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 -
New footage of ICE shooter
Forgive another high-level post but the body cam (or cell phone?) footage of the cop who shot has been released by AlphaNews and this may significantly change perceptions of what happened (to those willing to have perceptions changed):
https://x.com/alphanews/status/2009679932289626385?s=46
To my eyes it appears that:
The ICE agent is clearly hit by her car and goes down
The ICE agent was not standing in front of her car but walking from one side to another
The driver’s wife is not passively observing but actively shouting at the agents (this should undermine the idea that the driver and her wife were somehow neutral people accidentally caught up in everything)
Perhaps most importantly, but maybe most open to interpretation, it appears to me that the driver looks directly at the ICE agent before driving forward. From this bodycam angle, her face is clearly shown looking directly ahead where the officer is seconds before she moves her car forward.
I suppose a lot of new interpretations are possible, but to me this video footage clearly debunks several going interpretations I have seen proposed. At the very least, maybe reasonable people can agree that the cop did not shoot the driver in cold blood from the side window.
I would also not be surprised to see the idea spread that this new video is AI.
Edit: per corrections from others below, this is not bodycam but cell phone footage (my mistake as it’s clearly even labeled as such) and this explains why it tumbles at the end of the video. Thanks!
?? I'm really confused right now because the agent did not go down in any of the original videos. So something must be AI or at least doctored.
Nah, he doesn't 'go down,' clearly stumbled heavily then re-orients.
This also raises in my mind the possibility that the first shot was an ACCIDENTAL trigger pull.
Agreed he didn't go down. I thought it was a bodycam footage as shakes claimed.
I doubt it was accidental though. The first shot was the best defensible shot whereas the others were through the open driver side window as the car was going by. If he didn't mean to fire the first one, I don't see why he would follow through with the rest. Also "I accidentally fired the first shot and then my training took over so I fired the rest" makes him look real bad.
I'm just raising the possibility.
And assuming it was the first shot that actually killed her, from a murder investigation perspective, the intentionality behind the killing shot is the only one that truly matters.
Anyway, firing off three shots reflexively is not that odd, its very possible its trained specifically that way.
Training to fire one shot and then stop would be very bad habit.
(I was out on the range this weekend actually, and the topic came up whether 3 vs. 4 shots per opponent is the better policy.)
I think what you say is very reasonable.
I just know if I'm on the jury and the victim has 3 bullet holes from a semi-automatic weapon and the defendant claims it was accidental discharge, I would not find that super credible.
And if I were the Defendant's attorney I wouldn't want you on my jury panel (nothing personal, of course, lol).
If you care about such things, here's a video I watched recently about self defense law in the context of shootings (based on Florida law) for my continuing legal education credits.
Tons of different circumstances came into it. Both the alleged victim and the Defendant were intoxicated, there was a group of guys against the Defendant, Defendant had bad eyesight, his glassed got knocked off, he was not legally allowed to be carrying a gun into the bar he entered...
Aaaand the decedent had a couple holes in his back. And there was a community outrage against the Defendant, complete with vigils/protests. Bunch of witnesses painted a very negative picture for the guy that was later disproven with video footage.
The Defense in that case go to the trouble of syncing up multiple video angles with sound, annotating it, recreating the scene digitally, and pulling in literal neurological experts to explain reaction times and panic reactions. Hundreds of thousands of dollars expended to give the jury a 'complete' understanding of the situation.
Except it never made it to a Jury because the Judge ruled it was justified and thus granted immunity for the homicide charges. Not the gun charges, incidentally.
So if I did my job right, the case wouldn't even make it to you, the juror.
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