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.
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
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.
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
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
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🤦♂️
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.
@@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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There a few thjngs i cant get over although its understandable. To begin with, the imagery certainly paints this argument, but I'm very sure students on campus are educated on the topics. People fall into different camps in politics so it's unlikely they don't grasp these innate concepts. I mean, we all read the news. Their protests are relevant and historical in this case. Even so, it's very unlikely and unhuman for Yale students to seriously be so out of touch. (And in advanced, i know left wing extremism, such as not peaceful protest, disproportionately affects the marginalized they're at hand defending.) On from that, I can't get over the fact it's a heavy conservative stereotype young people not only don't know what they're talking about, but must prove their worthy to even say something. I'm not a victim and people love social media to project another self, but its a far overused narrative that's been used historically. I'd have to learn more past this oped to clarify what that actually means. In short, there's footage of a clean up crew, but not police in riot gear. In otherwords, you either don't have the privilege or the right so you get automatically silenced as being illegitimate. And to end off, no sociologist has a definitive answer to why college educated people are more left leaning than non college educated. It's a new historical distinction that hasn't happened in the large part of America history. And so, this video effectively participates in a current trend to loath polically liberal colleges. As a result, i see some major flaws in evidence and reasoning altogether. And so, although i found myself believing and absorbing in large part the most apparent notions, but I can't taken it all as truth. It seems politically charged, but coming from the correct place.
Apologies in advance, as English is not my first language. I don't think you're quite right in some points. I do think college educated young adults are able to grasp such topic, and the topics should be discussed, but there's a trend within the protesters of making it about themselves, making themselves the heroes/freedom fighters/etc. To them, those who do not know or follow the belief of the protests are deem as horrible people, a big chunk of the movement is filled with narcissists. This ends up devolving the movement to just good and evil. Harming the movement more than it helps. The use of "privilege" in this context is not intended to shut down their argument but to highlight that they may not realize the harm they are causing to the movement due to having this privilege. I think his last points on how it should be protested would give a better image, first, to make the stories of victims the main point, and for it to be peaceful (A peaceful country doesn't require violence/crime to protest). The main point of a protest is for a message to be transmitted, so that it reaches the most amount of people, but it shouldn't turn the public against your cause like what behavior of some of the protesters will make. It's like oil protesters all over again
@@scott7224main problem I’m seeing with this video and the topic is there’s no statistical evidence. It’s taking select instances of people protesting that made it about themselves with the VAST majority of protests are about the victims. It’s just anecdotal evidence nothing that provides significant evidence. You could essentially make the exact opposite claim as this video saying most protests are about the victims and show those instances but there’s no evidence to show which one actually occurs more.
@@lukebent7317 victims of what? hamas' supporters (the victims you're referring to?) celebrated in the streets all over the world after october 7th and continue to celebrate their "global intifada" every day.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
@@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...
@@allyjmjm and you do know that I actually made an argument against theirs. I noticed you haven’t made an argument against mine. Remind me, which logical fallacy is that one? 🤔
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.
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.
Except in some cities that simply cut a bunch of sworn staff positions in 2020 when there was a massive crime wave. In reality, it doesn’t matter how awesome your ideas are. It matters how they’re implemented.
“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.
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
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.
"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 .
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
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?
The argument made in this video is simply that out-of-touch rich people hold beliefs that they think would help marginalized groups but actually hurt them. He doesn’t make a statement about wealth inequality. But if you want to argue about inequality in capitalism, you must be ready to explain wealth and power inequality that has also existed in socialist and communist nations.
@@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.)
@@tootnoots You first need to define what you mean by poverty as it’s described differently in China, the USA, Cuba and the USSR. According to you, capitalism requires poor people in order to incentivize work. But poor people in America enjoyed a much higher quality of life compared to the middle class in the former USSR and yet our productivity was and is way above theirs.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Why? The NYTimes has been GOP/right-wing propaganda for at least 30 yrs now. They r Fox-lite, only less blatant, and w/better vocab & fewer hot blondes. Look at the paper, don't look at what biased pundits & pols SAY abt the paper. And look @ lst as closely at what they choose NOT to cover, as what they DO choose to cover, and how.
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.
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’.
Remember when the NYT was THE go to source for factual, timely reportage on events? I'm battered by opinions all day long- I even have my own- I don't pay for them.
You do realize staff needs to sign off on what opinion pieces to publish? Not every single person with an opinion gets the NYTimes as their platform to share it.
yeah and his opinion sucks and when he's publishing that opinion on the new york times youtube channel it means that someone gave the OK for him to publish it
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.
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.
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.
Here’s a cookie 🍪 I appreciate the spirit of, “champion the voice of the less privileged and most affected.” Because: duh. And I’m sorry some protesters aren’t getting that. But there is absolutely no time in history where the effectiveness of a controversial protest was matched with a feeling that the protester’s strategy was not upsetting. Even the MLK protests were heavily criticized at the time for inciting violence, which further controversialized his movement. And that it’s overlooked by saying it “wasn’t perfect,” downplays the intensity of that controversy; tiptoeing around the similarities that throws a wrench into his argument, making it an ahistorical read of the past that we can no longer learn from. I’m sorry your childhood sucked. There seems to be a misalignment between practical current solutions in terrible situations and theory for what to do when those practical solutions are less than affective for certain groups. All the more insulting when the theory turns into what seems like a fad by people with no such troubling history. Unfortunately, when desperation is all you got when the system doesn’t work to protect you, then you’ll latch onto anything trying to do right, because what alternatives do you have? Isn’t it also privilege to keep politically falling back to a system that doesn’t work for everyone because the system miraculously worked for you?
@@tootnootsthat is a wildly unreasonable claim considering he wrote a book where you could verify his sources if scrutinizing them was important to you. This is RUclips, not a term paper.
@@mooseflower it makes no difference whether he made a book on this or not. If you’re going to make a claim and expect people to believe you, you should be able to cite your sources. This is a rule on persuasion drilled in as early as high school lmao, and a man with a PHD writing for a professional journalism company couldn’t even do that.
Credit where credit is due to NYT for having this important discussion on their platform. Go read the book! One of the most important discussions of our modern time. TROUBLED by Rob Henderson
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.
"NYT Opinion" AKA Agenda-Driven. Clearly there are people who say ridiculous things, just as there are plenty of people who lack education. But this video demonstrates why nuance is vital to establishing a genuine dialogue. It's 2024, and this just represents what's wrong with "journalism".
Wow. This is the first discussion on the campus protests that completely encapsulates my feelings in a thoughtful, coherent way. I go to UCSD and I have a friend that goes to UCLA so I've experienced the protests, encampments, and the harmful effects of "luxury beliefs" firsthand. What's more striking, is that luxury beliefs aren't at all a new thing. Malcolm X talked about the harmful effects of people that we would today say have luxury beliefs in a discussion he had at UC Berkeley. In the 1963. The same generation the college protestors of today espouse to emulate. The only thing thats changed is the ease of being a self-centered activist.
Malcolm X would have been at those protests :) He believed in a free Palestine and would never tell his muslim brothers and sisters that they hold luxury beliefs.
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 👏👏
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?
I think it’s academically disingenuous to say that decriminalisation of drugs is a ‘luxury belief’. I even think the term is rather silly because it implies that the belief cannot be held otherwise.
Naaaah, this argument really misses the point of quite a number of these movements and protests. I would even argue it’s more of a lecture than an opinion piece. The idea tends to be fighting systems that in the eyes of the protestors don’t help the society. One may not be directly affected by the issues but has attempted some sort of critical analysis and is proposing a solution that may be out of the ordinary to resolve this. Sure some of the these ideas may have unforeseen disadvantages, but brushing them off as ‘Luxury Beliefs’ rather than engaging in pros and cons of current and proposed solutions will get you NOWHERE!!! In my own opinion this piece sows disdain rather than solution.
Young people feel their voices are not heard, they do not believe protesting peacefully will result in any meaningful change. Leaders only listen to those who write the biggest checks.
2020 was the highest turnout of eligible young people ever. They barely scraped 50%. They need to do less whining and more voting. Politicians represent those who voted for them. If young people don't vote. They won't ever be represented. Simple as that.
I don’t think legalizing all drugs is socially expedient and the idea is that it could vastly improve some of the nefarious effects of the drug trade (see prohibition).
People who never experienced the real slums will not understand the true meaning of having comfy sneakers and a pillow in your bed, until you grow appreciative of that, you can start by helping the needy and organising community services instead of wasting your time ranting about with your classmates, do you know how many people aspire to have your position at that school, and you're just throwing it away?
No, he didn't. He said that in neighborhoods with the worst drug problems they don't want decriminalization. They definitely don't want "safe" use facilities in their neighborhoods. In NYC they have put up vigorous protests against them, and I don't blame them.
Drugs actually should be legal because it will help the drug problem by driving down the price of drugs it’s better to fix the real problem like mental health and wealth inequality
First things first if we are gonna play the “woe is me” Olympics I know a couple of orphans who will disagree with many of your opinions. Especially the “Defund the Police” one as it is people from over police neighbourhoods who are the most at risk of violence policing as well as violence in general. The protesters in the ‘60s didn’t “always” practice non violence, remember the Panthers? He’ll go back a hundred years to the Suffragettes and they were sending pipe bombs to politicians. Both civil rights and women’s suffrage are seen as just causes.
The Panthers weren't made up of white trust fund babies, both the Panthers and the Suffragettes were made up of those who had been DIRECTLY persecuted solely because of how their DNA was assembled.
And how killing the cops who were doing their jobs or public in the court room was helping the Panthers' cause and why do you think it was Panthers, not Dr. King who was able to secure the eventual victory, the Civil Rights Act? BTW, when Angela Davis, the hero of the Panthers, went to Czechoslovakia after she was released from jail, she was approached by the Czech dissidents who asked her if she would advocate for the jailed dissidents whose main crime was to want "socialism with a human face", she said that they were only jailed "if they were undermining the government." You can be a communist in a free country, but you cannot be free in a communist country - I know it very well, I lived in a communist country. Now, going back to the overpoliced neighborhoods, in 2020-2021 Oakland, CA, City Council voted to defund the police. The only representatives who voted AGAINST the measure were the ones from majority Black and Latino districts. The wealthy people had their gated communities.
1) Armed resistance within the US was essential to the conditions that allowed the Civil Rights Movement to be carried out. 2) This video caters directly to confirmation bias of people who are not interested in learning more. 3) No definition of "luxury beliefs" is really given. At best, arbitrary examples are given, without analysis, context, or sourcing.
@@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.
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?
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
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.
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
Hey, real quick: what "major penalties" should there be for protesting? Asking for a friend, but wanting a serious answer. Thanks.
👋 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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
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
TIL: Luxury Beliefs can be found in any Times editorial.
That's why is called bad propaganda.
Like democracy, I guess
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.
Big JD Vance energy dude - "Foster Kid Elegy" coming to a remainders bin soon
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.
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.
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
"Savior theater"
Imma start using that 😂
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
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.
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.
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.
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🤍
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
There a few thjngs i cant get over although its understandable. To begin with, the imagery certainly paints this argument, but I'm very sure students on campus are educated on the topics. People fall into different camps in politics so it's unlikely they don't grasp these innate concepts. I mean, we all read the news. Their protests are relevant and historical in this case. Even so, it's very unlikely and unhuman for Yale students to seriously be so out of touch. (And in advanced, i know left wing extremism, such as not peaceful protest, disproportionately affects the marginalized they're at hand defending.)
On from that, I can't get over the fact it's a heavy conservative stereotype young people not only don't know what they're talking about, but must prove their worthy to even say something. I'm not a victim and people love social media to project another self, but its a far overused narrative that's been used historically. I'd have to learn more past this oped to clarify what that actually means. In short, there's footage of a clean up crew, but not police in riot gear. In otherwords, you either don't have the privilege or the right so you get automatically silenced as being illegitimate.
And to end off, no sociologist has a definitive answer to why college educated people are more left leaning than non college educated. It's a new historical distinction that hasn't happened in the large part of America history. And so, this video effectively participates in a current trend to loath polically liberal colleges. As a result, i see some major flaws in evidence and reasoning altogether. And so, although i found myself believing and absorbing in large part the most apparent notions, but I can't taken it all as truth. It seems politically charged, but coming from the correct place.
word salad
Apologies in advance, as English is not my first language.
I don't think you're quite right in some points. I do think college educated young adults are able to grasp such topic, and the topics should be discussed, but there's a trend within the protesters of making it about themselves, making themselves the heroes/freedom fighters/etc. To them, those who do not know or follow the belief of the protests are deem as horrible people, a big chunk of the movement is filled with narcissists. This ends up devolving the movement to just good and evil. Harming the movement more than it helps. The use of "privilege" in this context is not intended to shut down their argument but to highlight that they may not realize the harm they are causing to the movement due to having this privilege.
I think his last points on how it should be protested would give a better image, first, to make the stories of victims the main point, and for it to be peaceful (A peaceful country doesn't require violence/crime to protest). The main point of a protest is for a message to be transmitted, so that it reaches the most amount of people, but it shouldn't turn the public against your cause like what behavior of some of the protesters will make. It's like oil protesters all over again
@@scott7224main problem I’m seeing with this video and the topic is there’s no statistical evidence. It’s taking select instances of people protesting that made it about themselves with the VAST majority of protests are about the victims. It’s just anecdotal evidence nothing that provides significant evidence. You could essentially make the exact opposite claim as this video saying most protests are about the victims and show those instances but there’s no evidence to show which one actually occurs more.
Students on campus are absolutely NOT educated on the topics
@@lukebent7317 victims of what? hamas' supporters (the victims you're referring to?) celebrated in the streets all over the world after october 7th and continue to celebrate their "global intifada" every day.
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.
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.
The war on drugs has always been a war against the marginalized.
you're literally doing identity politics here bro
you’re literally saying he’s doing identity politics here bro
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
Being american is by his definition a luxury belief
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
So many mad, privileged kids in the comments right now.
❤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.
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.
Pretty dumb thesis for a guy who went to Yale. I can’t believe the Times posted this.
agree
Big mad?
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.
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.
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?
"Status quo is good and shouldn't be challenged because I was poor" is an insane statement
At no point in the video does he say or imply that statement. You just can’t understand a simple RUclips video.
@@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 💀💀💀
@@allyjmjm Nice ad hominem.
@@allyjmjm and you do know that I actually made an argument against theirs. I noticed you haven’t made an argument against mine. Remind me, which logical fallacy is that one? 🤔
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.
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.
Except in some cities that simply cut a bunch of sworn staff positions in 2020 when there was a massive crime wave. In reality, it doesn’t matter how awesome your ideas are. It matters how they’re implemented.
“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?
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
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
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.
"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
1:13 You can decriminalize drugs while still requiring people to enter rehab for public use. This is not a binary issue.
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.
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.
The argument made in this video is simply that out-of-touch rich people hold beliefs that they think would help marginalized groups but actually hurt them. He doesn’t make a statement about wealth inequality. But if you want to argue about inequality in capitalism, you must be ready to explain wealth and power inequality that has also existed in socialist and communist nations.
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.)
@@tootnoots You first need to define what you mean by poverty as it’s described differently in China, the USA, Cuba and the USSR. According to you, capitalism requires poor people in order to incentivize work. But poor people in America enjoyed a much higher quality of life compared to the middle class in the former USSR and yet our productivity was and is way above theirs.
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...
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.
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.
I love that the three luxury beliefs listed aren’t the issue at hand for the protests in the footage.
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.
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
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
The first example is already a bad one. And you said you went to Yale 😖
I am astounded that the new york times posted this !
It's an opinion piece. It's awkward.
I'm sure conservative news outlets post contrary opinions too
Same, in a good way.
@@RatherCrunchyMuffin Not nearly as often...
Why? The NYTimes has been GOP/right-wing propaganda for at least 30 yrs now. They r Fox-lite, only less blatant, and w/better vocab & fewer hot blondes. Look at the paper, don't look at what biased pundits & pols SAY abt the paper.
And look @ lst as closely at what they choose NOT to cover, as what they DO choose to cover, and how.
They really be giving PhDs to just about anyone these days.
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.
"Defund the Police" was always a giant eye roll from me right on day 1. I couldn't believe people thought this would be a good idea.
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’.
Remember when the NYT was THE go to source for factual, timely reportage on events? I'm battered by opinions all day long- I even have my own- I don't pay for them.
Can everyone please recognize this is an OPINION piece. This is not an editorial endorsement.
must be a lot of college grads in the comments.
You do realize staff needs to sign off on what opinion pieces to publish? Not every single person with an opinion gets the NYTimes as their platform to share it.
An editor had to publish it, so in a way it is an endorsement. The NYT isn’t Facebook or twitter
Yeah and reacting to them is complete fair game.
yeah and his opinion sucks and when he's publishing that opinion on the new york times youtube channel it means that someone gave the OK for him to publish it
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
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
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.
Here’s a cookie 🍪
I appreciate the spirit of, “champion the voice of the less privileged and most affected.” Because: duh. And I’m sorry some protesters aren’t getting that.
But there is absolutely no time in history where the effectiveness of a controversial protest was matched with a feeling that the protester’s strategy was not upsetting. Even the MLK protests were heavily criticized at the time for inciting violence, which further controversialized his movement. And that it’s overlooked by saying it “wasn’t perfect,” downplays the intensity of that controversy; tiptoeing around the similarities that throws a wrench into his argument, making it an ahistorical read of the past that we can no longer learn from.
I’m sorry your childhood sucked. There seems to be a misalignment between practical current solutions in terrible situations and theory for what to do when those practical solutions are less than affective for certain groups. All the more insulting when the theory turns into what seems like a fad by people with no such troubling history. Unfortunately, when desperation is all you got when the system doesn’t work to protect you, then you’ll latch onto anything trying to do right, because what alternatives do you have? Isn’t it also privilege to keep politically falling back to a system that doesn’t work for everyone because the system miraculously worked for you?
Can you please share your sources? The ones in the video point to the institutes, instead of the studies themselves.
I have to imagine you could find them in his book, which is in the bio.
He made the claims, he should cite where he got his data from (in the video.)
@@tootnootsthat is a wildly unreasonable claim considering he wrote a book where you could verify his sources if scrutinizing them was important to you. This is RUclips, not a term paper.
@@mooseflower it makes no difference whether he made a book on this or not. If you’re going to make a claim and expect people to believe you, you should be able to cite your sources. This is a rule on persuasion drilled in as early as high school lmao, and a man with a PHD writing for a professional journalism company couldn’t even do that.
@@tootnootssure man.
I'm genuinely shocked that this was actually approved, edited and published by the NYT
Credit where credit is due to NYT for having this important discussion on their platform. Go read the book! One of the most important discussions of our modern time. TROUBLED by Rob Henderson
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.
"NYT Opinion" AKA Agenda-Driven.
Clearly there are people who say ridiculous things, just as there are plenty of people who lack education. But this video demonstrates why nuance is vital to establishing a genuine dialogue. It's 2024, and this just represents what's wrong with "journalism".
"Only my opinion is allowed, not yours!"
I like how he puts weed and meth in the same boat. That's like saying a wiffleball bat and an AR15 are equal weapons.
Wow. This is the first discussion on the campus protests that completely encapsulates my feelings in a thoughtful, coherent way. I go to UCSD and I have a friend that goes to UCLA so I've experienced the protests, encampments, and the harmful effects of "luxury beliefs" firsthand.
What's more striking, is that luxury beliefs aren't at all a new thing. Malcolm X talked about the harmful effects of people that we would today say have luxury beliefs in a discussion he had at UC Berkeley. In the 1963. The same generation the college protestors of today espouse to emulate. The only thing thats changed is the ease of being a self-centered activist.
Malcolm X would have been at those protests :) He believed in a free Palestine and would never tell his muslim brothers and sisters that they hold luxury beliefs.
Malcolm X also said we should take up arms against white moderates lol
Les gohhhhh Rob
cringe
Cringe
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 👏👏
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.
>Against virtue signaling but uses several sob stories as an argument instead of any actual logic or nuance. Ok bro
This is the first thing I’ve seen in years from the NYT that makes me say “Great job.” But even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I think it’s academically disingenuous to say that decriminalisation of drugs is a ‘luxury belief’. I even think the term is rather silly because it implies that the belief cannot be held otherwise.
Naaaah, this argument really misses the point of quite a number of these movements and protests. I would even argue it’s more of a lecture than an opinion piece. The idea tends to be fighting systems that in the eyes of the protestors don’t help the society. One may not be directly affected by the issues but has attempted some sort of critical analysis and is proposing a solution that may be out of the ordinary to resolve this. Sure some of the these ideas may have unforeseen disadvantages, but brushing them off as ‘Luxury Beliefs’ rather than engaging in pros and cons of current and proposed solutions will get you NOWHERE!!! In my own opinion this piece sows disdain rather than solution.
Your argument is weak. Protests are not engaging in "pros" and "cons."
Young people feel their voices are not heard, they do not believe protesting peacefully will result in any meaningful change. Leaders only listen to those who write the biggest checks.
Cringe
2020 was the highest turnout of eligible young people ever. They barely scraped 50%. They need to do less whining and more voting. Politicians represent those who voted for them. If young people don't vote. They won't ever be represented. Simple as that.
Straight up one of the worst op-eds I’ve ever seen, in terms of soundness of opinion and quality. NYT is just a different kind of junk these days.
Back to your bubble then. Or read the actual book. Your choice.
I don’t think legalizing all drugs is socially expedient and the idea is that it could vastly improve some of the nefarious effects of the drug trade (see prohibition).
Still stuck on those scary kids protesting on university lawns, NYT?
You mean terrorist sympathizers? Yeah its a trend which should be mocked.
People who never experienced the real slums will not understand the true meaning of having comfy sneakers and a pillow in your bed, until you grow appreciative of that, you can start by helping the needy and organising community services instead of wasting your time ranting about with your classmates, do you know how many people aspire to have your position at that school, and you're just throwing it away?
"Yale graduate says war on drugs works."
No, he didn't. He said that in neighborhoods with the worst drug problems they don't want decriminalization. They definitely don't want "safe" use facilities in their neighborhoods. In NYC they have put up vigorous protests against them, and I don't blame them.
@@susanaltman5134 don't do drugs white woman, it is very easy
-from all the brown people in the third world.
Uneducated misrepresentations in the comments. He said decriminalizing doesn’t work. Can u distinguish the difference or are you the exact problem????
Drugs actually should be legal because it will help the drug problem by driving down the price of drugs it’s better to fix the real problem like mental health and wealth inequality
First things first if we are gonna play the “woe is me” Olympics I know a couple of orphans who will disagree with many of your opinions.
Especially the “Defund the Police” one as it is people from over police neighbourhoods who are the most at risk of violence policing as well as violence in general.
The protesters in the ‘60s didn’t “always” practice non violence, remember the Panthers? He’ll go back a hundred years to the Suffragettes and they were sending pipe bombs to politicians. Both civil rights and women’s suffrage are seen as just causes.
The Panthers weren't made up of white trust fund babies, both the Panthers and the Suffragettes were made up of those who had been DIRECTLY persecuted solely because of how their DNA was assembled.
Narcissistic outrage has little to do with genuine activism.
And how killing the cops who were doing their jobs or public in the court room was helping the Panthers' cause and why do you think it was Panthers, not Dr. King who was able to secure the eventual victory, the Civil Rights Act? BTW, when Angela Davis, the hero of the Panthers, went to Czechoslovakia after she was released from jail, she was approached by the Czech dissidents who asked her if she would advocate for the jailed dissidents whose main crime was to want "socialism with a human face", she said that they were only jailed "if they were undermining the government." You can be a communist in a free country, but you cannot be free in a communist country - I know it very well, I lived in a communist country. Now, going back to the overpoliced neighborhoods, in 2020-2021 Oakland, CA, City Council voted to defund the police. The only representatives who voted AGAINST the measure were the ones from majority Black and Latino districts. The wealthy people had their gated communities.
You don’t understand how uneducated you sound , do you ???
1) Armed resistance within the US was essential to the conditions that allowed the Civil Rights Movement to be carried out.
2) This video caters directly to confirmation bias of people who are not interested in learning more.
3) No definition of "luxury beliefs" is really given. At best, arbitrary examples are given, without analysis, context, or sourcing.
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!
Thanks for giving me a phrase to actually explain my thoughts, I believe the same thing but I wasn't able to put it into words