I Went From Foster Care to Yale. This Is What I Learned About ‘Luxury Beliefs.’ | NYT Opinion
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 07. 2024
- In a 2017 Senate hearing, the Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam famously argued, “Rich kids and poor kids now grow up in separate Americas.” Rob Henderson knows this firsthand. His mother was addicted to drugs; he never knew his father. He grew up shuttling among foster homes, where he started drinking beer around age 5 and smoking marijuana at age 9. At age 17 he watched a drunk friend kick a dog off a cliff and knew he had to escape. He enlisted in the Air Force.
When Henderson got to Yale on the G.I. Bill, he was shocked by the differences between him and his classmates. As he explains in the video above, he learned it was popular for his classmates to hold strong, seemingly progressive views about many of the concerns that shaped his life - drugs, marriage, crime. But they were largely insulated from the consequences of their views. 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.
Henderson went on to get his Ph.D. at Cambridge and wrote a book about his experiences, “Troubled: A Memoir of Family, Foster Care, and Social Class.” In the video, Henderson argues that these out-of-touch views are all around us, widening our class divide and fueling our fractious politics. And he envisions another way.
Subscribe: bit.ly/U8Ys7n
More from The New York Times Video: nytimes.com/video
----------
Whether it's reporting on conflicts abroad and political divisions at home, or covering the latest style trends and scientific developments, New York Times video journalists provide a revealing and unforgettable view of the world. It's all the news that's fit to watch.
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
People protesting to project themselves as the good guys while not having the decency to clean up their mess is ridiculous.
Like our politicians
"Savior theater"
Imma start using that 😂
Feels like NYT devotes much of their front page and editorial content to luxury beliefs but only those that cater to the status quo.
Mind blown! I never noticed that?
100% but since the country is not moving more to BASE it is now using its BASED employees to shift MO and make money...
Type all that but not a single example
Remember blm before Patrice colors? Ha ha ha
Bingo
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
If they care but have the wrong information, then give them the correct information (and support it with evidence & cite your sources). I glad that they care about someone other than themselves. That's usually the hardest thing to get people to do.
I do agree with this statement, it is not easy to get people to care about issues beyond their personal economic or social problems that the everyday joe has to go through, a very few in society might die living for their ideals, like the many journalists that get killed in war to report the stories and suffering of peoples
However, Correct information is most probably out there but because of confirmation bias or any other cognitive biases that are in humans, we do not give the information such authority... it is understandable where they are coming from and definitely the beliefs systems are much more enlightened than say 50 or a 100 years back but there is room for improvement...
College students only deal in vibes, correct information is poison for the boogie man they create to virtue signal about. People that want to be educated are humble, they don't behave like these college students do, as self-righteous and condescending about the most heinous behavior. Play the clip of finkelstein, who they idolize or used to, telling students to stop shouting "from the river to the sea" and watch him get booed and be made fun of.
Go to these protests and ask people there why they're protesting and try to get an answer deeper than isreal=bad and the memorized, often bad, talking points they got from twitter. If they were honest a vast majority of them would tell you that they don't really know what's going on but in their social circles protesting isreal means you're a good person. Perfect case study of modern tribalism.
Saying some things that are true here and there does not take away from how manipulative and deceitful this medium is, so no.
They don’t want the correct information. They want to be mad.
Yeah because the people who threaten anyone who challenges their beliefs are certainly open to change. Have you seen any interviews of these protestors? Probably the least tolerant people
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🤍
TIL: Luxury Beliefs can be found in any Times editorial.
That's why is called bad propaganda.
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
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
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. 😂
It's the same in Germany. You'll often find that the loudest yelling progressives, their grandparents were Nazis.
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.
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."
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.
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 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
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
Brilliant thank you
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
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.)
@@AnObviousTrollWhoBaitedYouthat 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 CZcams, 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.
@@AnObviousTrollWhoBaitedYousure man.
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.
Excellent!
I can’t order your book from Amazon UK. The paperback won’t be released until February 27, 2025.
Got it on Kindle. Great!
Absolutely true .
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.
Well done. Thank you for this.
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.
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
Very important video
I hate their lack of commitment.
Les gohhhhh Rob
"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
Amazing video!
british patriotic song
you're literally doing identity politics here bro
you’re literally saying he’s doing identity politics here bro
Thank you!
Truth!
So many angry yuppies in the comments.
WTF? Why is this so based?
NYT Opinion reveals NYT's true colors.
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...
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.
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.
More people need to watch this. I have never seen a more underrated/underwatched youtube video in my life.
Spot on agree 100% with everything said
"Kids these days."
Upper/middle class kids these days tbf
@@robhaze8617 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.
Causing property damage, espousing far-left ideology, violent protest...yeah, you can say that again.
@@campfire87 That’s a debate for another time.
@@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.
#SaveBangladeshiStudents
Please help us🇧🇩🇧🇩🙏
Great video
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.
Why did the NYT omit Rob's book from the bestseller list?
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
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.
The New York Times is full of lies.
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
"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.
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.
I didn't think a org like NYT would platform Rob. Happy to see you here man.
I hope his mum is proud of him now. 😢
I don't think a lot of people realize that some of those tents in the beginning of the video can go anywhere from $100 to $200 brand new. These protesters have no issue throwing away money.
They can spent their money how they see fit. It's a free market.
@@henrygonzales9666 and I can view their spending as a waste of money. It's my own personal views.
Seems like no one actually watched the video
Telling people how they should protest is an ultimate luxury belief!
A
Great video.
Exposed the little narcissists.
Not everything is set in stone! You can be a difference to these things happening and XAI60T is the first major step
Ironic coming from NYT.
Excellent message.
Appreciate your perspective. Thanks, NYT.
02:13
Why not 13?
Dude, you hit it on the head perfectly. Luxury beliefs!
"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????
Incredible
And oh so accurate
Thank you Rob Henderson for putting this out there!!!! Your voice is SO important!
Rare NYT W
Nope; is agenda.
NYT, your politics is showing
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
Great content!
Fantastic video
You nailed it.
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.
Appreciate XAI60T and the art of thinking with it
Great article
Whatever you say, bot.
Amazing Video! Never thought I would be praising the NYT !
good video!!
You are on such a roll! This even better than the All In - which was amazing. More power to you!
Atheism is a luxury belief
Atheism is a fact.
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?
You can’t understand everything in 5 minutes, if you don’t think this is good enough read his book!
No.
It is great watching NYT fans coping over this video in the comments
Cringe
The military became his parents. Hard to tell.
Yeah, gave him the strong structure and set him up for a better life. What a shame he’s not only about himself like most modern ppl.
An easy ride from the military resulting in a right wing grift? It's more transparent than you may think
lol@ "easy ride from the military"
@@shortfusegmr "Easy ride"? You HAVE GOT TO BE JOKING. You are EVERYTHING this video talks about. Self-awareness is non-existent.
Absolutely agree 👏🏻👏🏻.
I had married parents and always felt extremely privileged 🙏🏻
Cool! Now do "race is a social construct"
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.
Great video and will be good exposure of this concept to NYT subscribers
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