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 isn’t brinksmanship.
What kind of resistance? Anti-ICE signs, apparently. Maybe some malicious compliance. Chicago isn’t importing military hardware. It’s not calling for volunteers. It’s not even obstructing the federal agents and troops who are already there. No, the ball is in the President’s court. He holds all the cards, right? He can threaten to make things worse and worse until he gets what he wants.
That’s brinksmanship.
Ramming an ICE vehicle with a car multiple times while armed seems like a bit more than malicious compliance. Every single time a car leaves or enters the ICE facility there it needs riot police to stop protestors from throwing rocks and otherwise attacking the officers. Your post is complete propaganda.
It looks like ICE solved that one just fine.
I don’t see why they’re entitled to local police escorts. Surely they can take care of themselves?
They aren't entitled the courts have said as much.
Blasting drivers after they: form convoys, interdict Federal vehicles, ram those vehicles, and do so with pistols sitting in their lap is an outcome, but it is not one I would consider just fine. I place ICE/CBP beyond the ATF on the meathead-unprofessional gradient for Federal law enforcement agencies. They will handle business in accordance to this position. The fact they didn't shoot more than one person or any caged pets might push them to be on par with the ATF. We'll have to see more cases.
This is more in the concerning or bad category of outcomes that, yes, would be easier to mitigate with some greater effort of cooperation or support from local officers. If for no other reason than for the city to protect its residents from dying for The Cause.
More options
Context Copy link
Exactly. And if right-wing militias start making organized, "attempted murder" attacks on feds they dislike, say, the ATF, then you'll be just as bloodless about that, right? Hardly anything to bother about. Just some kids with signs. Why are you overeacting?
You know, I used to not really have a handle on what your politics were. But you've been coming in hot and fast and ignorant lately, with maximum charity one way and maximum hostility the other. Are you feeling strange new feelings, like molten-veined partisanship?
Shooting at ICE is unacceptable. Ramming vehicles, unacceptable. I am particularly disturbed by the Texas ICE ambush; it’s good that the feds were able to come down on them immediately. This is true regardless of the agency*. Violence is terrible, and the people committing it against the authorities are criminals.
Posting anti-ICE signage is not violence. Neither is declining to let them use your property. Or to deploy your riot police to risk their own safety. I’ll admit that when I see commenters equivocating between Chicago’s government and its lawless protestors, I do in fact feel some frustration.
This is a motte and bailey. The mayor is just supposed to avoid rocking the boat. Riot police show up for riots, federal agents camp on your city property: you know, the usual stuff. Also, if he disagrees with any of this, that’s brinksmanship and possibly treasonous. It absolves the EXTREMELY UNUSUAL force of armed feds of all responsibility.
I’m willing to accept that I’ve been too flippant over the past week. Maybe that really is a newfound streak of partisanship. But I’ve never been shy about my distaste for Trump’s strongman governance. I’d like to think my position here is its natural extension.
* For the record, if I had to pick one exception, it would be the ATF.
More options
Context Copy link
If I were sitting on a jury trying a man for killing an ATF agent in the course of his official duties, I would attempt to nullify it.
There are plenty of individual anti-ice protestors who do things that deserve arrest. But most of them are simply annoying. It’s not illegal to have a dumb sign or be a Karen. AFAIK the guard in Chicago is about making Abbott look strong and flattering Trump’s ego. Chicago is not in a state of revolt.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
...
Now, perhaps the defendant's lawyers claims of the ICE officers just calling someone a bitch and opening fire are tots honest -- stranger things have happened than an immigration-related lawyer lying their pants off, albeit not often -- and the ICE officers in that specific case will be going to jail themselves. We can review it in a week.
Either way, I can think of several reasons why local police department support would help develop these cases toward the results truth demanded, rather than whatever random coincidences and biases occur in a fog of war.
Sigh.
You know, when I see your name on a reply, it triggers a little burst of shame. Classical conditioning.
I recognize that the mayor’s actions are making some bad scenarios worse. That includes withholding resources which might have rightly solved crimes. I shouldn’t have been so flippant.
I still believe it’s the motte to a bailey expressed all over the thread. Chicago is supposed to run this kind of investigation, and generally cooperate with federal operations, because that’s just business as usual. But the bailey launders the definition of “usual” to include more or less anything that supports ICE’s operation. If local governments aren’t actually compelled to provide aid, then they don’t have to run the investigation. They don’t have to provide riot police, or give access to every city building. I have a hard time squaring that with the absolute vitriol getting thrown their way.
They also don't have to actively oppose to the limit of the laws / rules that would make further active opposition outright illegal. They certainly do not have to proactively create new laws / rules that make it actively illegal for other people to voluntarily provide aid, with all the coercive implications that has.
If you have a hard time squaring not providing aid with the amount of vitriol involved, it's probably because you are presenting the civil administrations involved as trying to be studiously if oppositionally neutral and not support something they dislike, but not taking action beyond that. This false caveat would naturally confuse someone. It is true sanctuary cities and states do not have to support ICE. It is also (probably) true that your neighborhood homeowner association does not have to support your child's club activities or birthday parties. You would not be confused as to their neutrality if the HOA threatened nuisance fines against any of your neighbors who attended your child's parties except to the degree that it was required by superseding city ordinance.
The antagonism that is going towards sanctuary cities like Chicago is not because of what they are not doing, but because of what they are doing, and using their own available power to coerce others into going along with.
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