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 -
Throwing in a quick post because I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed here (unless I missed it!), Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago sets up "ICE-free zones" in Chicago.
This comes on the heels of Trump sending in the national guard after Chicago PD apparently wouldn't help ICE agents under attack. I haven't read all the stuff about this scenario, but on the surface level it seems pretty bad, I have to say.
There's a video clip where that mayor is saying that Republicans want a "redo of the Civil War," amongst other incredibly inflammatory things. The Governor of Illinois is apparently backing the mayor up.
This refusal to help ICE and even outright claim that you're fighting a war with them I mean... I suppose Democrats have been doing it for a while. This seems... bad. I mean sure you can sugarcoat it and point to legal statues and such, but fundamentally if the local governments of these places are going to agitate so directly against the President, I can't blame Trump for sending in the national guard.
Obviously with the two party system we have a line and such, but man, it's a shame that our politicians have fully embraced the heat-over-light dynamics of the culture war, to the point where they really are teetering on the brink of starting a civil war. Not the social media fear-obsessed "civil war" people have been saying has already started, but real national guard vs. local pd or state military type open warfare. I just don't understand going this far, unless the Mayor of Chicago thinks that he can get away with it and Trump will back down.
Even then, brinksmanship of this type seems totally insane!
I suppose Newsom in CA has been doing it too, now that I mention it. Sigh. I hope that we can right this ship because man, I do not want to have to fight in a civil war I have to say. Having studied history, it's a lot more horrible than you might think.
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?
...
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 don't legally have to. That is clear. But as a matter of norms, they did something they didn't have to.
You can play the game of "who broke the norm first" if you want.
You can play the game of "what is the next escalation of this norm breaking" as well
Those games are fine, but they do not answer the core question of whether than norm was worth preserving.
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