site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   37536 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 22, 2024

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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

On Sunday I speculated that the Dems will use a George Floyd-like psychological operation to increase Democrat turnout in the election. Today, Kamala issued a statement about Sonya Massey, a black woman killed by police whose body cam footage was released recently:

Sonya Massey deserved to be safe. After she called the police for help, she was tragically killed in her own home at the hands of a responding officer sworn to protect and serve. Doug and I send strength and prayers to Sonya’s family and friends, and we join them in grieving her senseless death.

I join President Biden in commending the swift action of the State’s Attorney’s Office and in calling on Congress to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a bill that I coauthored in the Senate. In this moment, in honor of Sonya’s memory and the memory of so many more whose names we may never know, we must come together to achieve meaningful reforms that advance the safety of all communities.

The body cam footage shows two police officers answering a call from Massey about a prowler in her yard. Massey acts mentally unwell throughout the encounter, answers that she is on medication when asked about her mental health, and has a difficult time telling the officers what her last name is or retrieving her photo ID. The officers are somewhat friendly if impatient, but the vibe changes when Massey grabs a pot of boiling water after the officers requested she turn off the stove. The officers say they are stepping back while she grabs the boiling water (crazy people may use boiling water as a weapon, something that has lead Starbucks to ban giving patrons boiling water), and Massey says “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus”. Either because of this statement or because of a physical sign we don’t pick up on the body cam, an officer points his gun and demands that she drop the boiling water. She does not drop the boiling water but instead continues to hold on to it. Right before she is shot the body cam just barely picks up Massey throwing the boiling water toward the officers, with the water landing on the ground and steaming where it landed. I want to thank Twitter user Fartblaster4000 for turning that moment into a helpful gif.

Massey’s death is certainly not the preferred outcome of the encounter. Once the officers picked up on Massey being crazy, they should have mentally decided to leave her house if she did something like equip a plausible weapon. The three seconds that the officer gives for Massey to drop the pot of boiling water was insufficient — of course, the pot was in her hand and thrown toward the officer before the officer shot. Springfield is the third most criminal city in America, so perhaps the officers did not believe they had the resources to call mental health professionals in their place. In any case I do not think that the officers should have moved toward her but instead left the premises until they felt she did not pose a threat. Sadly, it’s not uncommon for crazy people to attack police officers with whatever is around, and it’s rational to be afraid of a crazy person who has a pot of scalding water in their hands, able to disfigure you for life.

According to a UPenn study, BLM may have been the political ingredient that shifted the election toward Joe Biden:

Mutz also notes that roughly 90% of voters reliably vote with their party, and only about 10% of voters are likely to shift their vote from one party to another. It was that group that she focused on, finding that as their awareness of discrimination against Black people rose, so too did their likelihood of voting for Biden. Interestingly, many voters who had voted for third parties in 2016 also shifted to major party candidates in 2020, and disproportionately moved toward Biden.

Concern surrounding COVID-19 caused voters on both sides of the aisle to favor their own candidate more, but it did not cause any significant vote change from Trump to Biden or vice versa. Nor, Mutz says, did factors relating to the economic effects of COVID. As levels of concern about COVID became increasingly partisan, the issue lost its ability to change vote choice so much as to reinforce it. Does that mean BLM decided the election? That question remains unanswered

If the relevant voters are swayed more by victimhood narratives than Covid, this explains why Republicans are bringing up the topic of migrant rapes. I predict we are going to see more victimhood narratives in the coming months!

Although I agree with several commenters below that I think the cops dramatically overreacted to a perceived threat which was, in the scheme of things, rather minor, and won't be losing any sleep if they're indicted for murder, I will say one thing in criticism of Massey: even if intended in jest, saying something like "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus Christ" while holding a pot of scalding water is a very foolish thing to say to two police officers who know essentially nothing about you.

Foolish in the sense that a motorcyclist who doesn't anticipate a car cutting him off is foolish, sure.

Foolish in the sense that anyone who doesn't treat an American cop with kid gloves on the possibility that they are a power-tripping halfwit with a nasty temper on a hair trigger is taking their lives in their hands, because the system seems incapable of weeding these people out.

If anyone ever finds themselves in a confrontation with cops, the best advice is: move as little as possible, speak when spoken to, use small words. Treat them like an easily spooked animal.

Foolish in the sense that a motorcyclist who doesn't anticipate a car cutting him off is foolish, sure.

Well, no. If I was walking down the street and a weird guy approached me and said "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus Christ", that absolutely would be a red flag to me, and I would make moves to get away from him as soon as possible. It's a weird thing to say which absolutely could sound like a prelude to violence if you don't know the speaker. The difference in this case is that the cops were holding all the cards: they're armed, she's in a nightie; they're big and beefy, she's a tiny woman.

If anyone ever finds themselves in a confrontation with cops, the best advice is: move as little as possible, speak when spoken to, use small words. Treat them like an easily spooked animal.

This is very sensible advice in the US. I would greatly prefer if following this advice was unnecessary (and am very grateful to live in a country in which it is not), but that's the way it goes.

The difference in this case is that the cops were holding all the cards: they're armed, she's in a nightie; they're big and beefy, she's a tiny woman.

... and that in the scenario of you walking down the street, it's very unlikely that the person rebuking you had a pot of boiling water.

What does “rebuking” mean here?

Same thing it meant above.

I guess we just disagree. I don’t read “rebuking” as a threat, and certainly not one that warrants pointing a loaded gun at somebody.

Well, no. If I was walking down the street and a weird guy approached me and said "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus Christ", that absolutely would be a red flag to me, and I would make moves to get away from him as soon as possible.

Oh yeah, absolutely. That person did a foolish thing by acting weird to you on the assumption that you would not flip out and shoot him dead. Massey did something similarly foolish - she said something weird (though not as weird as it would be if said to a random stranger unprompted) to the cops on the assumption that they would not murder her for it. And she paid for that assumption with her life. I think that's similar to not riding defensively - you may be in the right, but it'll be cold comfort to your family when they chisel 'had the right of way' on your gravestone.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you again. Saying something sufficiently ambiguous that it could reasonably be interpreted as a veiled threat or a prelude to immediate violence is an unforced error, which cannot be chalked up to mere carelessness (failing to drive defensively when not doing so has resulted in perfectly safe outcomes 99% of the time) or muscle memory (Daniel Shaver reflexively moving to pull up his trousers at exactly the wrong moment). The police officers shouldn't have shot Massey and I won't lose any sleep if they're indicted or go to prison for a long stretch, but I'm not going to pretend that Massey's bizarre decision to make a weird and ambiguous comment like that wasn't a contributing factor to her getting shot, albeit a minor one.

is an unforced error, which cannot be chalked up to mere carelessness

In this case, it is the ramblings of a crazy woman, and it looks like the cops knew this. On balance, that probably makes the shooting non-criminal (a crazy person with a potentially deadly object making threatening noises is a legitimate threat) but getting to this point was culpably bad policing.

Saying something sufficiently ambiguous that it could reasonably be interpreted as a veiled threat or a prelude to immediate violence

I mean, in context it clearly wasn't either of those things, and I don't think it was reasonable to interpret it as such. It was a dumb joke about holy water or something. It's not like she said "I've got a suicide vest under my dressing gown haha"

This might just be one of those 'agree to disagree' things.

failing to drive defensively when not doing so has resulted in perfectly safe outcomes 99% of the time

Telling stupid mildly offensive jokes has perfectly safe outcomes 99% of the time

This might just be one of those 'agree to disagree' things.

Yeah I think so.

Interestingly to me (and you may already know what I'm about to thumb type) that phrase "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus" is at least a decades-old set phrase (almost a spell) among evangelical-types (among whom one of these officers may have counted himself) and is presumably the most strict condemnation of evil, and ostensibly has the power to stop demons, etc. in their proverbial tracks. It always seemed odd to me to have such faith in the phrase while simultaneously knowing of the existence of historical martyrs who died for the faith, to whom this phrase would have also presumably been readily available in whatever equivalent language. My answer was that maybe it's more of a spiritual invocation.

Actually this was the first time I'd ever heard the phrase used before.

I grew up in the deep South. My grandmother attended a Nazarene church where they spoke in tongues.

If I were a religious man, I might suggest that responding to such an utterance with, "I'll shoot you in the face" and then doing so moments later suggests that she was aware that the man she was dealing with was possessed by demons. I am not a religious man though, so I think these are just two violent people meeting the ends of their free lives.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats