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 -
My most emotional response to seeing the event, before I thought through the evidence and implications was basically "Charlie Kirk was gunned down in far colder blood for far, far lesser provocation than this."
I do not think I will accept any arguments against the 'justification' of this shooting from any person who dismissed, justified, or celebrated Kirk's death.
Accepting that the 'optimal' number of police-involved shootings is not zero, this is an edge case. You can be critical of ICE and consider this a tragedy but also accept that this is what's going to happen when a significant protest/resistance movement is attempting to obstruct LEOs doing their job.
Problem is the demand will be "ICE out of Minnesota" when there's clearly extant reasons for their presence, and Minnesota law enforcement isn't going to step up to assist.
I mean, surely a decent 'compromise' would be "ICE refers warrants and arrest duties to Minnesota authorities, who bring in the suspects as peacefully as they can, and turns them over to ICE for actual deportation."
If their sole goal is to keep violence to a minimum and Federal authority out of their towns, this solves for the issue.
If the actual goal is to simply not allow the enforcement of immigration law, that gives up the game, don't it?
State and local law enforcement do not have the jurisdiction to enforce federal law, and many blue jurisdictions have explicit "sanctuary" laws expressly forbidding state and local law enforcement from providing any assistance whatsoever in the enforcement of immigration law. Even apart from this, the odds of Tim Walz lifting a finger to cooperate with the Trump administration are approximately the same as the odds of the Vikings winning the Superbowl this year.
The other complication is that feds can get away with ignoring local political sentiments in ways that local police cannot, because local policing depends a lot more on maintaining a relationship with the community being policed.
That is the actual, explicit goal.
Nah, just execute an arrest pursuant to a federal warrant in cooperation with a Federal Agency.
Hence, giving up the game.
And since immigration enforcement is FOR SURE squarely, unquestionably within the purview of the Federal Government, the resistance to it on the part of state officials is blatantly insurrectiony in nature.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why would you base your acceptance of an argument based on who made it rather than on its correctness?
I am perfectly capable of forming my conclusions without their input, and I can judge that their input will have a negative epistemic value because they are not reasoning from anything like objective, neutral standards. They will not move me or anyone closer to truth or mutual agreement.
i.e. they clearly do not believe their own arguments are 'correct' either, they just want to achieve some political outcome, and as long as their side 'wins' truth, accuracy, validity of arguments, etc. etc. are not even considered.
No point in having the argument at all, other than to make their contradictions clear.
These are people who consider political violence de facto justifiable if it is advancing their political goals. They consider 'making arguments I don't like' as grounds for violence. I don't want to share a country with them.
More options
Context Copy link
If someone is not willing to hold consistent standards, that's a red flag for the validity of their argument. It's likely they have an isolated demand for rigor.
E.g. "Charlie Kirk's shooting was justified because of the things he said" vs. "Renee's shooting was not justified" is clearly holding Charlie Kirk to a much higher standard than Renee.
Sure, if you're basing your acceptance of the argument on who said it. But you also have the option of actually addressing the argument itself and seeing if it makes sense on its own terms.
I can entertain such an argument if made but I don't see any possibility of me being able to accept an argument that supports Charlie Kirk's killing but not Renee's. Noticing that someone supports CK's death but not the other is a heuristic for detecting bad arguments.
I don't think that's what we're talking about. We're not talking about a specific argument that implies that Charlie Kirk's killing was justified while Renée Good's killing was not. We're talking about a person who believes Charlie's Kirk was justified and has a different argument for why Renée Good's death was not. One need not expect to find the former persuasive at all for the latter to be worth considering.
Then I would question why they don't judge both deaths by the same standard.
Fine. I don't see what that has to do with it.
Because it's extremely hard to apply a logically consistent standard to both deaths that results in justifying CK's but not RG's.
Let's try one. How about the self-defense law of the United States? Well, CK's would obviously be unjustified because he was not an imminent threat to anybody. Meanwhile, people are debating the merits of RG's under self-defense so someone could make a plausible argument that hers was unjustified.
Then how about we say the decedent should have made better decisions? Call this the Better Decisions standard. That is, CK's was justified because (some argue) he held inflammatory beliefs about minorities like trans people and/or a belief that the Second Amendment is necessary, and holding such beliefs is a poor decision. Well, that justifies RG's as well since she also made many bad decisions (e.g. deliberately antagonizing ICE) that resulted in her death, so Better Decisions isn't going to work either.
Absent a standard that can apply to both cases this way, what is one to make of someone who mixes standards? Let's say they apply Better Decisions to CK's but self-defense law to RG's (and say that RG's was not justified under self-defense). I could address their arguments about CK's and RG's deaths separately, but I think a more efficient way to address both arguments is to just ask why they don't apply the Better Decisions standard to RG's as well. After all, I think it's best to apply consistent standards everywhere unless you have a very good reason not to, as doing so shows that you are impartial and unbiased. Is there an important difference between them that I'm not aware of?
Of course, besides the fact that CK was red tribe and RG was blue tribe, but in the assumption of good faith we assume that one wouldn't justify CK's death merely for being on Team Red.
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
It is worse than that, given that in one case the killer pulled the trigger after a LONG deliberation period, planning, and full awareness of the act they were committing.
The other, regardless of intent in the moment, did a real spur-of-the-moment thing.
If you're okay with someone committing cold blooded murder one and being let go to walk the streets, but asking to drop the entire book on the ICE guy, I can't do much to help reason you from that position.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link