-blame-democrats-antifa-and-us https://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/article/republicans-blame-d...
- logicchop 5y agoJust commenting about your first point (disproportionate arrests of black people for drugs). I looked at your link. I read it. Did you read it? The end summarizes its own alternative (non-prejudicial) explanation for the gap. In a post about an article wanting to secure a "universal morality" I would be wary relying on statistical data that has an abundance of plausible explanations, especially when it's meant to be deployed against something on the scale of 'our very moral existence.' If the issue were "tribalism" you would expect minority groups to be persecuted to some extent greater than the non-minority group. But in the US, there are other minority groups besides blacks, and they tend to have a lower incarceration rate than whites. I'm not sure how to square that with "tribalism."
- bena 5y agoYou're not going to get anywhere with him. Look at the language. It's an obvious tell. He doesn't talk about black people or people of color, no he talks about "blacks" and "whites". He'll never admit that the insurrection on 1/6 was a result of tribalism because it reflects poorly on the tribe he's chosen to be a member of. People expose themselves through language.
- Grim-444 5y agoIf anything your comment is as tribalistic as one could get. Black and white viewpoints on topics, presenting your picture of reality as the correct one, with no alternative explanations allowed, cherry picking data and examples that help confirm your ideology while conveniently ignoring those that don't. You'll never admit that anything your side does could be seen as similarly "bad", just as tribal, etc. If anything, you're the one defining sides, pronouncing that either people believe the same thing as you or they're just evil people that have rejected reality wholesale, which completely eliminates all shades of grey in the issues, all discussion, all discourse.
- danShumway 5y ago> The laws may not be tribalistic I get what you're saying overall, and I agree with most of it, but you're giving too much credit with this statement. Some laws are tribalistic in America. It's not just that drug laws disproportionately target Black Americans in their enforcement, they were in their original forms designed to do so. The whole history of segregation and voter suppression is laws that were designed to hurt others, largely in the pursuit of tribal power. Voting suppression is inherently tribal, the whole point of voter suppression is to limit the voting power of other demographics or tribes. The current push for anti-trans legislation in multiple states is also being driven by tribalism. Keeping trans people out of bathrooms and sports didn't suddenly become an emergency to anyone because of any brand new risk or development or scientific discovery. There's no reason why this would be more pressing to Republicans now than it would have been 4 years ago. The major increase in legislation now is because it's a culture war, because it makes Democrats mad, because it's a backlash to the progress trans communities have made in securing rights, because it hurts people who are different who are symbolic in people's minds of power shifts and changing demographics. On an individual level, things get more complicated. You can't use tribalism to explain everything. But on a broad, society-wide level, it just seems absurd to me to say that tribalism has no impact at all on American laws. I mean, heck, forget about America: if people don't think that classism, party-loyalty, all of these tribal instincts affected how Britain has approached Brexit and what debates people had about Brexit, then they really aren't paying much attention to how laws get made and policies determined. Culture, in-groups, and out-groups all influence law.
- mam3 5y ago> The current push for anti-trans legislation in multiple states is also being driven by tribalism. Keeping trans people out of bathrooms and sports didn't suddenly become an emergency to anyone because of any brand new risk or development or scientific discovery. There's no reason why this would be more pressing to Republicans now than it would have been 4 years ago. No one was talking about that 4 years ago. Its like saying its tribalisme to care about the environment compared to a century ago. For the trans its just we have move higher in the scale of 1st world problems.
- 5y ago