site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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 water which 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 retarded sub 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.

-The cop advances, ordering her to drop the pot.

Seems like an odd choice if your interlocutor has a weapon with a maximum effective range of approximately six feet while you have a firearm.

I mean, yes, but also no, a person wielding a weapon can charge in and close distance before the bullets put them down.

If she was holding a kitchen knife it would still be dangerous at that range.

I’m not clear how that makes advancing seem tactically sensible.

My guess would be that once you've concluded that the subject is armed and dangerous, your job becomes securing them and ending the confrontation. If they're willing to threaten you with a pot of boiling water, how do you know they don't have a gun on them or nearby, and will escalate as soon as you turn your back? Once they've initiated a confrontation, it seems that police policy is to end that confrontation as decisively as possible, not to back off and give the suspect space to maneuver, escape, or arm themselves better.

I guess there's a question of reasonableness. Could you assume they have a cache of grenades in the cabinet? Are they hiding trained attack tigers in the attic?

Whole problem for me is that most of the danger was avoidable if they don't let the lady get off the couch. If they thought she was dangerous at the outset, then don't let her get the boiling water.

Once she does, maybe exit the house and see if she escalates further.

I don't buy that they feared for their safety up until a second or two before she threw that water.

If they thought she was dangerous at the outset, then don't let her get the boiling water.

Did they, though? I haven't watched the video, mostly just skimmed some of the comments here. But I could imagine them not even thinking about her possibly threatening them with a pot of water; who does that?! Instead, just give her a moment to turn the stove off, then she's not worried about it or whatever, and they can continue doing whatever they need to do. It's only after she grabs the pot and appears threatening with it that they might think, "Oh shit, that can be a weapon; what did we get ourselves into?"

What I'm really thinking is that this is something I could totally see myself doing (the not thinking about a pot of boiling water being a potential weapon bit, not various other things). I'm not sure if it would cross my mind until some sort of threatening action was taken with the pot in hand. It's too ingrained in my classification circuits as "just cooking".

Right, but its simultaneously hard to understand why their immediate response to seeing the boiling water in her hand is "I'm will shoot you in the face."

I guess I'm suggesting that their failure to control the scene was a problem. Okay, they don't see the boiling water as a danger until she's holding it. Maybe that's a training flaw in itself.

If they didn't think she was posing any danger prior to that point, I'm confused as to why that escalated to "I'm going to shoot" you nigh instantaneously. If they DID think she was a possible danger, then just keep her on the couch and shut off the stove off yourself, don't let her roam around to, e.g. grab a knife or set something on fire.

More comments