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 -
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:
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:
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!
Here’s the general course of things as I see it:
The cops are there, and trying to get this woman’s ID
She can’t find it, and says she will get some documents for them.
They’re sort of mocking her about saying they’ll review the documents she wants to show them, and trying to get her ID.
One of the cops tells her to get the water that’s on the stove boiling because he doesn’t want to deal with a fire here.
She gets up to get it, and while she is getting it, he backs away from her.
She asks him why he’s backing away (I should note she sounds like she’s being extremely cordial and nice here)
He says he doesn’t want to be near her with a pot of boiling water.
She says something about “rebuking him in the name of Jesus” - again this sounds like she is trying to be friendly and build rapport with them. She sounds like she’s smiling, and almost flirting with the cop.
The cop pulls out his gun, points it at her, and says “you better not or I’ll shoot you in the fucking face”
She cowers down on the ground
She throws the pot at him,
and he shoots her,either immediately before or immediately after this she throws the waterwhich lands on the ground between them, and he shoots her.As far as I’m concerned this is evil.
Maybe more comes out and my feelings change. My feelings now are that these people are pure evil.
Look I don’t care if this poor woman threw a pot of fucking water at these guys. They were POINTING A GUN AT HER. Pointing a gun at somebody is a major act of aggression and their lives are not more important than hers. Can she point a gun at them for her own safety just in case they reach for theirs, and then kill them if they do? No.
I’m sick of a lot of things and cops getting to act like thugs who can threaten your life at will, as if it doesn’t have value, is one of them. If I point a gun at someone it’s assault, if I even show off my gun when somebody is threatening me, it’s brandishing. These
retardedsub 100 IQ assholes pull out their loaded guns and point them at people all the time as if that has no meaning.To reiterate: I hope they are tried and convicted by a jury of their peers.
The cop shot her after she threw the boiling water at him. This is clear if you watch the video in slow motion. From my perspective, it also seems like she was trying to ambush him as he went around the counter.
Here's my timeline:
-She picks up the pot.
-The cop backs away.
-She asks why he's backing away.
-He says he's uncomfortable being near her while she's holding the boiling water.
-She threatens to rebuke him in the name of Jesus (i.e. fling the boiling water at him). That is to say she threatens to attack a police officer with the deadly weapon she is currently holding in her hands.
-He tells her that if she does he'll shoot her.
-She takes cover behind the counter.
-The cop advances, ordering her to drop the pot.
-She flings the boiling water at him. It does not connect.
-The cops shoots and kills her.
I do not find any part of this flirty or funny. You do not joke about attacking people with deadly weapons. You definitely do not joke about attacking on-duty cops with deadly weapons. If you "jokingly" say you're going to attack someone with a deadly weapon and then you actually do it then you clearly weren't joking.
I mean, I don't want to come off as needlessly pedantic but "he tells her that if she does he'll shoot her" seems like a phrase that doesn't quite capture it. He's screaming at her. He draws and points a gun. And even as communication goes I don't think it's effective at all. If you tell someone practically anything at the same time you point a gun at them, you know, chances are they aren't going to process it because they are busy processing a gun being pointed at them. <Okay, yes, he yells at her and then immediately draws the gun before she can respond, but it's still the same processing window> Clearly there's a disconnect -- in fact if you had paused the video at even the second "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus" (pause right afterward that is) and asked me, assuming I had no context, "what do you think would happen next," her being literally dead in less than 10 seconds flat would not be on my bingo card, right? To me this doesn't come across as an "ambush" which implies premeditation, but rather an irrational stress reaction directly tied to the cop's aggressive response. Her behavior up to that point was less deranged and more simply someone possibly a little on the dumb side and clearly without their life together. Assuming maximum hostility just feels wrong here and I feel like cops often aren't fully aware how their actions appear on the receiving end. I mean for God's sake, the first words out of her mouth are "uh - okay - uh sorry" and crouching down. Surely that's not the language of someone angry enough to assault a cop, right?
This is a little flippant, but I do wonder if, similar to how if you're given a taser many police departments would require you to be tasered first just to know how it feels (or pepper sprayed for similar reasons), if cops were threatened with their lives at some point if it would affect their respect for their given power. Human psychology is just not well designed for instant compliance in a crisis.
My experience is that innocent people will freeze and back off. Non-innocent people… depends on what they were trying to do to begin with.
So do you think he might have originally intended to kill her, since he threatened her and got closer to her when he perceived her as threatening him with hot water? (Apparently, in your model, if he was innocent, he would freeze and back off in such a situation.)
You might say that policemen are trained to not freeze and back off from threats, but they are also trained to defuse situations and to remove themselves from a situation when appropriate. If he felt so unsafe from a woman with boiling water, he could have left the room and called for backup, or at least left to wait for her to calm down.
I'm not convinced he intended to kill her, rather than just couldn't handle the mental responsibilities he had undertaken as a police officer.
What are you talking about? She doesn't have a gun.
Edit: To clarify, I wouldn't classify any kind of operative as "innocent" anyway, so the cops aren't "innocent" in that case. Maybe "civilian" or "non-combatant" would be more accurate?
I thought you were suggesting that, if people don't have guilty conscience, they will react to threats by backing off. She didn't do that and he didn't do that.
She did have a potentially lethal weapon. That was his reason for pulling his gun her, after all.
I was saying that every time I pointed a gun at a civilian, and most times I ever pointed a gun at a bad guy, they would immediately freeze and back off. I’m not suggesting threats can let you see into man’s heart.
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