Stop Demonizing “Young White Males” Already…
To stop mass shootings, and indeed appeal to our vulnerable youth, take some advice from Socrates
Another flurry of mass shootings in the U.S.A. has again sparked debate about a range of topics: Gun control, white nationalism, computer games, the Internet, Donald Trump etc. One article that caught my eye was right here on Medium.
Over 100 people are killed every day by gun violence in America, by members of all races. Yet the moment a young white male commits a heinous crime, articles demonizing young white men pop-up like clockwork on Medium, Twitter, Facebook et al. They represent a common thought alive and well in America:- That white people, and young white men especially, represent a particular danger to those around them and need special fixing or “education”.
Do they not see that this type of general rhetoric is actually highly divisive and ineffective?
What interests me most about these articles is the motivation of those writing them. What are they expecting to achieve? Who is their intended audience? Is the intention to make the world better? Do they not see that this type of general rhetoric is actually highly divisive and ineffective?
This made me think: Would this article (and this “genre” of writing in general) pass Socrates’ Triple Filter Test? i.e. would Socrates want to read them?
This made me think: Would this article (and this “genre” of writing in general) pass Socrates’ Triple Filter Test? i.e. would Socrates want to read them?
For those who aren’t familiar with the Triple Filter Test, it involves three basic questions:
- Is it true?
- Is it good?
- Is it useful?
The legend goes that Socrates, when confronted with a disciple wanting to spread gossip, asked the three above questions. When it turned out that the answer of all of them was “No”, Socrates informed the (probably embarrassed) disciple that he didn’t want to hear the story.
But now let’s follow Socrates’ example…
- Is it true?
The first and most obvious question is if we know objectively that the central tenant of the piece is true. In this case, the central tenant is that “young male rage is the biggest threat to our Country”.
On the assumption that the best measure of this is rates of murder — and violent crime — it would seem that this is simply not demonstrably true. Whilst white males are more likely to carry out mass shootings in America, an African American is still 7 times more likely to commit homicide. It should be noted that, whilst white males commit the most mass shooting, they are not committing shootings at a rate disproportional to their percentage of the American population.
Looking deeper into statistics on violent crime: Based on arrest records, with the exception of arson, African American’s are more likely to be arrested on charges of violent crime than any other demographic in America. What is even more damning is that African American youth — and not white youth — are even more disproportionately represented in the statistics, i.e. white males younger than 18 commit crimes at lower rates than adult white males.
Indeed the National Youth Gang Centre further reports that 11.5% of gang members were white. This is compared to 46% and 35% for Hispanic and Black youths respectively.
To be clear: I am not suggesting that, in fact, Hispanic or African American youths are actually the biggest threat. There is a lot of research that has looked into the racial discrepancy, and you can start here if you are interested in this.
Furthermore the author asserts:
To stop mass shootings, start by educating the people at risk of being radicalized
At no stage is any actual evidence provided to show that young white males are more at risk of being radicalized than any other demographic. It is something the reader is expected to take on face value.
In this case, the central tenant is not demonstrably true. In fact a reasonable reading of the evidence seems to, all but, bury the idea that young white males are a particular threat in America today.
2. Is it good?
I would like to think that telling all young white males that they are the biggest “threat to our country” is self-evidently not a good message. One might argue that if young people read the article, and change, then it is inherently good — I will argue later that this almost certainly won’t be the case.
The reality is that the author has a very bad message for young white males. She tells them that they are uniquely confused and lacking direction. She tells them that this confusion puts them at risk of becoming radicalized. And she tells them that this is somehow connected to the colour of their skin, age and chromosomes. All three of which they have no control over.
There is another reason why the article can be seen as “bad”, and that is because it represents the very thing it purports to condemn. At various times it refers to exposure to racist and misogynistic dialogue, and it’s ability to radicalize and cause violence. Read:
echoing racist statements
referencing the “cultural and ethnic replacement” of white people
recommending a novel popular with white supremacists
mass murders motivated by racism and misogyny
Because talking about how these shootings are motivated and encouraged by white supremacy and misogyny would mean addressing how Donald Trump’s behavior and language incites violence
Yet it is guilty of exactly that! Forget about veracity for second: What is the ethical difference between saying “illegal immigrants are a threat to American society” and “young white male rage is the biggest threat to our country”? The answer is clear: There is no difference! They both represent dangerous and divisive rhetoric!
What is the ethical difference between saying “illegal immigrants are a threat to American society” and “young white male rage is the biggest threat to our country”?
3. Is it useful?
How would you classify the usefulness of an article like this? The metric is pretty simple: Does the article inspire change and/or good in the world?
It’s fairly obvious from just reading the disagreement in the comments, that the answer is most probably resounding no. However there is a more obvious reason why this is not useful, and that is this:
The approach will not resonate with the very people it needs to reach — young white males. It would be naive to think that the average, disaffected, vulnerable, heavy internet using, young white male is going to read it and think “Wow! I never realized was so bad. I need to change”.
In reality the reaction is more likely to be the exact opposite. As a, once young, white male I can assure you that getting continuously blamed, and vilified, for things you have never done — and will never do — gets tiring.
Maybe these youngsters are flocking the dark corners of the internet to escape the labels articles like this are espousing?
It is self-evident to most people in corporate environments that negative feedback like this isn’t effective. Dr Paul Green’s research supports this idea, as discussed in the Harvard Business Review. Even more telling is that his research actually found that people look to move away from people giving them negative feedback. Maybe these youngsters are flocking the dark corners of the internet to escape the labels articles like this are espousing?
To call itself useful, the article would surely need to help the problem it describes. What is actually does is become part of the problem.
Conclusion
Dangerous and divisive rhetoric, is dangerous and divisive rhetoric… Whether it’s about immigrants, people of color, or young white males. Yes, there is an issue with gun violence. Yes, some white young males are committing horrific crimes. Yes, white nationalism is a problem in the USA. However, this doesn’t justify the demonization and generalization of a selected portion of the population.
Clearly Socrates wouldn’t want to read the article. It skirts with truth but isn’t truthful. It purports to be on the side of good, but is guilty of the same rhetoric is condemns. It tries to be useful but fails to engage the people it claims need the help most. This is not just true of this example, but of this “genre” in general.
If you cannot provide young white males — or anyone for that matter — with a truthful, good and useful message, then don’t expect them to entertain your ideas. Don’t be surprised when they look elsewhere, and don’t decry the dark corners of the internet if you are not willing to spread some light in yours…
Don’t decry the dark corners of the internet if you are not willing to spread some light in yours
