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!
Honestly the driver looks at the ICE agent for a millisecond. I don't think she registered the ICE agent was in her path. She is a bad driver and sometimes bad driving kills someone, but I don't think this video proves that she was gunning for the agent.
That said, the thing that keeps getting missed in this discussion is that Good is dead. She's not on trial here. Her mens rea doesn't matter, except for the normal human response to tragedy is to speculate, "That could never happen to me, I would never do the thing which lead to that."
Legally speaking and physically speaking, it is entirely possible for Good to have normal intentions and still pose a serious and immanent threat to the ICE agent.
I could see 4chan or rdrama working this angle in a troll Justice4Renee campaign (like Justice4Darell). That blaming Renee is ableist and misogynistic, since as a woman she is a bad driver and couldn’t consent to hitting the ICE agent due to the power dynamics involved.
It would pair well with first caveating, like a stolen land acknowledgment, that mourning Renee may not be the “right thing to do” since “white tears are not something that’s always helpful or necessary.” This bit they wouldn’t even need to invent; reality provided it for free.
More options
Context Copy link
She clearly does not have “normal” intentions. She was being detained by ICE and the most charitable explanation you can give is she was resisting arrest but did not mean to hit the cop.
I think it’s also fairly clear that she was using her car to block ICE from using the road. Obstruction seems obvious in the video. And then resisting arrest after a lawful command to exit the vehicle.
Yes, that is true, but the innocence of the ICE agent does not hinge on any of those details.
I don’t think ICE agents are prosecutable right now. I can’t see a situation where I would vote to convict an ICE agent. I have no idea what percent of the population falls in this category but I do believe it’s significant. The opposite being it’s probably close to impossible to convict ICE protestors of obstruction in blue states.
To me, this is a very weird thing to say.
For me, the American I probably respect most is probably Scott Alexander, my rightful caliph. And yet I can think of plenty (if unlikely) situations where I would definitely vote to convict him of a crime. Even in the middle of a civil war (Grey Tribe versus the rest of the world?), I can still imagine a lot of possible behaviors I would not let slide.
That is because just like him, I am a big fan of civility, and breaking civilizational norms is generally bad.
I will charitably interpret your statement as implying 'for anything he did on the job', and hope that you would still consider convicting someone for killing his girlfriend or raping kids.
But even on the job, I can think of plenty of behaviors I would not want to see from ICE even if I was 100% convinced that they were doing god's work. Gunning down suspects fleeing on foot. Blowing up protesters' cars to dissuade others from blocking them. Torturing people to find out the whereabouts of their targets. Raping detainees. Like every other group of humans, there are likely people in ICE who need to be dissuaded from such defections against humanity by threat of punishment. Saying categorically that you would not punish them basically means endorsing all of that.
I have no problem with "I would not convict Ross for the shooting of Good". It is not a position I share (based on my impression so far, I could be persuaded either way by new evidence emerging in a trial), but for that case it is at least one of the positions within the civilizational Overton window.
I think ICE is doing gods work and that’s why it’s not a good comparison to Scott Alexander who I do like. ICE isn’t an idea….they have a mission. It’s to prevent the Brazilianification of the US. If you import a large amount of workers with no ability to do knowledge work or high incomes they will vote against mine and my children’s interests. I don’t want that. I don’t hate the immigrants. But I do think America can’t go down the path of Latam politics and it would be a disaster for civilization.
So yes I’m a guaranteed not guilty vote for any ICE actions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
ICE agents can't be prosecuted by the state for things that happened in the course of their duties, but they can still be prosecuted at the federal level.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. Unfortunately "Police Officers are not allowed to shoot people driving vehicles at them" is an untenable position since it basically makes it open season for any given criminal who wants to blast their way out of a traffic stop or chase.
But it is, in fact, the law. The police cannot shoot someone to stop them from fleeing. Yes, that makes it more likely they'll flee. But there are good reasons we don't just allow the maximum punishment for all offences in order to minimize crime.
Are you having issues reading what was written?
"the police cannot shoot someone to stop them from fleeing." is an entirely different sentence than what faceh wrote which was "Police officers are not allowed to shoot people driving vehicles at them."
It's right there in the comment you were replying to.
The poster was so adamant yesterday. Now the new video harms his/her position and now the poster seems to be spiraling.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are reading
as
Which I don't think is a fair reading - the former is likely legal (likely life in danger based on just based on a common reading of the text) and the latter is likely not by the same standard.
More options
Context Copy link
This is flatly untrue. They can, they simply have to have a reasonable belief that the person poses a threat to the officer or others. They can't shoot them solely for fleeing
More options
Context Copy link
Not what I said. Firing into a fleeing vehicle is one thing. But if the criminal is aware they can run down an officer without being fired upon...
Its a very perverse incentive, to say the least. "Why not add vehicular manslaughter to my array of charges in exchange for a 2% chance of escaping for a few more hours."
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