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 -
I don't think you can tell from the videos whether he was hit. It looks like he leans towards the car as it approaches him and reaches out with his left hand. Then it pushes his left hand toward his chest and he is either pushed or pushes away.
It was enough not to hit him because he could have gotten out of the way instead of staying where he was in order to pull out his gun and then start moving.
Either way, this is beside the point. If he was hit, he didn't suffer severe bodily injure and I don't think it's reasonable to think that was a possibility. The car was moving slowly and it was at worst a glancing blow. You can't kill someone over that.
We don't know his state of mind. What matters is what should have been clear to him.
How does that contradict what I said? The car was moving and he walked in front of it. He should not have done that. When she started backing up, he was not in front of the car. He kept walking and then got in front of the car and then when she stopped, he stopped in front of the driver. After making the mistake of walking front of the moving car, he then had an opportunity to keep walking to get out of the way. He chose to stop right in the way and turn and face her.
Then when she started moving, he had the opportunity to move to his right. Instead, he chose to pointlessly draw his gun.
He should have assumed that she would. At that point, he didn't have the right to go to such precautionary lengths to save his life, because he created the dangerous situation and needed to give her the benefit of the doubt and shooting her never had any possiblity of eliminating the threat.
More options
Context Copy link