Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Episode 226 - Ain't Black (w/ Coleman Hughes) (Patreon)

Published:
2022-11-10 06:59:34
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Downloads

  • Episode 226.mp3

Missing 1 file, as this post has not yet been imported.

Content

Subscribe to Bad Faith on Patreon to instantly unlock our full premium episode library: http://patreon.com/badfaithpodcast

In a break from the horserace, Briahna speaks to writer, podcaster, and conservative Black intellectual Coleman Hughes about Kanye, Candace, & the state of Black conservatism, the Defund movement, identity politics, white guilt, Elon Musk, censorship, and more in an intimate, free flowing conversation.

Subscribe to Bad Faith on YouTube for video of this episode. Find Bad Faith on Twitter (@badfaithpod) and Instagram (@badfaithpod).

Produced by Armand Aviram.

Theme by Nick Thorburn (@nickfromislands).

Comments

erik w bjorke

I haven’t listened to all of this or read all the comments when I write this. There is stated that yes we have made all this progress; yes that is true. Conservatism has the whole time been opposed to this progress and has the whole time been trying to stop and hold it back. Do these conservatives who cite all this progress have the self awareness that their worldview has this whole time been opposed to it?

Anonymous

Have a family member w high needs who had cops called on him many times as a child and young adult. If the parents didn’t have to constantly go to work I bet the cops would never have been called. The problem, again, is wage labor as a condition for existing

Jonathan Rose

Didn't realize Coleman was considered conservative. Knew he was NOT a leftist. Seemed like more of a centrist liberal to me. Oh, well...

Anonymous

#jiujitsuthepolice

Anonymous

“Victim mentality” is a euphemism for A belief that if people will just stop complaining about what it’s like to be black then my blackness won’t have to enter the room before I do anymore. Like there’s this wish that you could just be in the world without having to speak to your own blackness all the time and the thinking that maybe if people just stop acting like victims that won’t happen anymore. It reminds me of gay people who try to not look and sound so “gay” under the false hope that they will then finally be accepted and that the anxiety of being different and queer will somehow melt away.

Anonymous
>>95378011

In this way he sounded just like bill Cosby telling young men to pull up their pants because bill felt cringe about it in front of his rich old white male friends. The tell that the same thing is happening here is Hughe’s references his insulated subculture.

Russell
>>95374950

Yeah, Coleman argued against reparation payments to the US congress: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F5AQyWAWHU4 I understand reparations payments to be a lib policy, yet another temporary bandage over the core socioeconomic class-based roots of inequality (not saying I think it’s bad, just that it qualifies as liberal). And he couldn’t even get onboard with that.

Johann Strottman

“My working theory is that white people are humans.” I died 😂

Anonymous
>>95374950

what kind of understanding of history would lead one to even imagine that the purpose of reparations is to redress class stratification? 🙄

John H

I have to figure out why I'm not getting Callin alerts on my new phone. I haven't listened to the recording yet, so I don't know if another caller addressed it, but I was going to call in to talk about the discussion of subduing people experiencing psychotic breaks who might pose a danger to themselves or others. Brie's pushback was right, but uninformed, and it didn't go nearly far enough as a result. When she said nobody expects some young woman who just got her master's degree to be tackling people, that's not true (or technically it might be, but only because you're generally not the one tackling people if you have an advanced degree). My girlfriend worked in a psych hospital for a few years starting at age 20, and she had to restrain people plenty of times. She wasn't a competative weightlifter or martial arts expert (she did swim in high school and college, so she wasn't weak, but I was probably stronger than her at that age just from being male and working a physically demanding job); they just taught her two restraint holds. Coleman's view was utter fantasy, informed seemingly by this one anecdotal guy he knew and a bunch of pure fiction action movie tropes. Part of the reason for both Coleman and Brie missing the reality seemed to be that they were imagining ONE person subduing someone; in fact, it was always two or more in the psych hospital where my girlfriend worked, and I think the police also generally have at least two officers respond to possibly dangerous calls, though I'm not as sure of that. The other major difference between the police and psych orderlies is the police too often seem primarily concerned with their own safety (and authoritarian dominance) over the public safety, when the primary concern should be de-escalating and minimizing harm, as it is for health care staff. In practice, that means sometimes getting harmed in order to avoid harming someone else - that's the job (or should be for public safety officers), and if you are overly concerned with your own safety, it's not the job for you. People bit my girlfriend a few times, and she has a scar from one of those times; I don't want to misrepresent exactly what we're talking about. I view that kind of risk as worthwhile in order to avoid the kinds of injuries and deaths we've seen caused by so many police officers using dangerous holds on people or just shooting them - and I would happily take it myself if I didn't view the police as an antisocial gang of thugs exerting authoritarian dominance primarily at capital's behest. We need self-sacrificing people as police, not toxic authoritarian assholes with action hero fantasies. Also, police elsewhere successfully use non-lethal tools to restrain people all the time while avoiding risk; for example, I've seen videos of Japanese police using those lassos on poles that animal control people use here to immobilize threatening people.

Anonymous

Poor kid is delusional about the history of America.

John H

I was also going to talk about education: the purportedly hypothetical example of student-directed learning (rather than authoritarian schooling models) exists in the real world, and it's at least as good as our standard model. It's the Montessori education model, and similar programs; at the higher ed level, it's Evergreen College. The real reason for our existing standard education model is to train obedience to authority and tolerence of the kinds of conditions useful to capitalists and nationalists, as well as social and academic skills that can be exploited by capital and promote national identity.

Anonymous

Chiming in as a social worker who's worked in psychiatric hospitals which were chronically understaffed and underfunded and where horrific injuries of both patients and staff were not uncommon. It makes my skin crawl when people who don't know much about the subject suggest sending social workers out to deal with mental health crises as though that would be an easy, magical solution to a very complex problem. People in states of mental health crisis can indeed behave quite violently, by no means most of the time, but it happens enough to be not uncommon. It is a sad fact that when some people with mental illnesses (particularly schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder with psychosis) are experiencing symptoms such as paranoia and delusional thinking, they will often strike out in fear at others because they feel they are in danger. For example, they may believe that their family is trying to poison them and attack them preemptively in what they perceive as self defense. (Just one example from hundreds that I've seen). What we need are community response teams comprised of a social worker well-trained in therapeutic communication, a couple people who are trained in "holds" (ways to restrain a person without harming them or yourself), and a nurse who can administer injectable medication if necessary. I feel that if all these individuals were present (along with a driver and a safe car to transport the person to the hospital) then police presence would not be necessary perhaps unless there was a gun or other dangerous weapon present (which unfortunately in America is a real possibility). BUT, and this is a huge but, this is a real pie-in-the-sky scenario because it involves paying 4-5 individuals to be members of this response team, and the human services/mental health fields are already miserably underfunded. I feel confident that the system would prefer to pay lip service to this idea by throwing a single social worker making $40,000 per year into a potentially dangerous situation than use the proper time and effort to create a proper response team such as one that I mentioned. Please, please, brainstorm ways to use social workers in crisis response -- it's theoretically a great idea -- but don't forget that PROFIT is the bottom line in our society and chances are we will not be utilized properly in a way that is safe for us or effective for the person in crisis.

Colin Clark
>>95509186

Thanks for chiming in here. This is a weird spot where I found myself yelling at Brie for clearly not knowing any social workers. On the whole though I found this conversation really astonishing in terms of the good faith energy that was maintained by both parties. I agreed with maybe 2% of what Hughes said but I had never really encountered a conservative who seemed so open to the possibility of being wrong? Brie is just such a gift to the discourse

Anonymous
>>95418991

Thanks for your perspective! I agree that people who haven't done mental illness crisis response before often envision the situation incorrectly. It does typically take multiple people to safely restrain someone without injuring them or yourself. And it especially depends on the size and strength of all parties involved. Most of the psychiatric techs in the hospitals where I worked were women of average strength (at best), too, and it takes more of them to restrain a large man safely. Things can get really ugly really quickly if you don't have enough staff to safely hold a patient. I think most people are envisioning a single social worker going out to a mental health crisis and "talking the person down," which makes me chuckle. That is definitely the first strategy, and hopefully it works much of the time, but sometimes you're going to need more people to be able to deal with the situation safely. Also, people in crisis usually aren't too happy when someone shows up to take them to the hospital. Maybe that's another aspect that people are missing. So you have a person in crisis who is now pissed off that you're there. Definitely a touchy situation. I think it is possible to deal with most mental health crises safely, and without police involvement. It just takes manpower, more staff -- and good luck trying to divert more funding to the mental health field, haha.

Sarah Jarrett
>>95509186

I 100% agree and support this response. Unfortunately I've seen a lot of assaults (and been assaulted) by people in crisis and have unfortunately had to rely on police even in medical settings to maintain safety. What goes on in psych facilities can unfortunately be pretty unsettling. I support relying less on police of course, but it is trickier than a lot of leftist acknowledge.

Anonymous
>>95509186

Absolutely it is. It's also a sad truth that if we had better resources in general, far fewer people would even reach a state of mental health crisis in the first place. If we provided our citizens with stable, affordable housing, decently paid employment, affordable and readily available medications/healthcare, high-quality mental health services from an early age, getting people into mental health treatment instead of warehousing them in jails, etc. etc., we probably wouldn't end up with as many full-blown crisis situations that require some amount of physical force to deal with. We've made it into more of a problem than it ought to be because our politicians are not willing to spend a cent more on human services.

Nathan Ngumi

Very interesting conversation! Invite more conservatives to the show once in a while to get different opinions.

Anonymous
>>95509186

I'm a mental health social worker and I agree that there are barriers to implementing what you've proposed safely, but it's very doable! Defunding the cops and diverting those resources into mental health (even if we are still relying on them in some scenarios) is definitely a step in the right direction.

DrSmart
>>95374950

I mean is he a conservative? It seemed like he didn't identify with the label he has never voted for a republican candidate. I think that was just an understandable mistake on Briahna's part

DrSmart

So sad that Brie has to keep defending the unserious Defund the Police movement. As she acknowledges, it makes sense as an emotional response to emotionally wrenching viral Internet videos. But as Coleman proves, it doesn't make any sense as a solution to police violence. Better training for police will cost money. A gun is cheaper tho, so go ahead and defund the police! As the social health worker above points out, it takes a team of 4-5 people to properly tend to a mental health call safely. Again, one police officer with a gun is cheaper. So defund the police! The sneaky way Big Tech has encouraged the left to cheer on a tax cut is shameful