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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We (Bangladeshi) students are currently peacefully protesting against quota,but Student League an organization of the government ambushed us.Nearly two hundred people were injured and many were killed in the attack. At this time we need you very much because the journalists of our country are on the side of the government.They have no news on this issue.They have not promoting about on this issue.Seeking freedom has now become a crime for us. #Save_Bangladeshi_students #ALjazerra #Bbcnews #CNN #TheWashingtonPost #TheNewYorkTimes #TheGuardian #BBC #AlJazeeraEnglish #TheWallStreetJournal #CNBC #DhruvRathee #UnitedNations #NewYorkTimesOpinion #ABCNews #NewYorkPost #ProjectNightfall #AbhiandNiyu #QuotaReformProtest #বাংলাদেশ_কোটা_আন্দোলন #কোটা_আন্দোলন_২০২৪ #no_more_quotha #protect_students #save_students #bangladesh_quotha_movement #focus_on_bangladesh
Drug use was decriminalized in Portugal in 2001 and yes, it did help people. The history of the fight for rights and popular mobilizations has never been without incidents, imperfections, contradictions and, often, violence. This oversimplified analysis caricatures those who protest or hold certain kinds of opinions as a bunch of spoiled, rich, woke people. It accuses a group of people of seeing the world in black and white but fails... by doing exactly that.
It worked because programs there made drug users curb their usage and eventually quit. Imoortant caveat. Here in America there are no stringent programs that drug users are forced to partake in so they linger on the street until they die of an overdose. Big difference.
@@austin2640 25 "likes" as of (at the moment I'm posting this, it sez) 4 hours is not bad. I see only 9 comments in the whole thread that have more "likes" as of this moment. We'll see how it shakes out long-term.
The most significant component of Portugal success is a family/friends intervention. Portugal is way less individualistic than US. I wish we could apply their method, but our society is made of a different cloth.
Didn’t the NYT omit Rob Henderson’s book from their bestseller list despite it being 4th in sales? I am surprised to see that they’re showing this vid on their channel at all. Maybe they’re finally realising the truth that their paper itself has been a prime purveyor of luxury beliefs.
More likely than not, the NYT is trying to introduce another POV instead of just reinforcing the same narrative in an echo chamber. You should want to hear a different POV - that is how people sharpen their critical thinking skills.
Or maybe they just make an attempt to platform a variety of viewpoints? Which people then argue reveals them to be obviously biased one way or another. It's called an opinion piece for a reason.
@@modalmixture I have been a subscriber for decades and am socially liberal. They never publish some pieces advocating for my general social views, and I would know, because I would notice if they do. In general, media that is entrenched tends to skew conservative, because conservatives want to maintain the status quo, and legacy institutions benefit from that.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
One thing that would actually help is those in authority who have the power to penalize these criminal trespassers actually using that power to do so. If a person is ticketed for going 100 mph, they are usually stiff financial penalties and possibly even a suspension of driving privileges. Yet for protesting in a manner that closes a college campus and prevents hundreds of employers from tending to their jobs is met with cheap threats of "consequences" when in reality there is no effort to hold these brats accountable.
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.
"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 .
Drug use was de-criminalized in Vancouver January 2023. After a noticeable increase of open drug use, and crime, and deaths, I had to move cities for my own safety and peace of mind. Drug use was re-criminalized in Apr 2024 after the government admitted their mistake in policy.
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?
@@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? 🤔
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.
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 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).
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.
I completely agree with this, every Bernie or Buster fits into this category. The pro Palestinian people who choose to spend their time disrupting Democratic events instead of Republican events, even though they know Trump is way more supportive or example of this too.
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.
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.
@@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 RU-vid, 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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree with some of what he's saying, many of the protesters do come from privileged backgrounds, are centering themselves, and wouldn't know real world suffering if it hit them in the face. That said, he has also fallen victim to what he's accusing the protesters of doing = over simplifying the issues. There's a lot more to the defund police and anti-war movements than can be stated in the couple of blithe sentences he shared with us. Maybe his argument would still hold water if he presented us with more information, but this 5 minute video doesn't begin to cover it. What gives NYT? What's the actual point of this relatively empty and uncompelling "opinion" piece? Clicks and views?
Exactly!!! There is nothing persuasive here because it relies on the viewer not having any knowledge of current protest movements and civil rights movement that could complicate the picture
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 took offense to the video and I was not only against defund the police but also uncontrolled borders etc… MLK would’ve had luxury beliefs by this person’s standards.
It's NYT trying to hedge their bets. After turning the news pieces into opinion pieces and pretty much acting as Jihadi mouthpieces while cosplaying as real journalists. They probably understand that the far left communists will not buy any more subscriptions and everyone else pretty much understands that NYT is nothing but a leftist elitist brand which hires trust fund kids... So reading them is a waste of time for most people...
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Yes because I am going to listen to the ex US air force guy when he talks about defund the police and Palestine LMAO. Might be some bias there. "Henderson found that these ideas came to serve as status symbols for the privileged while they, ironically, kept the working class down. He came to call these ideas luxury beliefs." Defund the police and decriminalise drugs keep the working class down? The reasoning behind this idea of 'luxury beliefs' is kinda flawed no? Like privileged people co-opt these movements yes, but these ideas come from marginalised communities. A 'luxury belief' in my opinion would be more like reposting an AI image of Palestine to your story without donating, reading, protesting, or doing anything to further the movement but you get the social approval. But that isn't a 'belief' - its the execution or failure to execute a belief. Failing to execute a movement in a progressive way does not make the movement itself a bad thing. I think that is what this guy fails to understand perhaps?
Because you are living a luxurious life and believe in defund the police because you don't understand the communities you advocate for, you are blinded by your lack of life experience
@@xayori Yes there are some people in these movements who are not in touch with the communities they advocate for - but isn't it against the guy in this videos whole point by focusing on THEM rather than the people in the communities and with the life experience who ALSO advocate for these changes? Like this guy appears to be going against his own advice which is to amplify the correct voices and instead focuses on this subset of privileged protestors.
@@porcupinesaucethere are "some people" please listen to yourself, the world over, it's the same story the elite classes taking on struggles and issues which no one in these communities have any meaningful bond with. Take yourself to where the issues are - if you feel genuine about it. Staging a protest in the comfort of your university first world country is just pure virtue signalling. It's never changed a thing.
I 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.
It's ironic how the term Luxury Belief fits its definition of a Luxury Belief 🤣 what a ridiculous paradoxical concept. It's also self-refuting and highly divisive when used in this "opinion" piece by an affluent educated individual. Not only did they fail to address any of the core reasons people were protesting, but they also failed to substantiate anything except by appealing to emotion by saying, "Aww gee, poor little orphan me wishes I had a stable mommy and daddy who didn't do drugs. It's a good thing that popo was around to help somehow." 😂 They literally say drugs are a problem and shouldn't be decriminalized while talking about how the laws in place did nothing to protect them anyway. I think my favorite part is when he says "Protesters try and force complex issues into good and bad people" while showing the "bad" as Genocide, like, sense when was that not a horrible thing? Ridiculous propaganda.
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
@@ExploreVanIsle What social class do you think he's in right now? And 64% of students who go to UCLA received need-based financial aid last academic year. 28% of the students received the Pell Grant which if you knew about financial aid means they're really poor by US standards and destitute by Californian standards.
@@dcoughla681 Actually, it _isn't_ a debate for another time. The speaker in the video, Rob Henderson, implies that most people who hold "luxury beliefs" are "privileged". @robhaze8617 seems to agree. @campfire87 seems to disagree. Their debate is relevant to the topic at hand.
A lot of Gen Z crybabies in the comments who never accepted personal responsibility for anything in their lives. It's what happens when your entire belief system is dictated through TikTok.
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.
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...
If these college students spent half the time volunteering at a local organization around these issues as they spend 'protesting' they'd be making triple the actual positive difference in the world and also become more socially aware and empathetic in the process.
@@allyjmjm therein lies the opportunity for more volunteer time, which is 3x more useful than frivolous entitled 'protesting' for a cause they do not understand beyond what social media is programming them to be angry about.
@@kyle_8036 Your comment is non-responsive to mine. They do other things while also participating in protests. You just don't like the goal of their protest.
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
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.
They didn’t leave it behind, they were forced by the police crackdown out of their encampments quickly and didn’t have time to take their stuff down and weren’t allowed back to clean up
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.
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.
Started watching and stopped on "decriminalize drug use". That's definitely not a luxury belief. I live in Portugal where we decriminalized drug use and carrying small quantities for consumption. Deaths sharply fell, consumption as well (this was in response to a heroin epidemic in the 90's) and way less people go to jail. So if your concerned with less privileged people let me tell you something: a rich kid will most likely get out of jail asap if found with drugs, a poor person? Not so much. So no, sir you are wrong.
All the cities that decriminalized drugs in the US have done NOTHING like the rehab programs in Portugal. Even the old drug court programs have better outcomes.
@@spht9ngyeah because all they did was decriminalised drugs and hoped for the best, your cities are run by absolute brain dead geriatric old men, as they didnt invest in the insinuations that allows these drug addicts to come to them on their own by their terms as that is the only way it will work if people seek it themselves. The only thing we can do is make sure it is as easily accessible and that there isn't a stigma around it so people aren't ashamed to seek professional help. As y'all just implemented a law without acknowledging why it was successful in other nations.
@@spht9ngThan let's implement rehab drug programs in the US. As a progresive, I am in favor of implementing the successful policies that have worked in other countries.
There's more nuance that what the video portray. Its a short message but dismissing the whole thing just because you don't agree with one thing is crazy and honestly just a symptom of a radicalized individual. I also disagree with this point but I can see what he's saying. The problem is not substance use itself but the knowledge and education around it.
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.
No citations for the stances that are taken. No engagement with what the opposition is actually stating beyond attacking their slogans. Why was this elevated by NYT? Seems like a Yale grad enjoys some luxury benefits. 🤔
Editorial pieces don't include citations. Dr. Henderson wrote a book called “Troubled: A Memoir of Family, Foster Care, and Social Class." and it includes all of the citations for his arguments.
@@KarthikNarasimhan-jg3mk Editorials are not required to offer sources, but strongly argued ones do. Look at any online op-ed and you'll find footnotes or underlined texts linking to supporting sources. An asterisk, boxed quote, or other stylized inclusion of resources is commonplace in video essays. This video includes none.
It's an opinion. Stated even in the title. I know It's uncomfortable to hear something that doesn't align with your intellectual bubble, no need to get emotional about it.
@@vanessadusoleil No, he says 'uplift voices' and 'do it like mlk', when the old models of systemic change are broken and such protests are ignored. What he advocates for is ineffective, so I might as well do nothing. It's a critique that pushes against disruption to status quo
A worthwhile insight but missing the point that manichean narratives dominate all political discourse. Where is a plan or paradigm to reinvigorate nuanced and fact based discourse. There isn't one because it's neither clickbait simple nor revenue generating tribalism.
