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 -
A woman in Minneapolis has been killed in an altercation with ICE. I don’t really trust any of the narratives being spun up. Here are
twothree angles:Angle 1
Angle 2 [Twitter] [youtube]
Angle 3 (Emerged as I was writing this)
This is actually a fairly discussed type of shooting. Law enforcement confronts a person in a vehicle, the LEO positions himself in front of the vehicle, the person in the vehicle drives forward, and the cop shoots the person. Generally, courts have found that this is a legitimate shoot. The idea being that a car can be as deadly a weapon as anything.
Those who are less inclined to give deference to law enforcement argue that fleeing the police shouldn’t be a death sentence, and that usually in these situations the LEO has put himself in front of the vehicle.
I have a long history of discussing shooters in self-defense situations [1] [2] [3] and also one of being anti-LEO. However, I’m softer on the anti-LEO front in the sense that within the paradigm in which we exist, most people think the state should enforce laws, and that the state enforcing laws = violence.
The slippery slope for me: “Fleeing police shouldn’t be a death sentence”
“Resisting arrest shouldn’t be a death sentence”
“If you just resist hard enough, you should be able to get away with it”
People really try to divorce the violence from state action, but the state doesn’t exist without it.
Apologies if missed elsewhere, I have read through a fair number of the comments on this thread.
One tangential thought I have that I didn’t see posted, is that in the Rube Goldberg machine of tragedy that unfolded, Trump’s own culture-warring belligerence has played a part. Throat clearing, I think others have made a compelling case that the shooting was justified, and I think it’s idiotic to drive around looking to pick up an obstruction charge using your SUV.
Local news has confirmed ICE we’re looking for a Somali suspect, and this big push of ICE agents being deployed to Minnesota is downstream of Nick Shirley’s viral video that has the Trumo admin fired up.
But! This is all less than intelligent because Minnesota’s problems with the Somali community are numerous, but simultaneously, aren’t to do with illegal immigration. A majority of Minnesotans from the Somali diaspora are natural born U.S. Citizens, and the best stats I can find are that 87% of foreign born are also U.S. Citizens. This shouldn’t be unexpected; the civil war that led to the 1991 collapse of Siad Barre's regime is decades old news, and various charities and international aid organizations helped resettle refugees from the resulting crisis.
Also, Somalia is dirt poor and an ocean away. There’s no significant number of Somalis crossing the southern border and throwing up bogus asylum claims to secure economic migration under a false pretense and being released into the States to await an immigration court date in several months.
Of the 100,000 Somalis in Minnesota, upwards of 94% are U.S. Citizens, with varying immigration statuses among the remaining. Conversely, as of 2023 estimates there were an estimated 14 million illegal immigrants in the States.
Does the Trump administration have the right to send ICE where it wants to pursue any illegal immigrant? Of course. Is sending 3,000 agents into Minnesota to target Somalis an intelligent use of iCE? Not even if sending a message to the community so some members self-deport is the goal, no. There simply aren’t many illegal immigrants among the Somali community, especially when placed in context with the scale of the problem.
And now there’s a big partisan media shitstorm roiling.
What Minnesota needed to deal with its Somali problems, and was already getting, was feds running down fraudsters. Not a showy, aggressive ICE push.
In general I would agree. But, given what we've learned about the scale of fraud and corruption in the Somsli community, I think it's fair to do some investigating into whether any of those citizenship were obtained legally. Usually asylum doesn't automatically lead to citizenship even if you've been here a while.
Also, ICE seems to be expanding past ots original scope, and is now basically a full national police force. Not sure how I feel about that, but that's the state we're in.
I’m willing to bet that almost all of those citizens are, in fact, legal. Faking your way through naturalization is a lot harder than writing the wrong number on a welfare application.
But it’s beside the point! Roadblocks and manhunts aren’t “investigating” citizenship status. Those 3000 agents aren’t doing paperwork at City Hall. They’re showing the flag.
More options
Context Copy link
There have been 70+ individuals indicted and narry a single non-citizen. I can’t disprove a negative that 100-percent of the fraudsters aren’t non-citizens, but I’ve yet to see any evidence they are. And again, at the barest of minimums upwards of 96% of Minnesotan Somali’s are citizens.
More options
Context Copy link
What do you mean here? Do they prosecute non-immigration offenses? Any documented examples of that?
well, in this case, they shot a protestor!
they have riot gear and training to deal with large violent protests. They can do it much better than what most local police forces have.
I am not sure how this is connected to the claim above. Yes, the person they shot may have been a part of the protest. But how that changes anything? They did not come out targeting this particular person. They came out doing their thing (immigration enforcement) and the "protestor" attacked them and caused them to fear for their lives, at which point they exercised their universal right to self-defense (which would apply even if they were private citizens) and shot the attacker.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true, but they don't have much choice - the local police is explicitly instructed not to protect them from the attacks (at best), so they have to protect themselves. That does not make them "a national police force" - no more than me defending myself from being attacked on the street makes me part of "national police force". Ideally, of course, local police would do their job and protect them - but that's not going to happen because it is under the control of leftists government which is not intent to let federal immigration laws be enforced if they can help it. That still does not make ICE "a national police force" - their goal is still enforcing the immigration law.
I think this more recent shooting in Portland does a better job illustrating what I meant about ICE expanding its role: https://katu.com/news/local/ice-shoots-two-people-in-portlandoregon
This wasn't just some random deportation. ICE works along side Customs and Border Protection, under the larger organization of the Department of Homeland Security. In this case, they were going after members of a transnational Venezuelan gang, which last year murdered two NYPD cops. So, yes, they do prosecute illegal immigration, but they highly prioritize people who are also breaking the law in other ways, and they're equipped to deal with the most violent types of criminals.
At the same time, they're very aware of what a political hotbutton this is. If they just wanted to arrest someone, they could simply show up in plainclothes or regular police uniforms. Instead they choose to show up in force, in very prominent ICE gear, and fend off the endless waves of violent protestors.
Anyway I do agree that they're not simply "a national police force," that was a poor choice of words on my part. My point is simply that they have powers that go beyond simply deporting people for breaking immigration laws.
Gasp! So they are doing exactly what they promised to do - prioritize enforcement over the most violent lawbreakers? And that's somehow a bad thing?
I mean, my position is - if you are here illegally, you must get out, voluntarily or involuntarily. I can be persuaded otherwise in the case of minors who had no choice when they were brought in, but for adults every single illegal should be, ideally, deported. The reality is, of course, it is not possible to deport 15 million people in any reasonable time with any reasonable procedure. Priorities should be made. You are describing the case where ICE is prioritizing violent gang members. That's not ICE "expanding" their role, it's ICE contracting their role - from deporting every single illegal - which is theoretically their role, but practically is not possible - to deporting only the most dangerous ones. The fact that people are complaining about it only supports my assumption that the goal of those complaints is nothing but prevent any law enforcement from happening altogether - it does not matter what and how happens, there always will be something that is wrong and must be stopped, the only acceptable solution for the complainers is to not have ICE do anything at all. Sorry, I did not vote for that.
If they show up without gear, the left would scream "oh, they were not clearly marked, we thought they were just bandits, and that's why we tried to ram them with cars and attack them!". If they show up with clear markings and gear, the left would scream "how dare they to intimidate us with their uniforms and their gear, clearly they are at fault when we tried to ram them with cars and attack them!". Heads I win, tails you lose.
In reality, sometimes the police needs to be clandestine - when there is a risk that the criminals may hide or run away otherwise. Sometimes, there is a case for undercover work. But in most cases, when the arrest is made, the police does clearly identify itself and must do so. Law enforcement is not something that should be hidden and happen in shadows - it is the right thing to do, and must be done publicly and openly.
Powers like what?
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
I don't want the somalian fraud to stop. Anything that makes people hate somalians more is a good thing and as long as they're stealing from the enemy it's a good thing.
This is pure culture warring. If you want to make an earnest argument for accelerationism, do so, but this is just "Ha ha more flames!"
More options
Context Copy link
Even if all the money stolen were local money and not from federal budget (which is my taxes), I don't think its a good thing. It's not a good thing because it finances the left's NGO networks and political campaigns, via kickbacks, and provides people like Ilhan Omar with ironclad voting blocks - which also pulls the whole political frame way to the left.
More options
Context Copy link
The subset of Mottizens willing to sacrifice our metro area to the cause of their accelerationism are surely already known.
On the contrary, I would like intelligent, and better-focused government action to resolve known problems.
More options
Context Copy link
NO! People will actually turn out to LOVE Somalians because of this. They will be taking money from the socialized commons (which includes substantial federal funds by the way) and bringing it to the specific places where Somali fraudsters live. I would bet that the local Cadillac dealerships in Minneapolis can’t get enough of the Somalis.
Mostly joking but that might be apt. Given the influence of Northern European culture, a Cadillac is a bit garish by Minnesotan standards. We’ve a disproportionate number of Fortune 500 companies in the Twin Cities metro and a good standard of living. You can spend all the money you wish on a Volvo, BMW or Mercedes provided your model of choice is in a muted color and has four doors. But a Cadillac is ugly new-money.
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