I grew up poor and with two abusive drug and alcohol addicted parents. I don't mind when people with money want to defend the less fortunate. Better that they have empathy than not. My only problem is when they don't mean it. Like some who say they're liberal but hate homeless people.
This is an odd video for the New York times. I grew up in a broken home, with abuse, camping and living in women's shelters. I have a master's degree now. I've learned that defund the police was about de-escalation in police brutality and weapons Like tanks and more on social programs. Chances are if wealthy educated people are protesting on behalf of those without the means or time to do so, chances are there's a reason. I'm suprised anti- LGBTQ2+, anti choice/prolife or any anti- antifa protests aren't "luxury protests" with the new York times. I swear things have changed this last year
@@normaaliihminen722you do know that there are police departments in the US that buy tanks and rocket launchers with their budget? I think most of us can agree that withholding money for big military 'toys' in a police force isn't going to hurt anyone. Putting that money instead to affordable housing, counseling services, food programs, benefits the population in ways a tank does not
@@escher2hands663there are thousands of police dept. Thats only a handful of dept who have military toys. And even those military toys are actually aren't bought but just given by us military when they dont need it. Defunding any dept makes it worse, be it education or health. The same applies with police dept. When they dont have more money, they cant have enough police officers, lesser to patrol, lesser car for emergency services. U dont use defund for an Institution u want to reform, u use it for the institution u want to cripple. Defund the police is an anarchist cry widely unpopular among the general public, Democrat's understand it. In midwest, the democratic candidates publicly distanced themselves from this cry and affirmed their support for the police. Its common sense, that with more funds, police can extend the training period of their officers, hire more officers and cars to patrol and respond to emergency quickly. Surely funding social welfare and housing would be beneficial, but not at the cost of a functioning law enforcement agency.
I thought the whole argument about diminishing the importance of SAT scores was based on the fact that less affluent student are less likely to score as highly as affluent students? Since affluent students can pay for tutors and afford to take the test multiple times to improve their grade?
Lies and damned lies by the affluent... In truth the best shot less affluent students have is an objective exam... The imperfect but closest shot at a level playing field... When objective measures such as SAT are replaced by subjective measures, affluent do much better as they can show extra curricular skills which can much more easily be bought by money...
Where is his demand that colleges get rid of legacies? Those are totally affirmative action for the children of the rich, and make a lie of the meritocracy that SATs supposedly promote for non-rich applicants. And then once a lower-income applicant is accepted on the basis of their superior SAT score, they may be unable to attend the top colleges that they should have access to due to the very high cost. Even with merit-based financial aid, they'll likely have to burden themselves with 5 or even 6-figure debt to attend. So much for meritocracy! 🤦🏼
No. That's true. That's why legacy admissions are what the right-wingers think affirmative action does. Google Top 10% America, and you'll see the research that wealth begets wealth, especially in America.
@@KushChakraborty1 That's not true. SAT and ACT are those supposed objective tests, and they are gamed by the wealthy who have tutors and classes to teach to game them. I'm sure most of the people that liked your comment had some kind of SAT or ACT prep course that "prepared" you for those texts. If not, you know people who did. What you don't know is how much the wealthy spend on those classes and tutors. It's not just one mandatory class. That guy in the video knows this. He went to Yale those and legacy students. I'll leave with this: How does one prepare for a truly objective test?
His read on the 1960s and privilege is not supportable. Privileged white people became involved in civil rights, even though they didn't have to. Their contemporaries would have said that it was none of their business, that they were seeking attention for themselves, that they just didn't understand the complexities of the situation, that they would stir up a bunch of trouble for poor blacks, that they were outside agitators, etc, etc, etc. People who are opposed to left-wing protest have long said things like "get a job" or whatever. It's a stream of thought that doesn't end well for anyone.
This video needs wayyyyy more explaining. Very little actual explanation of how these protesters are doing the wrong thing and harming people. Just a claim.
There exists the permanent possibility of selfinformation. If you are really interested in the matter and not only in leaving comnents, feel free to do so.
@@gabiwonderwall0582if you’re going to make up an idea like “luxury beliefs,” I would think you would want to fully explain the concept and not expect the audience to go find supporting documents for your claim.
@@gabiwonderwall0582nope, try again. If you’re gonna make a claim, be prepared to back it up with some evidence, that’s how the burden of proof works🤦♂️
notice how they only showed white people when showing those talking about advocating for defunding the police and decriminalizing drugs. that does not remotely correspond with the in real life circles i've been in where these things have been discussed. most people in these movements are people of color, and most authors critically analyzing the criminal "justice" system and the police state are also people of color, those who are working towards better lives for their neighbors they are in community with. college campuses are often where these movements grow momentum because it is where young people who dare to imagine a different world are gathering and exchanging ideas.
@@trevorwilliams3501 I think I missed the part where he critiques any of the beliefs driving these protests on their merits. "It's great that people care about injustice" ...unless you disagree with his take that Defund the Police is for babies and that we obviously don't need to take it seriously. Because only babies support that idea. Putting that PhD to good use there.
Luxury beliefs is a shallow idea - to say the least. Almost all beliefs could be said to be luxury, e.g., you could apply your three golden rules to both Pro-Palestine and Pro-Israel protests, the civil rights movement and pro-life movement. Moreover, how do you measure and calculate privilege? How can you define something based on thing nobody can really quantify? If you judge legitimacy of a movement/protest based on the amount of mess they leave and don't clean up, then abolish the right to assemble. That's why people from humanities need to take proof-based mathematics classes and subjects involving scientific method at some point instead of discrediting various movements with made-up terms and juggling words like Jordan Peterson.
Imagine thinking that protesters should be punished more harshly. And then ya'll claim you are for "freedom" 🙄 The right to protest is enshrined in the first amendment, and it is central to a free democracy. This country is what it is because of people who have historically been willing to protest the status quo. Ya'll on the right hated the protesters of the 60s too. You said they were violent rioters. Ya'll have always been against any protest that is against the status quote. Also, so many progressive activist DO uplift the voices of the marginalized. Literally this guy is embarrassing and is talking out his *ss
He had a valid point. Shutting him down and refusing to try to hear and consider what he is saying from his perspective is short sighted. You don't have to agree with him in the end, but you are obligated to listen and try to understand his perspective or you are just giving energy to our nation's divide with "I'm right, you're wrong".
Drug use was decriminalized in Portugal in 2001 and yes, it did help people. The history of the fight for rights and popular mobilizations has never been without incidents, imperfections, contradictions and, often, violence. This oversimplified analysis caricatures those who protest or hold certain kinds of opinions as a bunch of spoiled, rich, woke people. It accuses a group of people of seeing the world in black and white but fails... by doing exactly that.
It worked because programs there made drug users curb their usage and eventually quit. Imoortant caveat. Here in America there are no stringent programs that drug users are forced to partake in so they linger on the street until they die of an overdose. Big difference.
@@austin2640 25 "likes" as of (at the moment I'm posting this, it sez) 4 hours is not bad. I see only 9 comments in the whole thread that have more "likes" as of this moment. We'll see how it shakes out long-term.
The most significant component of Portugal success is a family/friends intervention. Portugal is way less individualistic than US. I wish we could apply their method, but our society is made of a different cloth.
Didn’t the NYT omit Rob Henderson’s book from their bestseller list despite it being 4th in sales? I am surprised to see that they’re showing this vid on their channel at all. Maybe they’re finally realising the truth that their paper itself has been a prime purveyor of luxury beliefs.
More likely than not, the NYT is trying to introduce another POV instead of just reinforcing the same narrative in an echo chamber. You should want to hear a different POV - that is how people sharpen their critical thinking skills.
Or maybe they just make an attempt to platform a variety of viewpoints? Which people then argue reveals them to be obviously biased one way or another. It's called an opinion piece for a reason.
@@modalmixture I have been a subscriber for decades and am socially liberal. They never publish some pieces advocating for my general social views, and I would know, because I would notice if they do. In general, media that is entrenched tends to skew conservative, because conservatives want to maintain the status quo, and legacy institutions benefit from that.
To water down and completely disregard the reason WHY these privileged students were taking part in these massive campus protests is extremely problematic and privileged in and of itself. One can point out the irony of rich, white kids at ivy league institutions protesting for the freedom and safety of a group of oppressed people they’ve never met, but to question their integrity and character simply due to their socioeconomic background is extremely prejudiced and ignorant. No matter what the youth of any race or socioeconomic background do, they are always quickly judged, demeaned, and dismissed by the older generations. And then you wonder why they partake in these types of protests? Another tone-dead piece by the NYT 👏👏
You are being unfair: he was also a foster child and went through terrible things 😥 I would almost think about protesting for improvements in the foster care system, but I'm too privileged for that. And for the love of god nobody take money from the policy to improve the system! /s
The concept of luxury beliefs applies well enough to something like the online "trad wife" movement, but the "defund the police" movement? In _some_ cities the movement was sparked by well-publicized cases of the police killing the mentally ill under very questionable circumstances, so I wouldn't _necessarily_ call that a "luxury belief" so much as outcry about a legitimate problem.
I can personally agree with 2 out of the 3 topics on the "how should they protest" section (although I'm wary of people that believe a protest is only valid when it meets certain criteria - that feels too much like refusing to engage with the actual problem being protested), but the "don't protest the consequences" thing is absurd. If you try to change something unjust about the world you live in and then face negative consequences for it, that is also part of the injustice. Or should we think that, say, arresting Mandela for fighting against racial segregation was something acceptable? Anyone demanding the end of apertheid would logically also demand his release.
I think the point he was going for was to not get consequences just as an avenue to play the victim. Not stated clearly, but maybe don't do a thing just so you have something about yourself to victimize and distract from the core issue of the protest.
@@ericlorenzen4795 One of the major demands of the protesters was for schools to stop the "Palestine exception" to free speech policies, so it's not really distracting from the goals.
Your world is slowly falling apart as you begin to realize the NYT is not a news channel, but instead a funnel of propaganda from the state department and intelligence agencies. They used to promote free thinking with initiatives. Now they give you the answer in an op ed
Interesting to note that the protestor at Yale were "arrested" by their own campus police. The New Haven police chief said publicly that they were too busy to bother with them. I've also seen Yalies pitching tents and sleeping on the town green in protest. Actual homeless people are not allowed that luxury.
So the police don't view them as s threat and don't remove them but instead of giving everyone that luxury (or homes) we should condemn the protesters? I'm sure that's not it
4:36 - Early '60s, maybe. Not late '60s though. One former leader of the anti-Vietnam War student protest in 1968 at Columbia (Mark Rudd) remarked that the current pro-Palestine protests are smarter, more disciplined, and more nonviolent than the protests that he was a part of
Looking back through history, it’s easy to see that there has been a contingent of privileged voices in so many important movements. The abolitionist movement was propelled in the public consciousness primarily by white activists. Using the fact that enslaved people themselves didn’t have the luxury of expressing themselves to discredit the movement for ending slavery would have been quite ludicrous & a convenient way to skirt actually engaging with the merits of the argument. Sometimes the only people with the time, money, and resources to take risks are people with some degree of remove and “luxury”-and thank god there are people with the compassion to rise to that challenge even when their own neck isn’t on the line. Pointing out this dynamic does nothing to address or invalidate the actual merits of the arguments being put forward by this advocacy.
I agree with what you say. I want to expand upon the discussion by adding the caveat that the definition of luxury beliefs Henderson cites necessitates that the belief would negatively affect the marginalized if implemented. If Henderson wants to claim that the current Pro-Palestinian protests are luxury beliefs, then he should prove that the demonstrations are harming Gazans.
@@connorthompson66I know this is old. but reading this comment I think people are missing an important part which the speaker was making. And that is the eternal fact there are many people in any movement who will highjack an important matter for selfish intent. Take Christianity a religion that is based upon selfless love and to judge humbly. But how often do we see people ignoring those principles and using the Bible/church to hurt others. The idea of luxury beliefs has more to do with individuals who claim to want to help but with who they target and they way they do it shows little commitment or concern for the matter at hand.
This is one of the most malignant videos Ive ever seen, how is this any different from conservative framing??? I was already feeling alienated by the NYT but now I am furious. This publication is beyond retribution.
I agreed with some of what he said, however I feel like he felt that because he has suffered in life, he has the right or (privileged belief) to play the moral judge on the actions of others. Ironic.
Isolationism is also a luxury belief (a luxury of geographic separation and/or lack of near-peer rivals). Siberian eskimos could afford to be isolationist and ignore the rest of the world until the Russians became powerful enough to conquer their way across northern Asia during the 16th and 17th centuries. There's a lesson in that for modern Isolationists, especially in an era of aircraft carriers, ICBMs, biowe@'pons, cyberattacks, ter'ror!st attacks, and mass drone swarms. Isolationism was never a viable long-term strategy, but the Japanese proved the case conclusively for the US at Pearl Harbor.
Love the term Luxury Beliefs but a lot of this is gaslighting. Example: the ending - people didn't just litter and leave everything there, they were forced off campus without the opportunity to clean up. Many if not most drugs should be decriminalized, which doesn't mean legalized, although many should be legalized. Defund the police is a terrible slogan, but the idea is right - so many social problems can be solved with social workers, first responders, intervention, preventive care. It will take time but if we invested in that and education, rather than robot dogs, military vehicles and weapons, us-vs-them training etc. our society would be better. Police and law enforcement ARE necessary and deserve respect, but more often than not, that's not what we have. We have state sanctioned violence from a legal gang. And forcing people to stay married hardly creates stable social upbringings - that's just delusional. I do however agree it's a luxury to even be able to protest. I agree probably half of the supposedly passionate people out there are really just attention seeking and virtue signaling. But I think you're conflating cause and effect and you're also not realizing your own privilege. I'm willing to bet rarely or never when police rolled up were you presumed guilty or pushed up against a wall and frisked, even when it was potentially you or your friends and family who called the police. I'm not one to call this a privilege but discrimination is real.
It’s precisely why the New York Times is no longer a reliable source. The owner of the New York Times voted for Donald Trump. The owner of the Washington Post is Elon Musk. The only journalist worth listening to you are independent journalists. If it wasn’t for the mom protesting, we never even would’ve gotten FDR‘s plan. Now, maybe all of those protesters had their own agenda, but frankly, this is the basis of our entire country. It’s more than dishonest. It’s fascist.
You missed the entire point of the video, the video was not about the content of the protests but about the lack of integrity, immaturity, and conceitedness of certain actors within the protests and how their luxury beliefs counter-intuitively harm those who they are supposedly fighting for. The narrator was a psychologist, not a policy wonk.
1:58 this is a weird argument and reasoning. Kids need married parents so we shouldn’t reject marriage? What if I never get married and don’t want to have kids? Can I reject marriage?
he says people should "believe in marriage" but if you force someone to marry for the sake of stability, that absolutely will not lead to a happy stable home
I think it's kinda nonsense. He's basically just calling anything he doesn't like "luxury beliefs", while virtue signaling that he's not one of the virtue signalers. I was willing to hear him out but really lost sympathy after he started talking about drug decriminalization. It's obvious drugs being super illegal didn't stop any of the abuse he went through as a kid, and not only does the current landscape with drugs create the perfect environment for abuse, but it also means that tens of thousands of people are stuck in jail just cause they put something in their body. It actively destroys community and makes the perfect breeding ground for violent gangs which only make the cycle worse. It's really reminiscent of prohibition, where people like women and children who were genuine victims of horrible things due to alcohol abuse channeled all their anger in a misplaced attempt to ban alcohol entirely, which only led to _more_ alcohol abuse and the creation of violent mafias and gangs mowing people down on the streets with tommy guns in bootlegging operations and turf wars. I mean it's really shocking that we learned nothing from this time, and just like how the Mafia didn't go away after Al Capone was made "public enemy no. 1", cracking down harder and harder on drugs is only going to bring more destruction in its path, as even more people are put in jail, more communities are destroyed with gangs, and even _more_ people turn to drugs as an escape from the destruction around them, which then goes back to step 1. It's really shocking that he just labels anyone talking about this as "Out of touch liberal elites" when it's really just common sense.
Ok, so the marriage one is a privileged take. Yes it helps some, but those who are disabled are SEVERELY penalized financially because of it. For many who are unable to work due to a physical disability, they can’t afford insurance (and it was only after Obamacare was insurance discrimination outlawed). I understand how he would have loved to have had a stable household as a result, but that utterly ignores the fate of the physically disabled.
"In all ages, whatever the form and name of government-be it monarchy, public or democracy, an oligarchy lurks behind the facade: Roman history, republican or imperial, is the history of a governing class..., Liberty and the laws are high sounding words. They will often be rendered, on a cool estimate, as privilege and vested interests.” Sir Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution, Oxford 1939
We should evaluate the strength of an argument on logic and evidence, not the character of the person making the argument. What's at issue is the ethics of belief formation and the fact that most people in the US and elsewhere don't have good processes for forming beliefs. It becomes more problematic the more politically active people are, which privilege affords. The problem is not uniquely explained by privilege and much wider than he thinks. It's misleading to say only wealthy people are failing to form beliefs in an approriate and responcible way. It's also harmful because it's in the relm of scape-goating. It is imporant to be careful when we discuss the issue of belief formation to distinguish between what people believe and how they came to believe it. The fact that someone holds a belief for bad reasons is not evidence that the belief is wrong. If someone's beliefs can be explained by their wealth, that's no reason to reject them. Unfortunatly, the notion of 'luxury beliefs' does not help us be more careful about making that distinction. Rather, it stears us toward failing that mistake. The problem is not the beliefs but the process by which people forms their beliefs. If someone used a bad process, that is not a reason to reject the belief. 'Luxury beliefs' are alleged to be a problem because weath is a cause for people to have bad belief forming processes. The problem with the notion of 'luxury beliefs' is that 'luxury beliefs' are no less 'luxury beliefs' if someone came to hold them using a responsible thought process than an irresponsible one. Suppose Sandy realizes he used a bad process to come to hold a 'luxury belief'. He responds by using a good process to answer the question to which the original belief was the answer. As it turns out, he came to the same conclusion. He still holds the 'luxury belief'. The fact that he holds a 'luxury belief' does not depend on whether or not he used a good or bad process to come to hold it. But that's what the notion of a 'luxury belief' cannot afford to admit. It's important to realize that social causes underdetermine policy. He says that people don't see how the causes they support are actually harmful to the people they are supposed to help. The only way he can provide evidence that they are harmful is by looking at the effects of policies that are in line with the relevant activism. However, there are many ways that social activists can acheive their ends through policy. This is true even if their cause is support for a specific sort of policy. 'Luxury belief' is an unhelpful notion because it excludes the people who hold those beliefs from the political conversation. The notion begins with the assumption that those beliefs are wrong in order to explain why they are wrong. Of course, no one who holds a so-called 'luxury belief' believes that they are wrong, otherwise, it wouldn't be a belief of their's, so they can't even raise the question 'why am I wrong'. But democratic discourse must include everyone, so it is wrong to start the conversation by exluding groups of people. The worst part is that he is trying to shift the focus of a number of current debates onto the charater of his opponents, which is harmful for democratic discorse. The ad hominem fallacy explains why this does not work.
Well, to be fair, he's not arguing that their questionable character delegitimizes their arguments. His claim is that the causes these protestors fight for actually harm the marginalized people that have to live with the consequences of naive policy decisions. He then concludes, by way of presumption, that they must not actually care about marginalized people, given the fact the policies they fight for harm the marginalized. He then brings up privilege as a potential cause for this disconnect, or clouding of judegemt. His logic is sound, in my opinion, but he's also clearly biased. Like most takes from educated people, there's a likely a lot of truth to what he's saying, but also some amount of bias leading to exaggeration and in some cases, falsehoods. Overall, his ideas of "luxury beliefs" tend to hold water.
The critique againt the rejection of marriage is utter bullcrap. Being married doesen't translate authomatically in a stable relationship, nor two parents who aren't married can't be in a stable relationship. Marriage is a social construct and you can be happily engaged even without a ring on your finger.
i feel like this piece is not taking the political stances it raises in good faith, nor does it properly represent the actual arguments surrounding these topics.
Nowadays when I see people fiercely virtue signaling on social media, I perceive them as feeling guilty about their privilege and using this behavior to cope with that guilt, rather than taking any meaningful action. I believe it would be more beneficial for these individuals to take a step back, self-reflect, and take direct action to improve themselves, instead of using others as a proxy to feel better.
It's not guilt, it's hoard behaviour and mindless teenage maximalism of people with too much time and money on their hands. Diffrence between this and civil rights protests of the 60s? Enormous condescension of the middle class, self-appointed champions of the oppressed.
Nowadays, when I see people complaining about virtue signaling, I perceive them as feeling guilty for not taking any instance in any relevant cause while others do. To cope with that guilt, they ask the others to keep silent. I believe it would be more beneficial for these individuals to either accept themselves instead of pestering others. They are not activists, that's ok, don't feel ashamed. Or they can find a cause to fight for. Never in history it was this easy to make the difference. Just don't go around putting down people who want a better world.
I come from Australia and I've noticed this is extremely common in the US, it's basically a religion for most people here. They don't really care about these issues, they just love the feeling of "being a good person". It's honestly disgusting and requires common sense and basic levels of rational to see it, Americans are just so reluctant to admit this for some reason.
They also don't really care about the outcome of the thing they are protesting about. Like how they want migrants to be housed in shelters forever when it costs cities hundreds of millions to do so. Or like in the video, defund the police or decriminalize crime, which are more likely to negatively impact the vulnerable.
Everyone everywhere is selfish that doesn't make us heartless. The problem is a lack of a clear definition regarding the terms. Everything is subjective so "defund the police", for example, means something different to everyone. Most Americans mean well and want to get along
Chased a crusty scammer out of the apartment complex dumpster who was stealing mail to find pre approved credit cards and medical records to steal identities with. We had a problem with it in the neighborhood for a couple years by then. A rich girl I was dating at the time said that was immoral of me and that we should just take the hit because his poverty allows him total forgiveness....Woman, you are standing in the cheapest apartments in the city, dating a guy making brely more than minimum wage. Do you want me and the other people here becoming that guy? Ridiculous people
this video frames these topics as a dichotomy, where one side has to hate the other side, or where by having these beliefs you are automatically assuming someone must be privileged. when that just isn’t true.
NYT is pure state dept and intl agencies propoganda. They done want you to think for yourself like the tv radio campaigns did in the 50’s+ They just want you to get your opinions from them To make you think like them instead of on your own.
Yeah there are soooooooo many kids in Harvard living off food stamps it's really sad to see. All he was talking about was the inauthenticity of certain young and impressionable protesters, which unlike Civil Rights protesters, face zero long term consequences DUE TO THEIR PRIVILEGE.
Whole video is pretty much “this was my experience & so it must be a ubiquitous truth” with zero convincing arguments made for his statements. “Defund the police is stupid because when I was poor I wish there were police around,” Isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement for the state of law enforcement.
@@elias.knotman doesn't mean it can't be criticized. If you can't handle the heat then you shouldn't make the claims. I came to this video expecting to hear a convincing argument and I also didn't find one.
I regret to inform you that polling of the black community agrees entirely with the opinion of the video. And many many polls have been made on the topic. Black deaths from homicides skyrocketed after 2020 but urbanite white liberals stay on that I’m A Heckin Good Person routine
@@soapfoam It's just not that kind of argument. Not every kind of argument should send us scurrying to our computers to fact check. That's autism. Not sure Socrates made his arguments that way.
@@elias.knotman I mean.. you're welcome to try and create a safe space for that. I'm going to keep saying mean words to feature writers/filmers when I think they've done things wrong. No one is above criticism.
As. software engineer, I learned early in my career that people express requirements/needs in the form of their solution. That used to frustrate me, I would say describe to me what the user is doing and what isn't working well or why this new thing is needed. I finally realized people really problems by describing their solution to it. When people cried "Defund the police", leadership was supposed to step back, look at why people across our nation are angry with the police, categorize and prioritize the problems and the impacts, and then design and fund solutions. 'Defund the police" was NOT supposed to be the solution. Perhaps we need national databases to track abusive police, perhaps require police to carry insurance so that lawsuits aren't paid with our tax dollars and once a cop has 3 strikes, the insurance company will no longer insure them. Do you see what I mean? Those problems with abusive police are still unaddressed. So don't blame the lack of solutions on protesting "elites" , it's our leadership that is failing us. And feel free to join in in making your voice heard.
His argument that drug use (not sale) should not be decriminalized is that his mother neglected him due to drug use. This is so poorly argued because it suggests that jailing her for drug use alone (rather than for the crime of child neglect) would have improved his condition. This poor logic is pervasive throughout this whole piece.
Because privileged people coopt movements doesn’t automatically equate to the conclusion that defund the police or legalizing drugs movements for many black and brown people experiencing hyper-criminalization is not a legitimate worthy cause for those who actually experience its impact
But too many times those speaking for black and brown people don't talk to them - to find out what they think is best for their community. Example, most black and brown communities are dead set against "safe use" drug facilities being set up in their community. At least in NYC that is true.
This is such an oversimplification of campus protests. The vast majority of campus protest for Palestine have been peaceful, although they have been disruptive. In fact, most of the violence is from police or pro-Israel counter protestors. The civil rights protests and anti-Vietnam protests of the 1960's werent peaches and cream either. People got arrested. People got sprayed with water hoses and attacked by police dogs. Some were shot dead by police. Protestors camped out on campus lawns and stormed buildings. And are we surprised that protestors are boiling down "complex geopolitical situations" in good guy bad guy scenarios? Protests fundamentally are never a place you will find a nuanced conversation, those have their own time and place. The goal of a protest is a clear call to action, such as "Ceasefire Now" or "Divest from Israel". Yes, the issue has its complexities but protest is an important and purposefully disruptive form of communication to put pressure on institutions to support human rights.
Bro these protestors are a joke. Living in an encampment and refusing to leave and then begging for ‘humanitarian aid’? Classes on ‘liberation from imperialist forces’ where you are being taught that North Korea is based because they recognize Palestine? Where the behavior of dismantling university buildings and firebombing vehicles on campus is encouraged? What about the inability to denounce any of the attacks by HAMAS ever? You think of oversimplification but I have so many discrete instances I can pull just from memory and a litany more if I really went to writing it all down. You can support humanitarian aid and statehood for the Palestinian people and not have support dismantling all of Israel or treat people of Israeli nationality like they’re automatically evil. But that’s unfortunately a minority of the protestors. The movement has been hijacked by extremists who are passionate about making SURE Palestinians NEVER live in peace all to play out their sick fantasies of the ‘slave’ lashing out against the ‘master’.
Foster care making me take my belongings in trash bags whenever I changed houses is something that stuck with me. I guess they just saw me as trash to be taken out.
@@DallinPorter-ii4qk It is a sign of weak critical thinking skills that you comment under posts with which you disagree attacking the person who made the post rather than the substance of the comment/criticism. Very Utah critical thinking skills, Dallin...
@@DallinPorter-ii4qk "You just can’t understand" is ad hominem. You said "can't" understand, not "didn't" understand or similar. I don't necessarily agree with the original post here, but you commented on several posts attacking the intelligence of people you disagreed with. It's hard not to notice the very Utah Mormon name and recognize a pattern of poor critical thinking skills...
Reddit levels of nonsense. He said stop supporting initiatives that harm minorities and stop protesting in a manner that inconveniences blue collar workers and most of all stop being a glorified NARCISSIST. You know that is what you meant, you don't care because you got called out.
I think this is a good piece. And yet I wonder what’s to come with the present administration. I don’t think we can reduce protests to luxury and non luxury protests. And by the way, when northerners some from middle class families joined 1960s protests, many claimed they were just rich kids.
Also weird to see someone pro-capitalist complaining about spoiled, privileged rich kids. Do you not realise that wealth inequality is an inherent product of the system you defend?
@@DallinPorter-ii4qk ah yes, the tried and true fallacy of whataboutism. Unlike “socialist and communist” nations, capitalism as a system requires an amount of the population to be poor in order to incentivize competition amongst others. Wealth and capital both become increasingly concentrated at the top of the hierarchal pyramid, evident in every nation that has practiced capitalism. “Muh gommunism” wasn’t the argument being made, any attempt to bring it into this discussion is a deflection from the inherent inequality present in capitalism (which was what the commenter was talking about.)
@@DallinPorter-ii4qk again, you’re deflecting from the topic at hand and moving the goalpost of discussion. Poor people are constantly required to stay poor in any capitalist society, while wealth becomes more concentrated by higher classes. This has been proven by every country that practiced capitalism (and reinforced by rigid class mobility) I’m not sure how else to explain this to you.
From my own reading of the protests of the 60s: nah, nothing has changed. Ask your average anti-Vietnam protestor why they were there and they'd be just as confused. It has been massively romanticised as an era. Forrest Gump portrayed them pretty well. But despite everything, it didn't make them wrong.
Ummmm.... What? What makes his opinions not luxury beliefs? As someone who now has a PhD at Cambridge, is published, and is deemed important enough to be posted on NYT, he is no longer the underprivileged person he is here to represent and yet he's here to speak for us all, making sweeping statements. This is not at all dissimilar to the people he is complaining about in how people make things black and white, not knowing the nuance of these important topics, transferring attention to himself in an obvious attempt to promote his newly released book. There's not just one type of marginalized people; each community is impacted differently by these political issues and have different opinions. It is not enough to say that the majority of a specific group feel a certain way, but that policies have evidence backing it's efficacy. Most of his arguments use logical fallacies. His suggestions for protests are ludicrous. It's good that people don't need to risk dire consequences to protest, and that people will stand up for others even if they do not have explicit skin in the game. It's usually the marginalized minority who faces these issues and without vocal mass support, there is no political will for change, because they themselves don't have enough reach. There's no perfect protest. You may say some are better than others, but do you think that people didn't also complain about the peaceful protests in the 60s? It's people who actually have no skin in the game that focus on the way someone protests and not once contemplate what people are protesting about.
@@Mariathinking I'm sure he is a person with more nuance than a 5 minute video can show, and maybe he expressed himself poorly in this video. But I'm criticizing this video. And it's 100% fair for me to do so because this video was made to stand on it's own and is not chapter 3 in his book or episode 7 in a interview series.
'My childhood was bad, and I had a single parent, therefore everyone should believe in marriage' That's a terrible argument, he's assuming that people need to be married to have kids, and that everyone wants kids to begin with.
This is a big over simplification of what most students are doing, while at the same time totally ignoring the plainly disproportionate violence perpetrated by police against the protesters-just like in the sixties.
Yep, whenever the left gets called out it's a "big oversimplification". Whenever the right gets called out (and rightfully so) it's always legit. I'm not sure if you're aware, but the majority of Palestinians support Hamas, who's stated goal is the genocide of the Jewish people, wherever they live. Right now, supporting Palestine is a genocidal act of support against Jews. It's not rocket science. The students (and their evil professors who should know better) need to be taught a lesson. I would never wish this on them, but I imagine protesting in Iran would be a eye opener for them all, if they survived...
Yes because I am going to listen to the ex US air force guy when he talks about defund the police and Palestine LMAO. Might be some bias there. "Henderson found that these ideas came to serve as status symbols for the privileged while they, ironically, kept the working class down. He came to call these ideas luxury beliefs." Defund the police and decriminalise drugs keep the working class down? The reasoning behind this idea of 'luxury beliefs' is kinda flawed no? Like privileged people co-opt these movements yes, but these ideas come from marginalised communities. A 'luxury belief' in my opinion would be more like reposting an AI image of Palestine to your story without donating, reading, protesting, or doing anything to further the movement but you get the social approval. But that isn't a 'belief' - its the execution or failure to execute a belief. Failing to execute a movement in a progressive way does not make the movement itself a bad thing. I think that is what this guy fails to understand perhaps?
Because you are living a luxurious life and believe in defund the police because you don't understand the communities you advocate for, you are blinded by your lack of life experience
@@xayori Yes there are some people in these movements who are not in touch with the communities they advocate for - but isn't it against the guy in this videos whole point by focusing on THEM rather than the people in the communities and with the life experience who ALSO advocate for these changes? Like this guy appears to be going against his own advice which is to amplify the correct voices and instead focuses on this subset of privileged protestors.
@@porcupinesaucethere are "some people" please listen to yourself, the world over, it's the same story the elite classes taking on struggles and issues which no one in these communities have any meaningful bond with. Take yourself to where the issues are - if you feel genuine about it. Staging a protest in the comfort of your university first world country is just pure virtue signalling. It's never changed a thing.
I understand the concept and there is a lot of truth to it but some arguments are reductive. The first one is this idea that modern protests is just performative virtual signaling of rich kids. If he wants to make that case maybe show some data on that because it's a dangerous conclusion. Many people protest, the defund the police movement was largely driven by everyday people of color who have very negative experience with law enforcement. Same with legalizing drug possession. These are things that different people believe, especially people whose lives have been affected by these issues. The second is the rosy belief that past movements have been non violent and nuanced. Truth is that's the dressed up narrative. It was messy (often times literally), people hated those protests as much as people hate these present day protests. It's difficult to have nuance in a protest, it's more about singular purpose so many things get lost along the way. Lastly it feels like these criticisms are saying it's bad to have empathy. Why can't people give voice to something they care about even if it has nothing to do with them or if its outcome won't affect them. People get involve because they want to help, no one comes in with the intent of "pushing the less privileged down".
''If he wants to make that case maybe show some data on that because it's a dangerous conclusion'' Then you go and have many dangerous conclusions without any data to back that up ''Only 18% of respondents supported the movement known as "defund the police," and 58% said they opposed it. Though white Americans (67%) and Republicans (84%) were much more likely to oppose the movement, only 28% of Black Americans and 34% of Democrats were in favor of it.'' Decriminalizing drugs also doesn't have wide support as you think it has. These movements are clearly not driven by every day people but rich kids. You give absolutely no care in the world how many people are suffering from violence or drug abuse.
Its says more about you than Fox or OAN. Get out of the wizards circle while you can. The magician sets the frame. All you need to do is step out of it.
*'Defund' the police doesn't mean 'unfund' the police:* You and I, by the sound of it, both grew up with violence and relied on the police... _but a militarized ($$$$$$$$) police force can be dialled down from '11'... doctor._
It's that thing where someone misrepresents ideas by pretending they exist without context. Defund the Police, for example, is always part of a set of policies that involves reallocating resources to other kinds of first responders and freeing up police resources, and curbing militaristic raids that are unnecessary and require expensive equipment and the wrong kind of training.
“Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police” - The New York Times June 12, 2020 110 IQ Midwits On NYTs YT: “uh Ackshually it’s a slogan representing a holistic approach that has failed everywhere it’s been tried except for a brief few years in Camden NJ and no I will not introspect on why that might be the case”
Yes, that was the theory on paper. But a lot of city council members and county supervisors saw "defunding" as simply laying off law enforcement officers and shrinking patrol units.
The author makes arguments on the merits against drug/marriage/police stances, yet the last part of the video questions the methods of the pro-Palestine movement but does not defend Israel. This part does not logically follow the rest of the video. It is a sleight of hand to suggest that the pro-Palestinian protesters are wrong to sympathize with Palestinians without directly making that argument and justifying Israel’s actions.
Classic False Choice. MANY of us oppose BOTH the Hamas terrorists (& the reported 70+% of Palestinians who support them AND the atrocities of 10/7) AND the insane & clrly counterproductive actions of Likud's corrupt regime. Realizing that undeniably some (& probably many? most?) of these "pro-Palestinian protesters" have less than 0 clue what Hamas rly represents -- many can't even name "the river" OR "the sea," or know anything of the histories -- hardly constitutes siding w/Bibi's failed regime, whose bet that they cld forever support & thus limit Hamas' harms clrly didn't turn out so well.
@@3506Dodge You've been brainwashed into believing Zionism = Judaism. Or you're just cynically using it to say criticism of the country of Israel = anti-semitism. Would you call criticism of the far right Modi govt Anti-Indian racism.
@@jusTarung What he didn't show from his edited montage was students being beaten, pepper sprayed and violently arrested on campuses across the country. He is distilling millions of protesters into a tiny cliched pool of spoilt rich kids. For someone with a Phd you'd think he'd at least hide his bias better. I did not miss his point because he is driving it through like a blunt battle ram.
Decriminalization of drugs can be a good idea if you start treating addicts as addicts and put them in rehab (instead of jail and prison) with a program meant to reintroduce them into community. That mixed with penalizarion of people who own big amounts for distribution and additional funding for police and for social workers can be very helpful. This is the only thing in this video that I would dispute. Because I believe I can make some good points for this kind of strategy and good discussion can strengthen an argument by eliminating blindspots.
@@Flora_Pinkyhow would any protest bring attention to a subject if it is destructive? Could it maybe be the case that provocative actions get peoples’ attention, and bring awareness to a subject?
don’t worry it’s an opinion piece! no need to see concrete citations or statistics when we can just go off of general “kids these days” vibes am i right?
Started watching and stopped on "decriminalize drug use". That's definitely not a luxury belief. I live in Portugal where we decriminalized drug use and carrying small quantities for consumption. Deaths sharply fell, consumption as well (this was in response to a heroin epidemic in the 90's) and way less people go to jail. So if your concerned with less privileged people let me tell you something: a rich kid will most likely get out of jail asap if found with drugs, a poor person? Not so much. So no, sir you are wrong.
All the cities that decriminalized drugs in the US have done NOTHING like the rehab programs in Portugal. Even the old drug court programs have better outcomes.
@@spht9ngyeah because all they did was decriminalised drugs and hoped for the best, your cities are run by absolute brain dead geriatric old men, as they didnt invest in the insinuations that allows these drug addicts to come to them on their own by their terms as that is the only way it will work if people seek it themselves. The only thing we can do is make sure it is as easily accessible and that there isn't a stigma around it so people aren't ashamed to seek professional help. As y'all just implemented a law without acknowledging why it was successful in other nations.
@@spht9ngThan let's implement rehab drug programs in the US. As a progresive, I am in favor of implementing the successful policies that have worked in other countries.
There's more nuance that what the video portray. Its a short message but dismissing the whole thing just because you don't agree with one thing is crazy and honestly just a symptom of a radicalized individual. I also disagree with this point but I can see what he's saying. The problem is not substance use itself but the knowledge and education around it.
An extremely conservative and regressive peice from NYT, a mask off moment for their actual social politics. Guess what, many of the white protestors in the Civil Rights movement were 'priveleged', does that make their protest invalid? Were they making it 'all about themselves', or were they showing solidarity? Today's pro-Palestine protestors may be similarly 'priveleged' in attending Ivy League colleges, yet they are still risking suspension, expulsion and brutalization on behalf of the police- is that not having 'skin in the game'? Shameful.
This video has some interesting ideas, but nothing is substantiated or supported with evidence. Just because something it's an opinion doesn't mean you should just throw together a short video with blazing hot takes and not fill in the rest. I'm pretty disappointed with, especially coming from the NYT and a guy with this level of education. Could've just had an extra 5 minutes backing the claims, and I'm suspecting some of the claims are not so valid because why not mention it?
Agreed... including his strange statement on marriage. Married people tend to be better off, more successful, more intelligent, and safer. Not because marriage make them that way but because who wants to marry some one who is aggressive, foolish or unsuccessful. Its a selection bias not a solution. Providing evidence would have allowed him to have the nuanced takes he is demanding his opponents to have.
@Marcos-yd2iz So you need to see a back up for claims like that 'defund the police' or 'heavy drugs are alright' are bad ideas? You're clearly a deluded leftist living in a bubble.
The guy made it. Really. But a lot of his peers have fallen to police brutality and enprisioned for years for carrying 1g of cocaine. It´s way more complicated than this.
I agree with some of what he's saying, many of the protesters do come from privileged backgrounds, are centering themselves, and wouldn't know real world suffering if it hit them in the face. That said, he has also fallen victim to what he's accusing the protesters of doing = over simplifying the issues. There's a lot more to the defund police and anti-war movements than can be stated in the couple of blithe sentences he shared with us. Maybe his argument would still hold water if he presented us with more information, but this 5 minute video doesn't begin to cover it. What gives NYT? What's the actual point of this relatively empty and uncompelling "opinion" piece? Clicks and views?
Exactly!!! There is nothing persuasive here because it relies on the viewer not having any knowledge of current protest movements and civil rights movement that could complicate the picture
This could have been a great video…he was onto something by criticizing performative activism by elites, but then he just concluded that advocating for police reform/abolition, drug decriminalization/ alternative addiction regulation, and the end to the Palestinian nakba are issues he doesn’t care about. That’s fine. Students can advocate for themselves as well as others. Police violence, drug laws, and Israeli occupation/genocide primarily affect the most vulnerable, and these students should use their privilege to speak up for the underprivileged, but also themselves. The opinion piece also reflects a misunderstanding of social activism in the past and the violence that it entailed in order to effectuate change. He offers a revisionist description of the civil rights movement, and ultimately reveals himself as one of the elites he fears. Only he prefers to criticize activism rather than engage in it himself.
No citations for the stances that are taken. No engagement with what the opposition is actually stating beyond attacking their slogans. Why was this elevated by NYT? Seems like a Yale grad enjoys some luxury benefits. 🤔
@KarthikNarasimhan-jg3mk Editorials are not required to offer sources, but strongly argued ones do. Look at any online op-ed and you'll find footnotes or underlined texts linking to supporting sources. An asterisk, boxed quote, or other stylized inclusion of resources is commonplace in video essays. This video includes none.
It's an opinion. Stated even in the title. I know It's uncomfortable to hear something that doesn't align with your intellectual bubble, no need to get emotional about it.
A lot of Gen Z crybabies in the comments who never accepted personal responsibility for anything in their lives. It's what happens when your entire belief system is dictated through TikTok.
I think you make some great points but I disagree about the whole consequences issue. I think people should be able to protest peacefully without being arrested even if I disagree with everything they have to say.
Protesting peacefully is not the issue. The issue is protesting and then destroying property, keeping people from getting an education, costing the taxpayers money for police control, etc.
@@laketwodo u understand these the universities are taking their tuition money and investing billions into Israel’s military ?? Which is actively killing thousands of innocent civilians? If that doesn’t move you if that doesn’t shake you, you have lost your humanity. If that doesn’t make you want to stand up and fight against that you have no right to sit here and talk about the ethics of destroying property. Human life is far more valuable than a building. And I’m saying this as a Palestinian, not as a luxury take.
@@laketwo All medium-to-large sized protests cost taxpayer money for police control, your argument makes no sense. Police costs increase whenever there is any large event.
Very poor reasoning. Using your mother's drug addiction as an argument against decriminalization is nonsense. Your mother took drugs while they were illegal. The same goes for the aforementioned parents of institutionalized children.
@@duo315 He was just critiquing the argument. Not suggesting that decriminalising drugs would decrease abuse or other crimes. Also, you posit that decriminalising drugs would only worsen violent crimes because it "rewards" bad behaviour. The only way it would remotely reward this behaviour is by not sending offenders to prison. However, that's not really a reward; it's more a lack of severe punishment. Which you may argue prevents people from doing drugs, but I believe contemporary evidence suggests that prison isn't a deterrent that stops drug addicts from using drugs.
@sneaky-soft7848 well she was taking it anyway so better to have a safe alternative than your junkie mother croaking over and dying of an overdose as you sit there traumatised, unsure and unable to do anything and you just watch the life in her eyes leave. Than you have to be the one who sits on call with the emergency services and explain everything that happened as you sit there for the next 30-40 minutes waiting for them as you sit with her lifeless body. As though they're junkies they're someone's parents at the end of the day.
"Back in the day they knew how to . These kids today. " - every generation gets to hear this from the previous generation 😂. And every yiung person ignores this advice and we move onwards .
I mostly agree but here in Italy sometimes students had the right to point out an aggressive way of dealing with the protesters by the police. We are still figuring out who's the one to indict (few guilty 'cops' or the higher institutions) but the policemen involved had been protected from the law. Sometimes the same students would punch in the face other parties protesters though.
The amount of pure copium from people who feel called out for this sort of behavior is astounding. You are not adding anything to the world, you never have, you never will because you are informed by Reddit, galvanized by twitter, and a product of narcissism not activism.
I grew up poor and with two abusive drug and alcohol addicted parents. I don't mind when people with money want to defend the less fortunate. Better that they have empathy than not. My only problem is when they don't mean it. Like some who say they're liberal but hate homeless people.
He's saying that they don't really mean it but they make it about themselves
@@tamarleahh.2150which he provides no evidence for lmao
Makes a claim but can’t even back it up.
stop doing huite people.
we are sick of your stupidity.
don't do drugs, it's easy.
latinos don't do drugs but you people keep doing it.
@SaintThiccolas did you try watching the video?
This is an odd video for the New York times. I grew up in a broken home, with abuse, camping and living in women's shelters. I have a master's degree now. I've learned that defund the police was about de-escalation in police brutality and weapons Like tanks and more on social programs. Chances are if wealthy educated people are protesting on behalf of those without the means or time to do so, chances are there's a reason. I'm suprised anti- LGBTQ2+, anti choice/prolife or any anti- antifa protests aren't "luxury protests" with the new York times. I swear things have changed this last year
@dstuart2918 mine wasn't, my job is in high demand. Mine was in rehab medicine
Because of Gaza, maybe.
Have you ever considered that defunding leads to inadequate quality of police service?
@@normaaliihminen722you do know that there are police departments in the US that buy tanks and rocket launchers with their budget? I think most of us can agree that withholding money for big military 'toys' in a police force isn't going to hurt anyone. Putting that money instead to affordable housing, counseling services, food programs, benefits the population in ways a tank does not
@@escher2hands663there are thousands of police dept. Thats only a handful of dept who have military toys. And even those military toys are actually aren't bought but just given by us military when they dont need it. Defunding any dept makes it worse, be it education or health. The same applies with police dept. When they dont have more money, they cant have enough police officers, lesser to patrol, lesser car for emergency services. U dont use defund for an Institution u want to reform, u use it for the institution u want to cripple. Defund the police is an anarchist cry widely unpopular among the general public, Democrat's understand it. In midwest, the democratic candidates publicly distanced themselves from this cry and affirmed their support for the police. Its common sense, that with more funds, police can extend the training period of their officers, hire more officers and cars to patrol and respond to emergency quickly. Surely funding social welfare and housing would be beneficial, but not at the cost of a functioning law enforcement agency.
I thought the whole argument about diminishing the importance of SAT scores was based on the fact that less affluent student are less likely to score as highly as affluent students? Since affluent students can pay for tutors and afford to take the test multiple times to improve their grade?
Lies and damned lies by the affluent... In truth the best shot less affluent students have is an objective exam... The imperfect but closest shot at a level playing field...
When objective measures such as SAT are replaced by subjective measures, affluent do much better as they can show extra curricular skills which can much more easily be bought by money...
Where is his demand that colleges get rid of legacies? Those are totally affirmative action for the children of the rich, and make a lie of the meritocracy that SATs supposedly promote for non-rich applicants. And then once a lower-income applicant is accepted on the basis of their superior SAT score, they may be unable to attend the top colleges that they should have access to due to the very high cost. Even with merit-based financial aid, they'll likely have to burden themselves with 5 or even 6-figure debt to attend. So much for meritocracy! 🤦🏼
No. That's true. That's why legacy admissions are what the right-wingers think affirmative action does. Google Top 10% America, and you'll see the research that wealth begets wealth, especially in America.
@@KushChakraborty1 That's not true. SAT and ACT are those supposed objective tests, and they are gamed by the wealthy who have tutors and classes to teach to game them. I'm sure most of the people that liked your comment had some kind of SAT or ACT prep course that "prepared" you for those texts. If not, you know people who did. What you don't know is how much the wealthy spend on those classes and tutors. It's not just one mandatory class. That guy in the video knows this. He went to Yale those and legacy students.
I'll leave with this: How does one prepare for a truly objective test?
His read on the 1960s and privilege is not supportable. Privileged white people became involved in civil rights, even though they didn't have to. Their contemporaries would have said that it was none of their business, that they were seeking attention for themselves, that they just didn't understand the complexities of the situation, that they would stir up a bunch of trouble for poor blacks, that they were outside agitators, etc, etc, etc.
People who are opposed to left-wing protest have long said things like "get a job" or whatever. It's a stream of thought that doesn't end well for anyone.
Hey, real quick: what "major penalties" should there be for protesting? Asking for a friend, but wanting a serious answer. Thanks.
How about Ivy League protesters cleaning the mess they made before leaving for their holiday ski trips or sailing on yachts?
@@catch22ashif the university pays people to clean it up then that’s stimulating the economy, ain’t it?
for vandalism and violence you mean ?
@@thedonut2118 University maintenance people already have jobs. You're not helping anybody by making unnecessary mess.
@@catch22ashthey weren’t allowed access
This video needs wayyyyy more explaining. Very little actual explanation of how these protesters are doing the wrong thing and harming people. Just a claim.
There exists the permanent possibility of selfinformation. If you are really interested in the matter and not only in leaving comnents, feel free to do so.
@@gabiwonderwall0582if you’re going to make up an idea like “luxury beliefs,” I would think you would want to fully explain the concept and not expect the audience to go find supporting documents for your claim.
@@paulhendrixson7900he wrote a whole book, you @#$&
@@gabiwonderwall0582nope, try again.
If you’re gonna make a claim, be prepared to back it up with some evidence, that’s how the burden of proof works🤦♂️
You will find an explanation to your heart's content in his memoir.
notice how they only showed white people when showing those talking about advocating for defunding the police and decriminalizing drugs. that does not remotely correspond with the in real life circles i've been in where these things have been discussed. most people in these movements are people of color, and most authors critically analyzing the criminal "justice" system and the police state are also people of color, those who are working towards better lives for their neighbors they are in community with. college campuses are often where these movements grow momentum because it is where young people who dare to imagine a different world are gathering and exchanging ideas.
"I was poor and now I'm not anymore, and that makes me a social policy expert. If you disagree, check your privilege."
unironically
I guess you missed the PhD part.
@@trevorwilliams3501 I think I missed the part where he critiques any of the beliefs driving these protests on their merits. "It's great that people care about injustice" ...unless you disagree with his take that Defund the Police is for babies and that we obviously don't need to take it seriously. Because only babies support that idea. Putting that PhD to good use there.
Luxury beliefs is a shallow idea - to say the least. Almost all beliefs could be said to be luxury, e.g., you could apply your three golden rules to both Pro-Palestine and Pro-Israel protests, the civil rights movement and pro-life movement. Moreover, how do you measure and calculate privilege? How can you define something based on thing nobody can really quantify? If you judge legitimacy of a movement/protest based on the amount of mess they leave and don't clean up, then abolish the right to assemble. That's why people from humanities need to take proof-based mathematics classes and subjects involving scientific method at some point instead of discrediting various movements with made-up terms and juggling words like Jordan Peterson.
So well stated!
Exactly! Very well stated.
I think you missed his point, which was about rallying around ideas while being exempted from consequences of those ideas.
I have to commend the NYT for their commitment to crushing solidarity movements. A time-honored tradition of siding with the ruling class.
Well then solidarity movements should learn to pick up trash themselves
I’d worry politics is not a solidarity movement
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call 'a massive cope'.
Imagine thinking that protesters should be punished more harshly. And then ya'll claim you are for "freedom" 🙄 The right to protest is enshrined in the first amendment, and it is central to a free democracy. This country is what it is because of people who have historically been willing to protest the status quo. Ya'll on the right hated the protesters of the 60s too. You said they were violent rioters. Ya'll have always been against any protest that is against the status quote. Also, so many progressive activist DO uplift the voices of the marginalized. Literally this guy is embarrassing and is talking out his *ss
these guys should be ashamed of themselves
Watch it again. It sounds like you didn't want to hear what his point was.
He had a valid point. Shutting him down and refusing to try to hear and consider what he is saying from his perspective is short sighted. You don't have to agree with him in the end, but you are obligated to listen and try to understand his perspective or you are just giving energy to our nation's divide with "I'm right, you're wrong".
I missed the part where he said protesters should be punished more harshly. Can you provide a timestamp?
Drug use was decriminalized in Portugal in 2001 and yes, it did help people.
The history of the fight for rights and popular mobilizations has never been without incidents, imperfections, contradictions and, often, violence. This oversimplified analysis caricatures those who protest or hold certain kinds of opinions as a bunch of spoiled, rich, woke people.
It accuses a group of people of seeing the world in black and white but fails... by doing exactly that.
@@teresafrcc underrated comment
It worked because programs there made drug users curb their usage and eventually quit. Imoortant caveat.
Here in America there are no stringent programs that drug users are forced to partake in so they linger on the street until they die of an overdose.
Big difference.
@@austin2640 25 "likes" as of (at the moment I'm posting this, it sez) 4 hours is not bad.
I see only 9 comments in the whole thread that have more "likes" as of this moment.
We'll see how it shakes out long-term.
Prove your Portugal statement with stats and a source 🤷🏻
The most significant component of Portugal success is a family/friends intervention. Portugal is way less individualistic than US. I wish we could apply their method, but our society is made of a different cloth.
Feels like NYT devotes much of their front page and editorial content to luxury beliefs but only those that cater to the status quo.
Mind blown! I never noticed that?
100% but since the country is not moving more to BASE it is now using its BASED employees to shift MO and make money...
Type all that but not a single example
Remember blm before Patrice colors? Ha ha ha
Bingo
This video is a perfect example of how the New York Times is actually quietly socially conservative.
Didn’t the NYT omit Rob Henderson’s book from their bestseller list despite it being 4th in sales? I am surprised to see that they’re showing this vid on their channel at all. Maybe they’re finally realising the truth that their paper itself has been a prime purveyor of luxury beliefs.
More likely than not, the NYT is trying to introduce another POV instead of just reinforcing the same narrative in an echo chamber. You should want to hear a different POV - that is how people sharpen their critical thinking skills.
Or maybe they just make an attempt to platform a variety of viewpoints? Which people then argue reveals them to be obviously biased one way or another. It's called an opinion piece for a reason.
@@modalmixture I have been a subscriber for decades and am socially liberal. They never publish some pieces advocating for my general social views, and I would know, because I would notice if they do. In general, media that is entrenched tends to skew conservative, because conservatives want to maintain the status quo, and legacy institutions benefit from that.
Not "quiet" abt it at all.
To water down and completely disregard the reason WHY these privileged students were taking part in these massive campus protests is extremely problematic and privileged in and of itself. One can point out the irony of rich, white kids at ivy league institutions protesting for the freedom and safety of a group of oppressed people they’ve never met, but to question their integrity and character simply due to their socioeconomic background is extremely prejudiced and ignorant. No matter what the youth of any race or socioeconomic background do, they are always quickly judged, demeaned, and dismissed by the older generations. And then you wonder why they partake in these types of protests? Another tone-dead piece by the NYT 👏👏
👋 hi I went to Yale 😎 here’s a term I made up to describe everything I don’t like 😁 ok hope that helps ❤️
You are being unfair: he was also a foster child and went through terrible things 😥 I would almost think about protesting for improvements in the foster care system, but I'm too privileged for that. And for the love of god nobody take money from the policy to improve the system!
/s
Haha he got you feeling some type of way 😂
Big JD Vance energy dude - "Foster Kid Elegy" coming to a remainders bin soon
I love that the three luxury beliefs listed aren’t the issue at hand for the protests in the footage.
The concept of luxury beliefs applies well enough to something like the online "trad wife" movement, but the "defund the police" movement? In _some_ cities the movement was sparked by well-publicized cases of the police killing the mentally ill under very questionable circumstances, so I wouldn't _necessarily_ call that a "luxury belief" so much as outcry about a legitimate problem.
I can personally agree with 2 out of the 3 topics on the "how should they protest" section (although I'm wary of people that believe a protest is only valid when it meets certain criteria - that feels too much like refusing to engage with the actual problem being protested), but the "don't protest the consequences" thing is absurd. If you try to change something unjust about the world you live in and then face negative consequences for it, that is also part of the injustice. Or should we think that, say, arresting Mandela for fighting against racial segregation was something acceptable? Anyone demanding the end of apertheid would logically also demand his release.
I think the point he was going for was to not get consequences just as an avenue to play the victim. Not stated clearly, but maybe don't do a thing just so you have something about yourself to victimize and distract from the core issue of the protest.
@@ericlorenzen4795 You mean Jews acting like they're being persecuted on college campuses?
@@ericlorenzen4795 One of the major demands of the protesters was for schools to stop the "Palestine exception" to free speech policies, so it's not really distracting from the goals.
Your world is slowly falling apart as you begin to realize the NYT is not a news channel, but instead a funnel of propaganda from the state department and intelligence agencies.
They used to promote free thinking with initiatives.
Now they give you the answer in an op ed
mandela was arrested for terrorism
Interesting to note that the protestor at Yale were "arrested" by their own campus police. The New Haven police chief said publicly that they were too busy to bother with them. I've also seen Yalies pitching tents and sleeping on the town green in protest. Actual homeless people are not allowed that luxury.
So the police don't view them as s threat and don't remove them but instead of giving everyone that luxury (or homes) we should condemn the protesters? I'm sure that's not it
how would them not protesting tangibly help “actual homeless people”? you’re not making any argument here, you’re just doing moral grandstanding
Pretty dumb thesis for a guy who went to Yale. I can’t believe the Times posted this.
agree
@@bobbyologun1517 X2
4:36 - Early '60s, maybe. Not late '60s though. One former leader of the anti-Vietnam War student protest in 1968 at Columbia (Mark Rudd) remarked that the current pro-Palestine protests are smarter, more disciplined, and more nonviolent than the protests that he was a part of
Looking back through history, it’s easy to see that there has been a contingent of privileged voices in so many important movements. The abolitionist movement was propelled in the public consciousness primarily by white activists. Using the fact that enslaved people themselves didn’t have the luxury of expressing themselves to discredit the movement for ending slavery would have been quite ludicrous & a convenient way to skirt actually engaging with the merits of the argument. Sometimes the only people with the time, money, and resources to take risks are people with some degree of remove and “luxury”-and thank god there are people with the compassion to rise to that challenge even when their own neck isn’t on the line.
Pointing out this dynamic does nothing to address or invalidate the actual merits of the arguments being put forward by this advocacy.
Well said, I was searching for similar words but could not have said it so succinctly or eloquently.
but he was poor and is now from yale so this makes your argument quite invalid and luxurious!
I agree with what you say. I want to expand upon the discussion by adding the caveat that the definition of luxury beliefs Henderson cites necessitates that the belief would negatively affect the marginalized if implemented. If Henderson wants to claim that the current Pro-Palestinian protests are luxury beliefs, then he should prove that the demonstrations are harming Gazans.
@@connorthompson66I know this is old. but reading this comment I think people are missing an important part which the speaker was making.
And that is the eternal fact there are many people in any movement who will highjack an important matter for selfish intent.
Take Christianity a religion that is based upon selfless love and to judge humbly. But how often do we see people ignoring those principles and using the Bible/church to hurt others.
The idea of luxury beliefs has more to do with individuals who claim to want to help but with who they target and they way they do it shows little commitment or concern for the matter at hand.
This is one of the most malignant videos Ive ever seen, how is this any different from conservative framing??? I was already feeling alienated by the NYT but now I am furious. This publication is beyond retribution.
I agreed with some of what he said, however I feel like he felt that because he has suffered in life, he has the right or (privileged belief) to play the moral judge on the actions of others. Ironic.
Its not ironic, he actually does.
This is literally the exact moral argument Progressives have been using to justify everything they do. You completely lack any self awareness.
Yeah. You "feel like." Next question!
@@Pilot15555 yes, I have an opinion, and I'm voicing it. What's your problem?
@@cheesball96 honestly it’s been 2 months I don’t even remember what the video was about
NYT, you should run an op-Ed about why NYT Op-Ed’s are so bad
This one was super based.
Found the privileged 19 year old
why, because they invade your safe space?
found the rioted PepeL
Isolationism is also a luxury belief (a luxury of geographic separation and/or lack of near-peer rivals). Siberian eskimos could afford to be isolationist and ignore the rest of the world until the Russians became powerful enough to conquer their way across northern Asia during the 16th and 17th centuries.
There's a lesson in that for modern Isolationists, especially in an era of aircraft carriers, ICBMs, biowe@'pons, cyberattacks, ter'ror!st attacks, and mass drone swarms.
Isolationism was never a viable long-term strategy, but the Japanese proved the case conclusively for the US at Pearl Harbor.
Hey can I have sources for the facts you claim in this video? Like the distribution of support of the decriminalisation
No. You not taking everything the rich guy with foster care background at face value is a luxury belief.
@@SkodaUFOInternational Brilliant observation.
That part! Like lobby elsewhere, I subscribe for actual news
👏 FR
Read his book? You’re lucky the NYT is even exposing you to this non-establishment thinker at all. It’s extremely rare for them.
Being american is by his definition a luxury belief
Love the term Luxury Beliefs but a lot of this is gaslighting. Example: the ending - people didn't just litter and leave everything there, they were forced off campus without the opportunity to clean up. Many if not most drugs should be decriminalized, which doesn't mean legalized, although many should be legalized. Defund the police is a terrible slogan, but the idea is right - so many social problems can be solved with social workers, first responders, intervention, preventive care. It will take time but if we invested in that and education, rather than robot dogs, military vehicles and weapons, us-vs-them training etc. our society would be better. Police and law enforcement ARE necessary and deserve respect, but more often than not, that's not what we have. We have state sanctioned violence from a legal gang. And forcing people to stay married hardly creates stable social upbringings - that's just delusional.
I do however agree it's a luxury to even be able to protest. I agree probably half of the supposedly passionate people out there are really just attention seeking and virtue signaling. But I think you're conflating cause and effect and you're also not realizing your own privilege. I'm willing to bet rarely or never when police rolled up were you presumed guilty or pushed up against a wall and frisked, even when it was potentially you or your friends and family who called the police. I'm not one to call this a privilege but discrimination is real.
It’s precisely why the New York Times is no longer a reliable source. The owner of the New York Times voted for Donald Trump. The owner of the Washington Post is Elon Musk. The only journalist worth listening to you are independent journalists. If it wasn’t for the mom protesting, we never even would’ve gotten FDR‘s plan. Now, maybe all of those protesters had their own agenda, but frankly, this is the basis of our entire country. It’s more than dishonest. It’s fascist.
Based
That doesnt matter, when they spray painted the walls they didnt care about it
THIS!
You missed the entire point of the video, the video was not about the content of the protests but about the lack of integrity, immaturity, and conceitedness of certain actors within the protests and how their luxury beliefs counter-intuitively harm those who they are supposedly fighting for. The narrator was a psychologist, not a policy wonk.
1:58 this is a weird argument and reasoning. Kids need married parents so we shouldn’t reject marriage? What if I never get married and don’t want to have kids? Can I reject marriage?
I was thinking the same thing. He makes it seem like not wanting to get married is the leading cause of single parenthood.
@@campfire87 this guy totally wasted his education his reasoning is at the same level as some high school dropouts 😂
I was very happy when my parents divorced, a period of abuse ended.
he says people should "believe in marriage" but if you force someone to marry for the sake of stability, that absolutely will not lead to a happy stable home
Obviously yes. Congratulations for arriving to this logical conclusion even when used in irony. Skip the latter and you are on the right path.
TIL: Luxury Beliefs can be found in any Times editorial.
That's why is called bad propaganda.
Like democracy, I guess
Bravo best article I have heard in a long time.
I think it's kinda nonsense. He's basically just calling anything he doesn't like "luxury beliefs", while virtue signaling that he's not one of the virtue signalers.
I was willing to hear him out but really lost sympathy after he started talking about drug decriminalization. It's obvious drugs being super illegal didn't stop any of the abuse he went through as a kid, and not only does the current landscape with drugs create the perfect environment for abuse, but it also means that tens of thousands of people are stuck in jail just cause they put something in their body. It actively destroys community and makes the perfect breeding ground for violent gangs which only make the cycle worse.
It's really reminiscent of prohibition, where people like women and children who were genuine victims of horrible things due to alcohol abuse channeled all their anger in a misplaced attempt to ban alcohol entirely, which only led to _more_ alcohol abuse and the creation of violent mafias and gangs mowing people down on the streets with tommy guns in bootlegging operations and turf wars. I mean it's really shocking that we learned nothing from this time, and just like how the Mafia didn't go away after Al Capone was made "public enemy no. 1", cracking down harder and harder on drugs is only going to bring more destruction in its path, as even more people are put in jail, more communities are destroyed with gangs, and even _more_ people turn to drugs as an escape from the destruction around them, which then goes back to step 1. It's really shocking that he just labels anyone talking about this as "Out of touch liberal elites" when it's really just common sense.
Ok, so the marriage one is a privileged take. Yes it helps some, but those who are disabled are SEVERELY penalized financially because of it. For many who are unable to work due to a physical disability, they can’t afford insurance (and it was only after Obamacare was insurance discrimination outlawed). I understand how he would have loved to have had a stable household as a result, but that utterly ignores the fate of the physically disabled.
You’re very privileged to hold this opinion
"In all ages, whatever the form and name of government-be it monarchy, public or democracy, an oligarchy lurks behind the facade: Roman history, republican or imperial, is the history of a governing class..., Liberty and the laws are high sounding words. They will often be rendered, on a cool estimate, as privilege and vested interests.”
Sir Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution, Oxford 1939
We should evaluate the strength of an argument on logic and evidence, not the character of the person making the argument.
What's at issue is the ethics of belief formation and the fact that most people in the US and elsewhere don't have good processes for forming beliefs. It becomes more problematic the more politically active people are, which privilege affords. The problem is not uniquely explained by privilege and much wider than he thinks. It's misleading to say only wealthy people are failing to form beliefs in an approriate and responcible way. It's also harmful because it's in the relm of scape-goating.
It is imporant to be careful when we discuss the issue of belief formation to distinguish between what people believe and how they came to believe it. The fact that someone holds a belief for bad reasons is not evidence that the belief is wrong. If someone's beliefs can be explained by their wealth, that's no reason to reject them. Unfortunatly, the notion of 'luxury beliefs' does not help us be more careful about making that distinction. Rather, it stears us toward failing that mistake.
The problem is not the beliefs but the process by which people forms their beliefs. If someone used a bad process, that is not a reason to reject the belief. 'Luxury beliefs' are alleged to be a problem because weath is a cause for people to have bad belief forming processes. The problem with the notion of 'luxury beliefs' is that 'luxury beliefs' are no less 'luxury beliefs' if someone came to hold them using a responsible thought process than an irresponsible one. Suppose Sandy realizes he used a bad process to come to hold a 'luxury belief'. He responds by using a good process to answer the question to which the original belief was the answer. As it turns out, he came to the same conclusion. He still holds the 'luxury belief'. The fact that he holds a 'luxury belief' does not depend on whether or not he used a good or bad process to come to hold it. But that's what the notion of a 'luxury belief' cannot afford to admit.
It's important to realize that social causes underdetermine policy. He says that people don't see how the causes they support are actually harmful to the people they are supposed to help. The only way he can provide evidence that they are harmful is by looking at the effects of policies that are in line with the relevant activism. However, there are many ways that social activists can acheive their ends through policy. This is true even if their cause is support for a specific sort of policy.
'Luxury belief' is an unhelpful notion because it excludes the people who hold those beliefs from the political conversation. The notion begins with the assumption that those beliefs are wrong in order to explain why they are wrong. Of course, no one who holds a so-called 'luxury belief' believes that they are wrong, otherwise, it wouldn't be a belief of their's, so they can't even raise the question 'why am I wrong'. But democratic discourse must include everyone, so it is wrong to start the conversation by exluding groups of people.
The worst part is that he is trying to shift the focus of a number of current debates onto the charater of his opponents, which is harmful for democratic discorse. The ad hominem fallacy explains why this does not work.
Well, to be fair, he's not arguing that their questionable character delegitimizes their arguments. His claim is that the causes these protestors fight for actually harm the marginalized people that have to live with the consequences of naive policy decisions. He then concludes, by way of presumption, that they must not actually care about marginalized people, given the fact the policies they fight for harm the marginalized. He then brings up privilege as a potential cause for this disconnect, or clouding of judegemt. His logic is sound, in my opinion, but he's also clearly biased. Like most takes from educated people, there's a likely a lot of truth to what he's saying, but also some amount of bias leading to exaggeration and in some cases, falsehoods.
Overall, his ideas of "luxury beliefs" tend to hold water.
These people in the comments are obliviously the people he's talking about.
The critique againt the rejection of marriage is utter bullcrap. Being married doesen't translate authomatically in a stable relationship, nor two parents who aren't married can't be in a stable relationship. Marriage is a social construct and you can be happily engaged even without a ring on your finger.
The first example is already a bad one. And you said you went to Yale 😖
i feel like this piece is not taking the political stances it raises in good faith, nor does it properly represent the actual arguments surrounding these topics.
Thank you. It most definitely is not.
That’s because you have your head up your a$$ .
'I disagree with him therefore it is bad faith'
Totally true.
I don't think intellectual honesty is the strong suit of twitter-tier wokes.
Nowadays when I see people fiercely virtue signaling on social media, I perceive them as feeling guilty about their privilege and using this behavior to cope with that guilt, rather than taking any meaningful action.
I believe it would be more beneficial for these individuals to take a step back, self-reflect, and take direct action to improve themselves, instead of using others as a proxy to feel better.
Step back, get in lane, and be quiet. Perhaps that would be better.
It's not guilt, it's hoard behaviour and mindless teenage maximalism of people with too much time and money on their hands.
Diffrence between this and civil rights protests of the 60s? Enormous condescension of the middle class, self-appointed champions of the oppressed.
The irony in that "me" response is almost palpable. 😂
Nowadays, when I see people complaining about virtue signaling, I perceive them as feeling guilty for not taking any instance in any relevant cause while others do. To cope with that guilt, they ask the others to keep silent.
I believe it would be more beneficial for these individuals to either accept themselves instead of pestering others. They are not activists, that's ok, don't feel ashamed.
Or they can find a cause to fight for. Never in history it was this easy to make the difference.
Just don't go around putting down people who want a better world.
“Meaningful action” like protesting, perhaps?
I come from Australia and I've noticed this is extremely common in the US, it's basically a religion for most people here. They don't really care about these issues, they just love the feeling of "being a good person". It's honestly disgusting and requires common sense and basic levels of rational to see it, Americans are just so reluctant to admit this for some reason.
They also don't really care about the outcome of the thing they are protesting about. Like how they want migrants to be housed in shelters forever when it costs cities hundreds of millions to do so. Or like in the video, defund the police or decriminalize crime, which are more likely to negatively impact the vulnerable.
Hmmm. I guess all 300+ million Americans, of varying faiths and ethnicities, are just like each other. Guessing you’re in a bubble somewhere.
Most of these beliefs in the video are beneficial no matter who is saying them. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
Everyone everywhere is selfish that doesn't make us heartless. The problem is a lack of a clear definition regarding the terms. Everything is subjective so "defund the police", for example, means something different to everyone. Most Americans mean well and want to get along
As an American I can totally see what you’re talking about
Chased a crusty scammer out of the apartment complex dumpster who was stealing mail to find pre approved credit cards and medical records to steal identities with. We had a problem with it in the neighborhood for a couple years by then.
A rich girl I was dating at the time said that was immoral of me and that we should just take the hit because his poverty allows him total forgiveness....Woman, you are standing in the cheapest apartments in the city, dating a guy making brely more than minimum wage. Do you want me and the other people here becoming that guy? Ridiculous people
this video frames these topics as a dichotomy, where one side has to hate the other side, or where by having these beliefs you are automatically assuming someone must be privileged. when that just isn’t true.
Yeah no you're not listening to what he said. You're just responding to what you expect him to say. Did you actually watch?
NYT is pure state dept and intl agencies propoganda.
They done want you to think for yourself like the tv radio campaigns did in the 50’s+
They just want you to get your opinions from them
To make you think like them instead of on your own.
Yeah there are soooooooo many kids in Harvard living off food stamps it's really sad to see. All he was talking about was the inauthenticity of certain young and impressionable protesters, which unlike Civil Rights protesters, face zero long term consequences DUE TO THEIR PRIVILEGE.
@@gilgamecha exactly
He did mention that not everyone who protests is priveleges
I have zero idea how you could possibly arrive at this conclusion
Whole video is pretty much “this was my experience & so it must be a ubiquitous truth” with zero convincing arguments made for his statements. “Defund the police is stupid because when I was poor I wish there were police around,” Isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement for the state of law enforcement.
It's not an entry for an academic journal, chill
@@elias.knotman doesn't mean it can't be criticized. If you can't handle the heat then you shouldn't make the claims. I came to this video expecting to hear a convincing argument and I also didn't find one.
I regret to inform you that polling of the black community agrees entirely with the opinion of the video. And many many polls have been made on the topic. Black deaths from homicides skyrocketed after 2020 but urbanite white liberals stay on that I’m A Heckin Good Person routine
@@soapfoam It's just not that kind of argument. Not every kind of argument should send us scurrying to our computers to fact check. That's autism. Not sure Socrates made his arguments that way.
@@elias.knotman I mean.. you're welcome to try and create a safe space for that. I'm going to keep saying mean words to feature writers/filmers when I think they've done things wrong. No one is above criticism.
As. software engineer, I learned early in my career that people express requirements/needs in the form of their solution. That used to frustrate me, I would say describe to me what the user is doing and what isn't working well or why this new thing is needed. I finally realized people really problems by describing their solution to it. When people cried "Defund the police", leadership was supposed to step back, look at why people across our nation are angry with the police, categorize and prioritize the problems and the impacts, and then design and fund solutions. 'Defund the police" was NOT supposed to be the solution. Perhaps we need national databases to track abusive police, perhaps require police to carry insurance so that lawsuits aren't paid with our tax dollars and once a cop has 3 strikes, the insurance company will no longer insure them. Do you see what I mean? Those problems with abusive police are still unaddressed. So don't blame the lack of solutions on protesting "elites" , it's our leadership that is failing us. And feel free to join in in making your voice heard.
The war on drugs has always been a war against the marginalized.
His argument that drug use (not sale) should not be decriminalized is that his mother neglected him due to drug use. This is so poorly argued because it suggests that jailing her for drug use alone (rather than for the crime of child neglect) would have improved his condition. This poor logic is pervasive throughout this whole piece.
Because privileged people coopt movements doesn’t automatically equate to the conclusion that defund the police or legalizing drugs movements for many black and brown people experiencing hyper-criminalization is not a legitimate worthy cause for those who actually experience its impact
My issue is that labeling these beliefs as “luxury beliefs” can further co-opt these movements tied with a ivory tower bow
That's true but it's a strawman here because it's not the claim he's making.
But too many times those speaking for black and brown people don't talk to them - to find out what they think is best for their community. Example, most black and brown communities are dead set against "safe use" drug facilities being set up in their community. At least in NYC that is true.
you're literally doing identity politics here bro
you’re literally saying he’s doing identity politics here bro
This is such an oversimplification of campus protests. The vast majority of campus protest for Palestine have been peaceful, although they have been disruptive. In fact, most of the violence is from police or pro-Israel counter protestors. The civil rights protests and anti-Vietnam protests of the 1960's werent peaches and cream either. People got arrested. People got sprayed with water hoses and attacked by police dogs. Some were shot dead by police. Protestors camped out on campus lawns and stormed buildings.
And are we surprised that protestors are boiling down "complex geopolitical situations" in good guy bad guy scenarios? Protests fundamentally are never a place you will find a nuanced conversation, those have their own time and place. The goal of a protest is a clear call to action, such as "Ceasefire Now" or "Divest from Israel". Yes, the issue has its complexities but protest is an important and purposefully disruptive form of communication to put pressure on institutions to support human rights.
Bro these protestors are a joke. Living in an encampment and refusing to leave and then begging for ‘humanitarian aid’? Classes on ‘liberation from imperialist forces’ where you are being taught that North Korea is based because they recognize Palestine? Where the behavior of dismantling university buildings and firebombing vehicles on campus is encouraged? What about the inability to denounce any of the attacks by HAMAS ever?
You think of oversimplification but I have so many discrete instances I can pull just from memory and a litany more if I really went to writing it all down. You can support humanitarian aid and statehood for the Palestinian people and not have support dismantling all of Israel or treat people of Israeli nationality like they’re automatically evil. But that’s unfortunately a minority of the protestors. The movement has been hijacked by extremists who are passionate about making SURE Palestinians NEVER live in peace all to play out their sick fantasies of the ‘slave’ lashing out against the ‘master’.
1:13 You can decriminalize drugs while still requiring people to enter rehab for public use. This is not a binary issue.
Foster care making me take my belongings in trash bags whenever I changed houses is something that stuck with me. I guess they just saw me as trash to be taken out.
But you were never trash. I am so sorry that happened to you. Hope you are doing ok now.
Remember this. You are important and deserving of love and care always.
Leaving a light on for you as you’re on your way home🤍
Wow, a PhD from Yale who can’t comprehend social movements beyond their surface level appearances. Color me surprised.
"Israel bad" is the social movement, no nuance or context, as can be seen from interviews with said protestors not understanding the regions history.
Fr, it’s almost laughable how much of a propaganda post this vid is
"Status quo is good and shouldn't be challenged because I was poor" is an insane statement
@@DallinPorter-ii4qk It is a sign of weak critical thinking skills that you comment under posts with which you disagree attacking the person who made the post rather than the substance of the comment/criticism. Very Utah critical thinking skills, Dallin...
Yeah dude that's what the guy definitely said 💀💀💀
@@DallinPorter-ii4qk "You just can’t understand" is ad hominem. You said "can't" understand, not "didn't" understand or similar. I don't necessarily agree with the original post here, but you commented on several posts attacking the intelligence of people you disagreed with. It's hard not to notice the very Utah Mormon name and recognize a pattern of poor critical thinking skills...
Reddit levels of nonsense. He said stop supporting initiatives that harm minorities and stop protesting in a manner that inconveniences blue collar workers and most of all stop being a glorified NARCISSIST. You know that is what you meant, you don't care because you got called out.
NYT often is a mouthpiece of luxury beliefs.
I think this is a good piece. And yet I wonder what’s to come with the present administration. I don’t think we can reduce protests to luxury and non luxury protests. And by the way, when northerners some from middle class families joined 1960s protests, many claimed they were just rich kids.
Also weird to see someone pro-capitalist complaining about spoiled, privileged rich kids. Do you not realise that wealth inequality is an inherent product of the system you defend?
If you didn't believe in capitalism, you wouldn't be using an electronic device made with slave labor. Hypocrite.
Wealth inequality is downstream from intelligence inequality.
@@DallinPorter-ii4qk ah yes, the tried and true fallacy of whataboutism.
Unlike “socialist and communist” nations, capitalism as a system requires an amount of the population to be poor in order to incentivize competition amongst others. Wealth and capital both become increasingly concentrated at the top of the hierarchal pyramid, evident in every nation that has practiced capitalism.
“Muh gommunism” wasn’t the argument being made, any attempt to bring it into this discussion is a deflection from the inherent inequality present in capitalism (which was what the commenter was talking about.)
@@DallinPorter-ii4qk again, you’re deflecting from the topic at hand and moving the goalpost of discussion.
Poor people are constantly required to stay poor in any capitalist society, while wealth becomes more concentrated by higher classes. This has been proven by every country that practiced capitalism (and reinforced by rigid class mobility) I’m not sure how else to explain this to you.
That makes so much sense, explains why the Kardashians are the most intelligent people on the planet
From my own reading of the protests of the 60s: nah, nothing has changed. Ask your average anti-Vietnam protestor why they were there and they'd be just as confused. It has been massively romanticised as an era. Forrest Gump portrayed them pretty well. But despite everything, it didn't make them wrong.
Wow, would have never expected a video like this from NYTimes! I am blown away.
In a good or bad way? This video is trash.
@@ShizukaRose Why is it trash?
@@ShizukaRose You're expressing a luxury belief.
They're Israeli run....
@@mljh11"Everyone who holds a different belief than me is bad, and I will make no attempt at understanding them."
Ummmm.... What? What makes his opinions not luxury beliefs? As someone who now has a PhD at Cambridge, is published, and is deemed important enough to be posted on NYT, he is no longer the underprivileged person he is here to represent and yet he's here to speak for us all, making sweeping statements. This is not at all dissimilar to the people he is complaining about in how people make things black and white, not knowing the nuance of these important topics, transferring attention to himself in an obvious attempt to promote his newly released book. There's not just one type of marginalized people; each community is impacted differently by these political issues and have different opinions. It is not enough to say that the majority of a specific group feel a certain way, but that policies have evidence backing it's efficacy. Most of his arguments use logical fallacies. His suggestions for protests are ludicrous. It's good that people don't need to risk dire consequences to protest, and that people will stand up for others even if they do not have explicit skin in the game. It's usually the marginalized minority who faces these issues and without vocal mass support, there is no political will for change, because they themselves don't have enough reach. There's no perfect protest. You may say some are better than others, but do you think that people didn't also complain about the peaceful protests in the 60s? It's people who actually have no skin in the game that focus on the way someone protests and not once contemplate what people are protesting about.
He literally came from nothing and still made something of himself. He's experienced more than almost any college activist.
What dont you read a chapter of his book or watch an interview? Then you get get some insights.
@@centipedekid9824 I agree. I don't see how those statements are related to my comment.
@@Mariathinking I'm sure he is a person with more nuance than a 5 minute video can show, and maybe he expressed himself poorly in this video. But I'm criticizing this video. And it's 100% fair for me to do so because this video was made to stand on it's own and is not chapter 3 in his book or episode 7 in a interview series.
And what about you? Have you ever been to a foster home or a juvenile hall? I have. I do agree with Rob.
'My childhood was bad, and I had a single parent, therefore everyone should believe in marriage'
That's a terrible argument, he's assuming that people need to be married to have kids, and that everyone wants kids to begin with.
This is a big over simplification of what most students are doing, while at the same time totally ignoring the plainly disproportionate violence perpetrated by police against the protesters-just like in the sixties.
NYT: this video was sponsored by the government of Israel
Nope it’s exactly correct.
@@tootnoots when in doubt, blame the jews
Nah students broke the law and faced the consequences, you cant take over buildings and block the movement of fellow students, that is illegal.
Yep, whenever the left gets called out it's a "big oversimplification". Whenever the right gets called out (and rightfully so) it's always legit. I'm not sure if you're aware, but the majority of Palestinians support Hamas, who's stated goal is the genocide of the Jewish people, wherever they live. Right now, supporting Palestine is a genocidal act of support against Jews. It's not rocket science. The students (and their evil professors who should know better) need to be taught a lesson. I would never wish this on them, but I imagine protesting in Iran would be a eye opener for them all, if they survived...
Yes because I am going to listen to the ex US air force guy when he talks about defund the police and Palestine LMAO. Might be some bias there. "Henderson found that these ideas came to serve as status symbols for the privileged while they, ironically, kept the working class down. He came to call these ideas luxury beliefs." Defund the police and decriminalise drugs keep the working class down? The reasoning behind this idea of 'luxury beliefs' is kinda flawed no? Like privileged people co-opt these movements yes, but these ideas come from marginalised communities. A 'luxury belief' in my opinion would be more like reposting an AI image of Palestine to your story without donating, reading, protesting, or doing anything to further the movement but you get the social approval. But that isn't a 'belief' - its the execution or failure to execute a belief. Failing to execute a movement in a progressive way does not make the movement itself a bad thing. I think that is what this guy fails to understand perhaps?
Because you are living a luxurious life and believe in defund the police because you don't understand the communities you advocate for, you are blinded by your lack of life experience
@@xayori Yes there are some people in these movements who are not in touch with the communities they advocate for - but isn't it against the guy in this videos whole point by focusing on THEM rather than the people in the communities and with the life experience who ALSO advocate for these changes? Like this guy appears to be going against his own advice which is to amplify the correct voices and instead focuses on this subset of privileged protestors.
@@porcupinesaucethere are "some people" please listen to yourself, the world over, it's the same story the elite classes taking on struggles and issues which no one in these communities have any meaningful bond with. Take yourself to where the issues are - if you feel genuine about it. Staging a protest in the comfort of your university first world country is just pure virtue signalling. It's never changed a thing.
So many mad, privileged kids in the comments right now.
I understand the concept and there is a lot of truth to it but some arguments are reductive. The first one is this idea that modern protests is just performative virtual signaling of rich kids. If he wants to make that case maybe show some data on that because it's a dangerous conclusion. Many people protest, the defund the police movement was largely driven by everyday people of color who have very negative experience with law enforcement. Same with legalizing drug possession. These are things that different people believe, especially people whose lives have been affected by these issues. The second is the rosy belief that past movements have been non violent and nuanced. Truth is that's the dressed up narrative. It was messy (often times literally), people hated those protests as much as people hate these present day protests. It's difficult to have nuance in a protest, it's more about singular purpose so many things get lost along the way. Lastly it feels like these criticisms are saying it's bad to have empathy. Why can't people give voice to something they care about even if it has nothing to do with them or if its outcome won't affect them. People get involve because they want to help, no one comes in with the intent of "pushing the less privileged down".
''If he wants to make that case maybe show some data on that because it's a dangerous conclusion''
Then you go and have many dangerous conclusions without any data to back that up
''Only 18% of respondents supported the movement known as "defund the police," and 58% said they opposed it. Though white Americans (67%) and Republicans (84%) were much more likely to oppose the movement, only 28% of Black Americans and 34% of Democrats were in favor of it.''
Decriminalizing drugs also doesn't have wide support as you think it has.
These movements are clearly not driven by every day people but rich kids. You give absolutely no care in the world how many people are suffering from violence or drug abuse.
I seriously thought this was a Fox News or OAN production.
Care to elaborate?
Its says more about you than Fox or OAN. Get out of the wizards circle while you can. The magician sets the frame. All you need to do is step out of it.
Yes. This is MAGA propaganda from the summer of 2020.
@@NoNameToYou No it's just reasonable
*'Defund' the police doesn't mean 'unfund' the police:* You and I, by the sound of it, both grew up with violence and relied on the police... _but a militarized ($$$$$$$$) police force can be dialled down from '11'... doctor._
It's that thing where someone misrepresents ideas by pretending they exist without context. Defund the Police, for example, is always part of a set of policies that involves reallocating resources to other kinds of first responders and freeing up police resources, and curbing militaristic raids that are unnecessary and require expensive equipment and the wrong kind of training.
“Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police” - The New York Times June 12, 2020
110 IQ Midwits On NYTs YT: “uh Ackshually it’s a slogan representing a holistic approach that has failed everywhere it’s been tried except for a brief few years in Camden NJ and no I will not introspect on why that might be the case”
Oh yeah great logic. Reallocated funds building things for children and then having no money to protect them from crime . Genius! What could go wrong
Yes, that was the theory on paper. But a lot of city council members and county supervisors saw "defunding" as simply laying off law enforcement officers and shrinking patrol units.
@@DallinPorter-ii4qk Sworn staff positions? Where?
@@konami1979 Citation?
People who hold luxury beliefs do not have enough skin in the game.
"Savior theater"
Imma start using that 😂
Good job NYT. Great content.
>Against virtue signaling but uses several sob stories as an argument instead of any actual logic or nuance. Ok bro
Wrong side, NYT, as expected.
The author makes arguments on the merits against drug/marriage/police stances, yet the last part of the video questions the methods of the pro-Palestine movement but does not defend Israel. This part does not logically follow the rest of the video. It is a sleight of hand to suggest that the pro-Palestinian protesters are wrong to sympathize with Palestinians without directly making that argument and justifying Israel’s actions.
Preach
Antisemitism is relentless. It ALWAYS finds a way....
@@3506Dodge Ya, antisemitism like among Christian Zionists...
Classic False Choice. MANY of us oppose BOTH the Hamas terrorists (& the reported 70+% of Palestinians who support them AND the atrocities of 10/7) AND the insane & clrly counterproductive actions of Likud's corrupt regime. Realizing that undeniably some (& probably many? most?) of these "pro-Palestinian protesters" have less than 0 clue what Hamas rly represents -- many can't even name "the river" OR "the sea," or know anything of the histories -- hardly constitutes siding w/Bibi's failed regime, whose bet that they cld forever support & thus limit Hamas' harms clrly didn't turn out so well.
@@3506Dodge You've been brainwashed into believing Zionism = Judaism. Or you're just cynically using it to say criticism of the country of Israel = anti-semitism. Would you call criticism of the far right Modi govt Anti-Indian racism.
People protesting to project themselves as the good guys while not having the decency to clean up their mess is ridiculous.
Like our politicians
they were kicked off, forcibly removed. How would they clean up? The author has an agenda.
@@ChetHanks-eh1mdalmost like iran didnt send them an agenda just money
God forbid protest against genocide is considered a luxury belief. Only in America, where violent imperialism is considered a virtue.
Hey I think you miss the point. he doesn’t criticize the message of the protest but how the student protest
Go protest against Russia and China.
Hey, we found the luxury protestor!
@@jusTarung What he didn't show from his edited montage was students being beaten, pepper sprayed and violently arrested on campuses across the country. He is distilling millions of protesters into a tiny cliched pool of spoilt rich kids. For someone with a Phd you'd think he'd at least hide his bias better. I did not miss his point because he is driving it through like a blunt battle ram.
oh cool, someone on the internet making accusations about a stranger they've never met based on a single comment... you seem like a super fun guy!
Decriminalization of drugs can be a good idea if you start treating addicts as addicts and put them in rehab (instead of jail and prison) with a program meant to reintroduce them into community. That mixed with penalizarion of people who own big amounts for distribution and additional funding for police and for social workers can be very helpful. This is the only thing in this video that I would dispute. Because I believe I can make some good points for this kind of strategy and good discussion can strengthen an argument by eliminating blindspots.
People are allowed to have social consciousness and protest against injustices even if they grew up with privelege.
They do it for clout, not for actual improvement so they can stick it up theirs
How does destroying a campus help anyone?
@@Flora_Pinkyhow would any protest bring attention to a subject if it is destructive?
Could it maybe be the case that provocative actions get peoples’ attention, and bring awareness to a subject?
@@tootnootsand what does that lead to? Other than marginalised suffering?
@@prime12602 If you read my comment, you’d have the answer to your question.
where are the citations? source for stats?
This should be the top comment
don’t worry it’s an opinion piece! no need to see concrete citations or statistics when we can just go off of general “kids these days” vibes am i right?
Read his book. Title in bio.
@@mooseflower It says his book is a memoir... Not sure if it's where he's listing sources for this opinion piece.
ah the iron law of woke projection never ever fails.
Started watching and stopped on "decriminalize drug use".
That's definitely not a luxury belief. I live in Portugal where we decriminalized drug use and carrying small quantities for consumption.
Deaths sharply fell, consumption as well (this was in response to a heroin epidemic in the 90's) and way less people go to jail.
So if your concerned with less privileged people let me tell you something: a rich kid will most likely get out of jail asap if found with drugs, a poor person? Not so much. So no, sir you are wrong.
All the cities that decriminalized drugs in the US have done NOTHING like the rehab programs in Portugal. Even the old drug court programs have better outcomes.
@@spht9ngyeah because all they did was decriminalised drugs and hoped for the best, your cities are run by absolute brain dead geriatric old men, as they didnt invest in the insinuations that allows these drug addicts to come to them on their own by their terms as that is the only way it will work if people seek it themselves. The only thing we can do is make sure it is as easily accessible and that there isn't a stigma around it so people aren't ashamed to seek professional help. As y'all just implemented a law without acknowledging why it was successful in other nations.
@@spht9ngThan let's implement rehab drug programs in the US. As a progresive, I am in favor of implementing the successful policies that have worked in other countries.
True.
There's more nuance that what the video portray. Its a short message but dismissing the whole thing just because you don't agree with one thing is crazy and honestly just a symptom of a radicalized individual. I also disagree with this point but I can see what he's saying. The problem is not substance use itself but the knowledge and education around it.
An extremely conservative and regressive peice from NYT, a mask off moment for their actual social politics. Guess what, many of the white protestors in the Civil Rights movement were 'priveleged', does that make their protest invalid? Were they making it 'all about themselves', or were they showing solidarity? Today's pro-Palestine protestors may be similarly 'priveleged' in attending Ivy League colleges, yet they are still risking suspension, expulsion and brutalization on behalf of the police- is that not having 'skin in the game'? Shameful.
❤This has to be the best thing I have seen coming out of the New York Times in 25 years. Kudos to this man and the times.
They really be giving PhDs to just about anyone these days.
This video has some interesting ideas, but nothing is substantiated or supported with evidence. Just because something it's an opinion doesn't mean you should just throw together a short video with blazing hot takes and not fill in the rest. I'm pretty disappointed with, especially coming from the NYT and a guy with this level of education. Could've just had an extra 5 minutes backing the claims, and I'm suspecting some of the claims are not so valid because why not mention it?
The sources are in his book or you could look them up. Otherwise this will be a long video.
Agreed... including his strange statement on marriage. Married people tend to be better off, more successful, more intelligent, and safer. Not because marriage make them that way but because who wants to marry some one who is aggressive, foolish or unsuccessful. Its a selection bias not a solution. Providing evidence would have allowed him to have the nuanced takes he is demanding his opponents to have.
@Marcos-yd2iz So you need to see a back up for claims like that 'defund the police' or 'heavy drugs are alright' are bad ideas? You're clearly a deluded leftist living in a bubble.
Aptly said Marcos
The guy made it. Really. But a lot of his peers have fallen to police brutality and enprisioned for years for carrying 1g of cocaine. It´s way more complicated than this.
I agree with some of what he's saying, many of the protesters do come from privileged backgrounds, are centering themselves, and wouldn't know real world suffering if it hit them in the face.
That said, he has also fallen victim to what he's accusing the protesters of doing = over simplifying the issues. There's a lot more to the defund police and anti-war movements than can be stated in the couple of blithe sentences he shared with us. Maybe his argument would still hold water if he presented us with more information, but this 5 minute video doesn't begin to cover it.
What gives NYT? What's the actual point of this relatively empty and uncompelling "opinion" piece? Clicks and views?
Exactly!!! There is nothing persuasive here because it relies on the viewer not having any knowledge of current protest movements and civil rights movement that could complicate the picture
This could have been a great video…he was onto something by criticizing performative activism by elites, but then he just concluded that advocating for police reform/abolition, drug decriminalization/ alternative addiction regulation, and the end to the Palestinian nakba are issues he doesn’t care about. That’s fine. Students can advocate for themselves as well as others. Police violence, drug laws, and Israeli occupation/genocide primarily affect the most vulnerable, and these students should use their privilege to speak up for the underprivileged, but also themselves. The opinion piece also reflects a misunderstanding of social activism in the past and the violence that it entailed in order to effectuate change. He offers a revisionist description of the civil rights movement, and ultimately reveals himself as one of the elites he fears. Only he prefers to criticize activism rather than engage in it himself.
This video could have been made in 1961 about the white students who joined the Freedom Riders down in the south.
Great piece!
No citations for the stances that are taken. No engagement with what the opposition is actually stating beyond attacking their slogans. Why was this elevated by NYT? Seems like a Yale grad enjoys some luxury benefits. 🤔
@KarthikNarasimhan-jg3mk Editorials are not required to offer sources, but strongly argued ones do. Look at any online op-ed and you'll find footnotes or underlined texts linking to supporting sources. An asterisk, boxed quote, or other stylized inclusion of resources is commonplace in video essays. This video includes none.
@@ornamentalpotatoBingo.
Jews are the minority (
It's an opinion. Stated even in the title. I know It's uncomfortable to hear something that doesn't align with your intellectual bubble, no need to get emotional about it.
A lot of Gen Z crybabies in the comments who never accepted personal responsibility for anything in their lives. It's what happens when your entire belief system is dictated through TikTok.
lol fr
@@axnyslie this is what happens when you get to cynical to imagine change. You see all those who do as crybabies
I think you make some great points but I disagree about the whole consequences issue. I think people should be able to protest peacefully without being arrested even if I disagree with everything they have to say.
Protesting peacefully is not the issue. The issue is protesting and then destroying property, keeping people from getting an education, costing the taxpayers money for police control, etc.
Yup, protesters in the 60s could camp out on their own campus lawn without arrest and suspension. Not true today.
@@laketwodo u understand these the universities are taking their tuition money and investing billions into Israel’s military ?? Which is actively killing thousands of innocent civilians? If that doesn’t move you if that doesn’t shake you, you have lost your humanity. If that doesn’t make you want to stand up and fight against that you have no right to sit here and talk about the ethics of destroying property. Human life is far more valuable than a building. And I’m saying this as a Palestinian, not as a luxury take.
@@laketwo All medium-to-large sized protests cost taxpayer money for police control, your argument makes no sense. Police costs increase whenever there is any large event.
Protesting is not peaceful when you restrict the movement of other citizens as was done at all of these protests.
Very poor reasoning. Using your mother's drug addiction as an argument against decriminalization is nonsense. Your mother took drugs while they were illegal. The same goes for the aforementioned parents of institutionalized children.
Yes, but what kind of mother beats her son like this? The kind that's on drugs.
that's also very poor reasoning. drug decriminalization will only worsen issues like the ones he experienced. you can't reward people for bad behavior
Right, and she totally wouldn't have taken them if they were legal and the government was handing her free needles and crack pipes.
@@duo315 He was just critiquing the argument. Not suggesting that decriminalising drugs would decrease abuse or other crimes. Also, you posit that decriminalising drugs would only worsen violent crimes because it "rewards" bad behaviour. The only way it would remotely reward this behaviour is by not sending offenders to prison. However, that's not really a reward; it's more a lack of severe punishment. Which you may argue prevents people from doing drugs, but I believe contemporary evidence suggests that prison isn't a deterrent that stops drug addicts from using drugs.
@sneaky-soft7848 well she was taking it anyway so better to have a safe alternative than your junkie mother croaking over and dying of an overdose as you sit there traumatised, unsure and unable to do anything and you just watch the life in her eyes leave. Than you have to be the one who sits on call with the emergency services and explain everything that happened as you sit there for the next 30-40 minutes waiting for them as you sit with her lifeless body. As though they're junkies they're someone's parents at the end of the day.
"Back in the day they knew how to . These kids today. " - every generation gets to hear this from the previous generation 😂. And every yiung person ignores this advice and we move onwards .
You are funny . I am laughing at you
yup
I mostly agree but here in Italy sometimes students had the right to point out an aggressive way of dealing with the protesters by the police. We are still figuring out who's the one to indict (few guilty 'cops' or the higher institutions) but the policemen involved had been protected from the law.
Sometimes the same students would punch in the face other parties protesters though.
NYPD threw a Columbia student down a high flight of stairs and left him there injured
The amount of pure copium from people who feel called out for this sort of behavior is astounding. You are not adding anything to the world, you never have, you never will because you are informed by Reddit, galvanized by twitter, and a product of narcissism not activism.
Your comment is pure narcissism
Yes!! Exactly what I have been saying the last few years! However, this really short video didn‘t include enough explanations.
Regulating and showing tolerance to compassionate drug use is not a luxury belief...