This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has issued a full pardon for U.S. Army Sergeant Daniel Perry.
Perry was convicted last year of murder in the shooting death of Garrett Foster, a USAF veteran and BLM protestor. Foster had attended a downtown Austin protest armed with an AK-pattern rifle, and joined his fellow protestors in illegally barricading the street. Perry's car was halted by the barricade, Foster approached the driver's side door, rifle in hand, and Perry shot him four times from a range of roughly 18 inches, fatally wounding him. Police reported that Foster's rifle was recovered with an empty chamber and the safety on.
Perry claimed that the shooting was self defense, that the protestors swarmed his vehicle, and that Foster advanced on him and pointed his rifle at him, presenting an immediate lethal threat. Foster's fellow protestors claimed that Foster did not point his rifle at Perry, and that the shooting was unprovoked. They pointed to posts made by Perry on social media, expressing hostility toward BLM protestors and discussing armed self-defense against them, and claimed that Perry intentionally crashed into the crowd of protestors to provoke an incident. For his part, Foster was interviewed just prior to the shooting, and likewise expressed hostility toward those opposed to the BLM cause and at least some desire to "use" his rifle.
This incident was one of a number of claimed self-defense shootings that occurred during the BLM riots, and we've previously discussed the clear tribal split in how that worked out for them, despite, in most cases, clear-cut video evidence for or against their claims. The case against Perry was actually better than most of the Reds, in that the video available was far less clear about what actually happened. As with the other Red cases, the state came down like a ton of bricks. An Austin jury found Perry guilty of murder, and sentenced him to 25 years in prison.
Unlike the other cases, this one happened in Texas, and before the trial had completed, support for Perry was strong and growing. That support resulted in Governor Abbott referring Perry's case to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. A year later, the board returned a unanimous recommendation for a pardon to be granted. Abbott has now granted that pardon, and Perry is a free man, with his full civil rights restored to him. He has spent a little more than a year in prison, and his military career has been destroyed, but he is no longer in jail and no longer a felon.
So, now what?
It seems to me that there's a lot of fruitful avenues of discussion here. Was the shooting legitimate self-defense? To what degree did the protestors' tactics of illegally barricading streets, widespread throughout the Floyd riots and a recurring prelude to tragedy, bear responsibility for the outcome? How should we interpret Perry's comments prior to the shooting, or Foster's for that matter?
Two points seem most salient to me.
First, this case is a good demonstration of how the Culture War only rewards escalation, and degrades all pretensions to impartiality. I do not believe that anyone, on either side, is actually looking at this case in isolation and attempting to apply the rules as written as straightforwardly as possible. For both Blues and Reds, narrative trumps any set of particular facts. No significant portion of Blues are ever going to accept Reds killing Blues as legitimate, no matter what the facts are. Whatever portion of Reds might be willing to agree that Reds killing Blues in self-defense might have been illegitimate appears to be trending downward.
Second, this does not seem to be an example of the process working as intended. If the goal of our justice system is to settle such issues, it seems to have failed here. Red Tribe did not accept Perry's conviction as legitimate, and Blue Tribe has not accepted his pardon as legitimate. From a rules-based perspective, the pardon and the conviction are equally valid, but the results in terms of perceived legitimacy are indistinguishable from "who, whom". As I've pointed out many times before, rules-based systems require trust that the rules are fair to operate. That trust is evidently gone.
This is what we refer to in the business as a "bad sign".
It's interesting because the guy with the rifle was in some sense doing a right wing coded thing. Open carrying a rifle, which in Texas is legal. It's been a left wing talking point that this in and of itself should be considered a threatening act (see Rittenhouse, K). Which means in other circumstances it could quite well have been the case that the right was outraged by the shooting, as open carrying a rifle in and of itself should not be grounds to be seen as threat of violence, that justifies self-defence. In fact if Foster had shot and killed Perry as he was driving a car towards a protest he would have been in the Rittenhouse position! Arguing he brought a rifle to the protest to defend against just such an attack.
Which is why (as with Rittenhouse) the case hinged on whether the rifle was pointed at someone and if this itself constitutes a threat. Only without clear video in this case to show one way or another.
There is a narrative here where Rittenhouse was found not guilty (correctly) because he did not point his gun at someone and therefore was not threatening, and Foster also did not point his gun at someone so was not threatening and was thus murdered by Perry. In that case the left would have a case to argue that they did indeed play by the rules more than the right. Rittenhouse was acquitted. The jury set aside all the political stuff and acquitted him. Perry was found guilty then a political intervention happened. That's how I would contrast the two stories if I were still going to bat for the left in a political sense at least. The left left (hah) it up to the judicial system to decide the right (hah!) outcome, the right refused to do that and blatantly freed a convicted murderer. Might have some bad optics for squishy moderates. But of course plays well with those already convinced. Unlikely to make a difference in Texas, but might have some play if pushed nationally, perhaps.
I suppose to turn the discussion back to you, if you had clear video that Foster did not point his gun at Perry, and was just walking around, would you accept that he like Rittenhouse did not actually threaten someone and thus Perry shooting him was murder?
Only in the barest sense. It is very important to note he was carrying while committing a crime that crime was false imprisonment and every "protestor" that stops traffic and begins to surround a vehicle should be so charged.
Again no. While some jurisdictions would charge you with manslaughter or murder for ramming an illegal protest I think this is a genuine misapplication of prosecutorial discretion and we should probably have a federal civil rights banning such prosecutions. IMO any one whos car is stopped or is being threatened to be stopped by a riot is rightfully in fear of death or great bodily harm. See: https://youtube.com/watch?v=CCtoRHcyirs
Nope, like I said. He Foster forfeited his life rightfully when he join a mob attempting to intimidate and functionally imprisoning people.
Blocking roads has been part of American discourse for a long time. Legalising just ploughing through the crowds seems a little over the top.
Blocking roads is turning the public property into private. It is wrong and shouldn’t be seen as “American discourse”
I would ask you to imagine what side of the Boston massacre you think you would have been on in 1770.
This sounds similar to Jordan Peterson's statement on if you were born into Post WW1 Germany you probably would have been a nazi, or at least wouldn't have actively gone against the regime. But I think the circumstances between being a German citizen during WWII and a colonist in the 1770s are different enough that the same line of thinking doesn't apply.
Analysis of the American Revolution suggests 40% of whites were Patriots, 20% Loyalists, and the rest neutral. So just based on probability, one is twice as likely to have been for independence than side with the British government.
It's very likely at the moment of the Boston massacre the percentage of colonists that wanted independence was much lower, but it was exactly events such as the massacre that pushed many colonists to become Patriots.
I think part of what is muddying the discussion is that the people who are using these protest tactics (such as blocking the road) are advocating for the most insane things and it's hard to feel any sympathy for them. People would be more tolerant of these actions such as roadblocks if the protests were about things that mattered to the general population. Instead, these protestors are protesting first-world problems that only a rich, privileged society would have time to support a population that would care about such things. A poor person in Africa doesn't care about climate change, they would be rather happy to burn coal to generate electricity. A starving person doesn't care about animal rights and veganism.
Furthermore, these protest tactics have almost no actual risk to the protestors. Nobody protesting by blocking the streets is actually expecting that there is a chance a car will just plow through them. If they really had the conviction to die for a cause they should strap themselves onto railway tracks, because that would actually get some attention. When they do something dangerous, all the protestors start to panic as if dying wasn't a possibility of their action.
So these protestors masquerade as potential martyrs of what they claim to be the most pressing point of concern in the world, yet in reality they argue for things most people don't care about and pretend to engage in activity that would make them appear as if they are putting something on the line when they aren't by taking advantage of the goodwill of their fellow citizens, so in the end all they do is serve as a public nuisance. And when the state refuses to take action against this type of behavior, people will eventually lose all that goodwill and will be forced to take action by their own hands.
I mean you do have the extreme folks burning themselves alive still...or have we already forgotten that airforce guy? I agree that a lot of the protests are performative, or not relevant to the culture that the protesters occupy. I disagree that it is an illegitimated form of expression. It has been here from the start and even if it is a poor copy at least they are out there doing it. More than I can say for most of us.
Aaron Bushnell is already out of the public consciousness and his actions did not have the impact he was hoping for.
I will agree that he at least had the conviction to do something, as stupid as it was. Stupid in the sense that it did very little to push his supposed cause of freeing Palestine.
I drafted a post of around 3700 words about Bushnell the week he self-immolated looking into the history of self-immolation and its most prominent and impactful examples and how Bushnell's action relates to it but I never posted it because I never finished it as I got busy and now it's not a relevant event anymore. My prediction was that it would have little to no impact on the public discourse or opinion on Palestine and I think so far that prediction has held true. His actions, in the end, were just a minor net negative outcome to the world. Maybe we might see something happen. But probably not.
I'm actually in agreement with you that the willingness to fight for a cause is something many people lack, and if applied properly can be an admirable quality in a person. The difference between the colonists rebelling in the late 1700s versus a vegan protestor blocking the road on the streets is that the colonists were fighting for a cause a large portion of the population itself cared for, and the colonist was actually putting his life in danger by engaging in literal warfare (or standing up to actual British soldiers pointing guns in the case of the Boston massacre).
The goal of the protestors should be to get people to join your cause so you get the desired end result you want. If someone is going to be a public nuisance to protest for a cause, at least have it be a cause that people actually care about. Otherwise, all it does is make people hate the cause. It's worse than just screaming on the internet or even doing nothing, now you have people who actively go against the cause you want to advocate for. The protests over insignificant things in a manner detrimental to the public is why these discussions are happening in the first place. I think there are a lot of people who say they are against roadblocks as a form of protest but would be willing to condone or at least not be vocal in opposing it as a tactic if it was an issue of enough public importance and significance that it impacted them. But the point is that it's not, these protests in America have been about climate change, veganism, Palestine... all things that ultimately don't matter to your day-to-day American citizen.
Too many of these protests over insignificant things and society will decide it's enough and find a way to just stop them outright. I think I can agree with you that protests can serve a cause and push society in a better direction... but it needs to be used for things that people care about, and in a manner that impacts the people that can make actual decisions. Blocking roads is actively detrimental to a cause, if these people want to protest they should pick a more effective tactic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
@Supah_Schmendrick is correct. The "Boston Massacre" was absurd propaganda, and the troops involved were successfully defended in court by one of our founding fathers.
It was great propaganda! The troops and all of England lost in the court of public opinion and the propaganda helped inspire the revolution. The protesters of today are also, often if not almost always, legally in the wrong, but they are hoping for the same result.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The same one as John Adams, thank-you-very-much.
So a non-participant also willing to provide a defense to the much maligned accused parties while actually being sympathetic to the protestors' cause?
"On that night, the foundation of American Independence was laid,” wrote John Adams. “Not the Battle of Lexington or Bunker Hill, not the surrender of Burgoyne or Cornwallis, were more important events in American history than the battle of King Street on the 5th of March, 1770.”
Sympathy to a cause has very little to do with analysis of the behavior of that cause's partisans in a particular instance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Civil disobedience is is a well worn use of public power in the West. Though I think the French may be the champions at it.
I am not sure it is quite as American as apple pie..but rebelling against authority through acts of civil disobedience were right there at the dawn of the Republic.
Mobs blocking streets and harassing motorists is civil? If they were more civil he'd probably still be alive.
Blocking streets would be almost a textbook example of civil disobedience yes. Harassing motorists less so, but probably still covered, depending on the motorist and the level of harassment, particularly if they were trying to break the blockade. Whether civil disobedience needs to be peaceful is debated. Civil relates to citizens and their relationship with the state, not civil as in polite or peaceful necessarily.
Civil disobedience doesn't mean they are correct of course, it just means publicly breaking laws in service of some goal. Refusing to pay your taxes can be civil disobedience (a la Thoreau) and so can illegal marches and protests (a la Gandhi).
Thoreau, yes. Gandhi and MLK also. All examples of peaceful civil disobedience. Equating their work and the the BLM lawlessness is grotesque.
Blocking roads and harassing motorists is not spinning cotton or mining salt. There's no nexus between the 'demands' and the disobedience.
Much of the effect of civil disobedience is forcing the state to arrest and prosecute you for your violations. The greater the nexus of the violation to your complaint the better. Frequently leading them to appear petty and vindictive, rallying others to your cause.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Civil disobedience properly is directed at the governing authority; not random citizens.
It is one reason why the J6 narrative is so funny to me. Here you had a group of rioters attacking the government. That is the worst attack since Pearl Harbor according to some. But the summer where thousands of people burned cities and harmed regular every day people? Well that was mostly peaceful civil disobedience. Who, whom.
In a democracy, particularly one as deeply run by small-scale voluntary and communal organizations as the US used to be, there often wasn't much of a difference between the two.
Of course, the U.S. hasn't been that kind of democracy for a long time.
This is a 'Hamas was justified killing Israeli citizens, because some used to be IDF' tier justification.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link