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 -
I'm pretty late to the party on discussing the Ashli Babbitt shooting, but I now get my chance, because the Trump administration is going to pay $5 million to her family. (Archived link.)
I once discussed January 6th with a conservative in real life, and his stance was that the Ashli Babbitt shooting was an example of police brutality. He said that she was issued no warnings at all before being shot, and she wasn't directly threatening anyone's life. Taking a look at the footage, I don't know how she would have been warned at a volume that she could hear, and any of the police with rifles would have been jeopardizing their own safety and the safety of the other officers to lower their rifles and physically restrain her. I think the barricaded door and the cops with guns trained on the entrance should have been enough to signal that breaking through would be a bad idea. Given all these circumstances, I think that awarding $5 million to her family is
a stupid thing to do. Add it to the pile of other conflict-theory-esque actions that make this presidency a seriously mixed bag for me.regrettable. Sometimes settlements are the cheapest thing for suits.I took a look at the video, and I can count 6 uniformed and heavily armed police just standing around right next to where Ashli is about to climb through the window. (undoubtedly there were more out of the frame of the video) Meanwhile the agent who did the shooting was hiding behind the barricade and probably not visible to most of the rioters. https://files.catbox.moe/8p11px.jpg
Of course, seconds after the shooting, those exact same police came in and took full control of the situation.
Most charitably, the police gave up on trying to take control of the situation, and just let the rioters riot. This is despite the fact that they were equipped with full riot gear and assault rifles, and were able to take over immediately after the shooting. Less charitably, they were ordered to stand down for some reason or another, possibly with the idea that the riot would burn itself out if not provoked more.
Of course this doesn't fully excuse the rioters for fucking around. But if you are doing dirty literally right in front of a heavily armed and equipped squad of police, and they are just milling around and watching you, it's understandable that you might expect that whatever you're doing is not going to get you shot.
Not understandable to me at all. Participating in a riot directed at country's legislative trying to interfere with its proceedings to elect president in the very same building, and Powers That Be have called the armed police present? I would expect bad times just by being here. Not only the armed police are present, they have barricaded a door? You trying to climb through a door, behind which the police are? All the bad shit is on you. If the police have not shot you, drawing inference that "they are not going to shoot if I do this" is like "after I jumped, I have seen 99 floors go past, the ground has not hit me yet".
A century ago, any sane government would have had troops shooting indiscriminately until everyone is either dead or in custody. It would have been correct and just, too. Insurrection (to prevent legal transfer of power) is not a thing that you can kinda maybe have or kinda maybe defend against. If they would have acted like peaceful protestors, there would have been no need for barricades at all. First step of "not getting invaded by hostiles" is to recognize that you are being invaded, and not only it is legal but you are supposed to shoot at the invaders. (Before you ask, this is my stance on BLM protests.)
The US is too scared to oppose extra-legal politics, and consequently the society suffers for lack of respect for the law and its rightful authorities.
The police are not behind the door. They are milling around in front of and next to the door, doing literally nothing. Did you look at the picture?
That's not how it works. In history class you should have learned that about 250 years ago this happened and it ended up kicking off a big mess.
I looked at the video. The police are confused but the guy behind the door who shot is clearly not pleasantly chilling about.
That is the problem with Americans, you read only the American history. The indecisive inaction or half-measures or measures taken too late fails, too. American revolution is one example of that, too. Had the British acted differently prior to Boston shooting, precluding it, or more decisively afterwards (either leniently or far less leniently), it would be half-remembered footnote to history of British empire alongside its many other brutalities.
Speaking of Brits, they still celebrate the failure of the Gunpowder plot, which they put down successfully.
But what I was thinking was all the coups and revolts that worked because nobody whose job is to be last stopgap to stop it happening realized they should have start shooting until it was too late. In particular, the French revolution. The royal family always fell one more step towards guillotine when they found themselves at the mercy of the mob. Any steps to avoid those situation would have been crucial to them. After the royalty were disposed of, the party who controlled whether the mob (which mob, whose mob) had the access to the National Assembly and later Convention ruled Paris, then the country. It was how Girondins died, it is how Robespierre died, it is how Napoleon couped the Directory. A legislative organ of a country of millions is always at mercy of concentrated minority of few thousand people gathered in the capital, so it must be able to deploy force to remain sovereign.
Turning to back BLM -- general unlawful rioting is less serious concern to the sovereign, but it is a concern to citizens. A firm response would have been good, just and required for keeping up the appearances of rule of law.
In these cases mentioned in particular, BLM and Capitol, I am of the mind that a bit larger mess done quickly would have resolved the matter with more clean state afterwards. Unlike in a slow-boiling conflict, when conflict turns to crisis it is dealt with. There is room for catharsis afterwards, and respect for public order is maintained.
Rereading what I wrote, it is very abstract. To be more precise, I think a better response would have been to maintain a clear perimeter and apply deadly force after it was breached. Admittedly, had there been appropriately massive deployment of lawful authority to maintain a perimeter, there would not have been a breach and perhaps no fatalities -- but that is not what was happening. It becomes an exercise in judging how they should have dealt with a situation they were ill-prepared to deal with, and in the particular context the use of firearms must certainly be an anticipated option. To abuse a metaphor, the police have not many options on table after the table has no legs (perimeter, manpower, clear coordination) and it has fallen down.
It didnt have to be that large at all. There are only a few doors into the building. It is basically a fort on a hill. Against the crowd of what we know to be unarmed people with no real organization, 50 armed men would be more than enough if they did their jobs well.
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