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 -
And the police let them do it, because their local, state and federal government wanted them to do it, because Blue Tribe collectively wanted them to do it. You are failing to appreciate the nature of the problem; it is not that we have riots and murders, it is that we have half the country that sees riots and murders against people they don't like as a good thing, and they don't like the other half of the country.
No, Blue Tribe wanted there to be protests. Most people fell on a spectrum going from "sincerely believes that the reports of widespread violence are Republican lies" to "grants that some protests devolved into riots, but thinks it's more important for protests to remain untouchable than to stop the riotous excesses".
Indifference is insidious. Indifference to riots or thinking they're worth the tradeoffs is close enough for my tastes. Being unwilling to stop a bad thing or otherwise too high on your ideological supply to realize how easily it could backfire or otherwise go wrong is close enough.
The extra 6000ish black murders were really worth it, to the eyes of those unaffected by them but liked the aesthetics of protests and huffing that tire-burning smell, I'm sure.
Interesting. How shall we assess indifference to police brutality? Why is it that when people protest unambiguous police brutality and the police respond by refusing to do their job, it's the fault of the protestors for failing to lick the boot hard enough? Should we be worried that one of the central institutions for public order will mutiny if not granted impunity for their crimes?
It would be helpful if at least half the high profile stories of brutality actually fit the bill before the mass protests and riots occur. How much of the 'indifference' that you detect is just a plain disagreement regarding what's being depicted?
Bending over backwards to make excuses for police murdering people and undermining efforts to hold them accountable is an extreme and hostile form of indifference (and it produces more crime). I used to be more charitably inclined, until 2020 made it abundantly clear that many right-wingers were not simply credulous of police excuses and actively supported police brutality as long as it was directed against their idea of someone who deserved it.
I don't doubt your account of what you saw in terms of RW reactions, but I'm not sure youre modeling the general critique that I recall? To be clear, even I'M not conviced that what I saw wrt to Floyd and Chauvin was 'murder'. And that's the most high profile example of the issue you're alleging. Everything else from Mike Brown, to Jacob Blake, to Trayvon Martin - I am even less persuaded. In fact, seeing this narrative of police brutality extended even to Blake is what transitoned by skepticism to outright disbelief. Which isn’t to say it doesn't exist, but I'm not buying the package being sold.
The most clear-cut example of police brutality I witnessed was with Tyre Nichols. This came and went in the span of a week for reasons that are probably unsurprising to anybody here who looks into it or remembers the details. If we're trying to assess 'who is more caring/indifferent regarding police brutality', I will give everybody a fat Zero based on that. It seems we are only interested in this phenomenon as ammunition to hurt the other side.
I don't remember RWers condoning 'murder'. I remember them saying that many of those alleged victims led lives and expressed behavior that made their demises seem inevitable. Things like fighting the cops, not following commands, escalating hostilities, and generally living lives up to that point that reliably produce these outcomes.
You may still find that ugly, callous, or mistaken. Whatever it is, it's FAR away from dancing when a professional TALKER gets sniped in the throat.
Martin wasn't killed by LE, so is irrelevant to this subject. Laquan McDonald, Freddie Gray, and Eric Garner immediately leap to mind as unambiguously unjustified police homicides which were widely excused on grounds that the victims were lowlife scum who wouldn't be missed. But the point here is not to trade anecdotes, it is to point out that there is a widespread attitude that is at best indifferent to and frequently outright celebratory of police brutality. Never mind dubious police shootings, the amount of times I've seen people cheer for law enforcement assaulting protestors is disturbing.
Obviously, justified and unjustified uses of force exist. The problem, which I am trying to get across, is that a lot of people subscribe to the Tango and Cash Theory of Criminal Justice. Their concept of what constitutes acceptable/justified use of force includes a great of deal of unambiguous police brutality, they tend to have a negative view of civil liberties, and they are willing to cut LE a ton of slack when they cross the already generous line as long as the victims fit into a category of acceptable targets. Attendantly, criticizing the conduct of law enforcement is often construed as being pro-crime.
I suspect what you're trying to hint at here is that the perpetrators were also black, but a) that didn't stop people from protesting b) you're understating the scope of the reaction. It's pretty clear that people who care about reducing police violence did care about it. It is somewhat plausible that people who would ordinarily defend cops to the hilt passed on the issue because they were black, although I think (a la Daniel Shaver) it is more likely because the incident was so clear cut and indefensible that there was nothing to argue about. If the cops pull a guy out of out of his car and throw him to the ground and rough him up a bit, T&C Theorists might say "well, he should've been more compliant and it's not a big deal if the cops knock a suspect around a bit anyway". CJRers say "that's appalling", and we're off to the races. If they pull him out of the car, throw him to the ground, and then beat him to death, there's nothing to argue about.
I don't actually think that it is. Excusing (and frequently endorsing) police brutality as a matter of regular practice because you have little regard for their victims' rights or welfare is significantly worse than dancing on a metaphorical grave. One is indecorous. The other contributes to perpetuating unjustified violence (and, it bears repeating, detracts from public safety).
Am I reading you correctly, that you're implying celebrating an assassination of a nonviolent activist doesn't "[contribute] to perpetuating unjustified violence" or "[detract] from public safety"? Even in a causal sense, rather than a criminal responsibility sense?
Because, well, that seems obviously untrue, insofar as the elasticity of terrorist attacks with respect to celebration of terrorist attacks sure seems like it should be positive, and "shooting people for their political views" seems pretty damned unjustified outside a literal war.
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