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 wrote this and a few other pieces in parallel, with a lot of overlap; I'll leave it here as reinforcement of the take, and also to highlight some of the actions that are not already in FCFromSSC's first glance.
A Sniper In Dallas
Shortly before 7AM, a shooter fired multiple times on an unmarked van entering an ICE facility in Dallas, Texas. At least three people were struck, with current reporting saying two of those have died and the other is in serious condition, before the shooter took his own life.
All of the victims were detainees. There was a short period this morning where people pondered the possibilities, and there were multiple, from every side of the political aisle to matters like drug traffickers or the schizophrenics.
Well, the shooter is reported to have etched an anti-ICE message on at least one cartridge. And I don't mean 'owo notices ur bulge', but literally "anti-ICE". The usual suspects are taking this about as well as you'd expect: we may never know the real motivations. But while it's hard to completely eliminate possible confusion or false flag or schizophrenic break, there's not much actual evidence here to really suspect it. The combination of poor aim, bad light conditions, and a long distance shot leaves little reason to need wonder why or how someone who was against ICE might have hit people ICE was detaining instead.
There are still unanswered questions: if the shooter gargled his gun under incoming police or police fire, or for some other reason; what, if any, connections to a broader political allegiance or perspective he might have had; what extent the shooter may have been motivated or radicalized by the litany of exaggerated or outright false stories about ICE.
Ultimately, they're only interesting in an academic sense, at this point. There is demonstrably no level of scrutiny that will cause major media sources to take poorly-sourced reports of hilarious malfeasance any more credibly, nor anyone to actually make the decision even if the incentives left them to want it. There's very little about this style of attack that has not been wargamed to death in security circles, there's never been a good solution proposed to it, highlighting this vulnerability at length risks raising awareness of other even broader attack vectors that haven't yet been opened up, and the people who should recognize that You've Got Offices don't act like it and haven't acted like it for half a decade, now.
A Shooting in Sacramento
There's an unpleasant detail, here:
The federal charges are not the strongest: "possession of a firearm within a school zone and discharge of a firearm within a school zone, in addition to interference with a radio communication station". On the other hand, with the accused having a list of political targets marked "they're next", it leaves more than a little room to question why he was out of custody for the feds to arrest.
Sinclair later scrapped a proposed Kirk memorial, citing threats to ABC affiliates.
Supposedly the victims were inside a windowless van with ICE markings. In the back of some ICE vans are ICE officers. In the back of others are detainees. Oops, these were detainees.
More options
Context Copy link
As is tradition, I suppose.
Doesn't this make it a "school shooting" by some metrics?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link