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 agree that fronting the supply to drug dealers is logical.
I was working from the assumption that the victim was a mere consumer though, and extending credit to drug consumers seems extremely bad business. The reason I assumed that the reporting mentioned a claim of a debt of only 2.5kEuro. While I do not know what margin a street dealer operates on (probably more than 10% and less than 50%), 2500 Euro does not sound like a lot of supply for a dealer.
My best estimate is that the murderer was a street level drug dealer, and the victim convinced him to spot him a few 100 Euros worth of drugs which he was totally going to sell to his friends (but instead used up himself) and the claim of 2500 Euro include a loan shark level interest rate.
Loaning money to the underclass/drug users is almost always a bad decision on the individual level, but there's plenty of legitimate businesses which make it their business model- payday loans, online gambling, etc. That's basically what's fueling doordash. It's probably a net advantage for a drug dealer.
"don't party on your own supply, and never front on a front" is common knowledge -- sounds like this guy was doing both.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link