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 -
There are so many threads to this murder to tug. Like how somehow the judges that let all these criminals go are all black women without law degrees? Because apparently you don't need one to serve as a judge in North Carolina? And the one that specifically let this guy free without bail runs a halfway house she pockets taxpayer money with by sending the criminals she releases under her authority as a judge there? How the council of black women that run the city have a history of embezzling COVID funds, and threw a birthday party in the middle of discussing the murder. How this murder occurred on a bus full of black people and not one single person who saw it happen helped her. Although in the grand scheme of things it took about 90 seconds for a black man to run back and attempt to apply pressure to the wounds about as well as you could hope an amateur would. So at least someone tried to do something.
Long long ago, in a more naive time, on a different site, on a different account, I compared Obama's border policies to a hypothetical scenario where all the jails just decided "Fuck you, you aren't allowed to criticize us, we're going to dump all the criminals back on you." It seemed so unthinkable at the time. Such absurd hyperbole. Alas.
Charitably everything about this case is a scathing indictment of Democrat rule. More accurately, it proves 4chan and Scott Adams were right.
Edit: Sources as best I can.
Tiawana Brown, Charlotte Councilwoman, used COVID funds for birthday party
Charlotte City Council being almost entirely black and majority female
RE: None of the black people who saw the attack helped her, just watch the 7 minute video of her dying
Stokes and her wife run a halfway house where the criminals she releases receive "treatment" at the taxpayer expense
90 seconds is probably about as fast as you could expect someone to react, though? Nobody expected stabbing out of nowhere.
Yes, I observed as much and was conciliatory in that regard. There was no saving this woman, and realistically shaving 30 or even 60 seconds off the response time that it took a good Samaritan to make an attempt to save her wouldn't have mattered. 90 seconds to someone who actually possesses a soul to rush to the scene might be the best you could expect in this day and age. Maybe even more than. My condemnation is of the 4 or more people who watched the attack, watched the woman collapse and bleed out, and just minded their own business, got up and walked away, whipped out their cellphone to upload to World Star Hiphop or whatever that shit gets uploaded to these days.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm tagging this post as borderline low-effort for the lack of links, which nudge it toward "weak man" territory. Assuming you've characterized the facts accurately, the post itself is basically fine, but I'm not going to go link hunting to chase down every single one of these claims to determine whether you're identifying sufficiently narrow groups, being sufficiently charitable, etc.
So basically, more effort than this please: bring evidence in proportion to how badly the facts seem to reflect on the group(s) under discussion.
I mean, the problem is, because of the reporting blackout and the "Republicans Pounce" narrative, it's all twitter threads. It's that sufficient?
Yes, your edit is definitely sufficient.
More options
Context Copy link
Do the tweets have receipts? I mean, I assume there is some external evidence that e.g. North Carolina has criminal trial judges without law degrees, a public list (and maybe photograph) of all the members of the relevant "council of black women," etc.
Linking to a bunch of people just saying stuff on Twitter is not any better than just saying stuff here. But "amateur" journalism from Twitter users is fine, provided they are doing something recognizably journalistic, like linking sources, posting credible video evidence, etc. Randos doing journalism on Twitter are at least as good as those working for the New York Times (and often twice as honest!).
Do you have a source on that?
Source?
A source. I need a source.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.
I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a Glormpf supporter. A moron.
@WhiningCoil edited links into the comment. I clicked a few. They seem basically adequate to me, and I appreciated the effort of their addition. Your copypasta has no power here.
More options
Context Copy link
You appear to be making an argument that demands for citation are being used as, as another commenter put it, a filibuster against evidence other commenters don't want to look at. This may be so, and this is in fact the behavior your pasta is meant to highlight, but it seems to me that these are in fact inflammatory claims, that the citations should in fact be provided, and that while some here might be trying to filibuster in this manner, the user you are responding to is not, and it has drawn a number of reports.
We have a rule about proactively providing evidence for inflammatory claims. We also have a rule against low-effort engagement, which copypasta certainly is, and in fact your last warning was for copypasta. Your warning/AAQC ratio is about 3:1, not horrifying, but not great either. I am giving you a one-day ban; please read the rules posted at the top of the page and in the sidebar, and make an effort to understand and follow them. If you disagree with what you see here, just say so. You're allowed to do that. You are not allowed to do this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How about you just let the man contribute to the discussion with context instead of hassling him like this is wikipedia.
Everything he mentioned I already knew, and had read about. If you don't want to be neck-deep in the culture war, then so be it, but this has been topic #1 for at least the last two days, and it came late to the motte, so it's not surprising that somebody posts like we might have others who are up to date.
He even followed the rules by not posting it at the top level and keeping it to a reply.
And furthermore, he's absolutely right. The communists spare the criminals every day because their enemy is the kulak, the everyman, and people like DeCarlos are their footsoldiers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Inflammatory claims require evidence.
Which part is inflammatory?
Yes it’s so absurd it can hardly be believe can it?
Almost enough to make you seriously question how are society has been structured and why it’s been allowed and even enforced to be this way
More options
Context Copy link
Did you search, at all, to see if it was plausible? Did you question your assumptions before questioning the poster? Because I heard about this part two days ago and have been waiting for someone to post a top-level comment. Every single thing he posted has been widely circulated across my network, it matches what I've seen reported, and the reason it is inflammatory is because of the facts of the event, not because it is untrue.
Yes, the black magistrate who released this guy doesn't have a law degree. Yes, she pays herself to run diversionary programs to which she sends criminals (not unlike the cash for kids judge whose sentence was commuted by Biden). Yes, all the immediate bystanders on video were all black and no, none of them lifted a finger to do anything while the white woman bled out in front of them and the black murderer strolled away. Yes, the city council served a birthday cake and had a celebration immediately before talking about this murder.
It's a lot of work to go find good links to prove each and every small claim, especially since this has been well-trod elsewhere, so please do more than say citation needed and walking off like you've improved the conversation.
Is there any reason you think any of this is untrue, or did it trigger a fnord?
P.S. The murderer said, "I got that white girl," twice, immediately afterwards. Go watch the video yourself if you want proof, but I won't be doing that work for you.
I don't have any reason to doubt this user, but this forum's rules should not be blatantly ignored. Don't blame the messenger.
Demanding sources for something that you don't doubt the truth of is a filibuster, not an honest criticism.
Tell that to the moderators who made the rule, not to me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"All" is undefined, but making a couple assumptions: Charlotte is about evenly black and white, and given the magistrate requirements below, it wouldn't be that surprising if it does end up that many of the judges are black women and, between personal beliefs and local/state policies, are relatively lenient.
Magistrate requirements:
Assuming she was full-time as a magistrate, the pay is in the low $50K range for the length of time she's been in the state.
Back to you-
This one is less clear. Reporting suggests that she's listed as a director of operations for a Charlotte nonprofit that Brown may have been referred to, but the org has gone quiet and the site is down.
There's some fishy tax filings about a nonprofit she ran in Michigan, but doesn't relate directly to this case.
They took a supposedly 10 minute break from a four hour meeting to have birthday cake and mingle.
Whether this particular person paid her via the nonprofit is less important than the fact that she let him go, and also profits from these "diversions."
They threw a birthday party and served cake, immediately before discussing the murder of a woman on the train, where they tried to downplay the event.
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