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 -
This is a way of addressing the problem. If ICE stopped being masked goons who look like they came straight out of a bad YA dystopia movie, and became normal accountable government officials who behave kindly and civilly, I think this would reduce the violent sentiments against them tremendously. Don't turn your guys into Stormtroopers if you don't want people to start fancying themselves Jedi rebels.
(I'm not saying the Left's "thinking everyone is a Nazi" problem is unilaterally the Right's fault or anything. But in practical terms, that problem is not going to go away until the Right stops leaning into it.)
Your terms are acceptable. This can be accomplished by arresting and punishing those on the left that are attempting to dox the ICE agents and use intimidation, violence and other tactics (even stochastically) against the agents and their families to demoralise them from their work. Once the doxxers are significantly deterred to the point the criminal behaviour is drastically reduced, and the doxing threat against ICE agents for doing their jobs is removed, then ICE agents can go maskless again.
If this is not code for 'become ineffectual' and actually means that you wish them to hold the above demeanor as they effectively do their jobs then this is also acceptable. Effectively doing their jobs however includes an appropriate use of force against those they are arresting and also those attempting to disrupt law enforcement activities.
Your terms are acceptable. Doxing which is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action is already unlawful. We do not need new laws here, we need to enforce the ones we already have.
Yes. Emphasis on "appropriate" of course.
Sure. I support efforts to prosecute people who are actively trying to incite violence against ICE agents who plausibly could succeed at inciting said violence. I don't think I'm unusual in that opinion, even for people on the left.
I don't see much evidence that anyone is even attempting to prosecute the people breaking those laws, though. It feels like one of those "we've tried nothing and now we're all out of ideas" situations.
I don't support ICE intentionally saying "well, normal legal channels didn't work so we have to go full stormtrooper" when they haven't even tried normal legal channels. Having masked people in unmarked vehicles who refuse to identify themselves snatching people off the street should not be the first resort.
That's not how this works. The heightened threat against ICE is removed and then their legal risk mitigation strategies can be stood down.
But yes, they absolutely should be cracking down on and arresting the doxxers if the legal means allow them to do so. If they can't for whatever reason, then the protective strategies remain. Then federal laws should be passed against stochastic support of crime.
It shouldn't be 'law enforcement personnel must accept the exposure of themselves and their families to physical harm while they're alone and exposed at their homes because they decided to work for ICE'. Clearly this will lead to intimidating people into not working for ICE. Which means border enforcement ceases to exist and Antifa achieve their political ends through the threat and use of violence (eg domestic terrorism).
I think this is a case of "if your risk tolerance is literally zero you can't do anything".
We should take reasonable efforts to ensure the security of federal employees like those at ICE. Such as prosecuting people who actually break existing laws of the land in ways that endanger those employees.
There are limits, though. If the risks are higher than people are willing to deal with for the $50k / year we pay ICE agents, we should first try paying more. There are quite a few jobs that expose you to more risk than ICE agents face, and we are able to find people for those jobs. We're a rich country, we can afford to pay people. For a baseline, cops in San Francisco make $115 - $165k / year in base salary, often much more with overtime. If we're not paying at least that much for the apparently 4 digit number of people securing our borders, we shouldn't complain that we can't find people who will tolerate the risk.
What we should not do, before we have seriously attempted "prosecute people who break the law" and "pay people what they're worth", is shred the constitution. And "pass federal laws against stochastic support of crime", if I'm understanding your proposal correctly, amounts to shredding the constitution.
How much risk is reasonable risk. This idea is doing a lot of heavy lifting, but there’s just no definitive answer to “when does the risk get bad enough that cops or ICE or political figures are allowed to feel scared enough to protect themselves from said risk?” ICE is subject to serious doxxing and real-time tracking, they’re being shot at, their home addresses and thus their families’ locations are publicized thus meaning that a radicalized idiot with a gun could show up at their house, their kids’ school, or anywhere else they go. Police might get a guy they tried to arrest mad enough to try something, but it’s actually pretty rare and there are no databases or tracking apps telling people where law enforcement is at every moment. There are no public figures that refer to cops as Gestapo or quote Anne Frank every time the local beat officer arrests someone.
If ICE were treated like local cops and given the support given to cops, sure, I get the idea that you should accept risk, and that you should be able to be identified. In tge current circumstances, asking for that means that you want these agents and their families dead. Because in this particular environment, that’s tge clear and obvious result of demasking agents while they’re being shot at, doxxed with public databases, the rhetoric compares their work to Nazis rounding up Jews, and there are apps to real time track them still available for download.
"How much risk is reasonable" is a good question. I think a reasonable baseline to look at is private sector occupations. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes the number of violent deaths broken down by industry (NAICS code, specifically), and the Census Bureau gives total numbers of employees by industry. Dividing the one by the other we find that the most dangerous "normal" occupation is NAICS 485 "transit and ground passenger transportation", with 392975 employees and 25 violent deaths (out of 72 total deaths on the job). I think if working on immigration enforcement at ICE is around the danger level of driving for Uber but your agents fear for their lives anyway, the problem is with the perception of danger rather than with the danger per se.
This is the wrong question to ask. Consider the following questions:
How I hope you answered all of these questions was "optimizing policy to address perceptions of danger is a fool's errand". This is particularly true in cases where triggering a destructive reaction is the point of the violence but even in cases where it's not, setting policy based of feelings of danger is still not productive.
That said, the US government should come down as hard as possible on people who attack law enforcement agents who are doing their job. The US government generally does a pretty good job of this already, I am not particularly worried there, but it's worth emphasizing that it is good and important.
That said, if someone is willing to take their own life to cause harm, we should go after those accomplices that actually exist and actually materially helped. Witch hunts for someone who is still alive who can be blamed, though, will not reduce the chances of further people looking to suicide-by-terrorism (and will likely hurt to the extent that the witch hunt increases the perceived glory of the person who wanted to be a martyr).
Side note, not important
Funny you should say that because just yesterday the top story on HN was find SF parking cops, which took advantage of the fact that all parking tickets in San Francisco were published online in real time to make a map of where parking tickets were being issued across the city, and who was issuing them, in real time. The site has been taken down but the city is still publishing that data.
Not really an important consideration, the set of people who want to suicide by cop and the set of people who are willing and able to go through the inconvenience of taking slightly complicated actions like "look at where parking tickets are being issued to find out where the officers writing the tickets are" (or the corresponding action for other agencies, which I will not elaborate on) is basically an empty set. I just thought it was funny timing.
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