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.
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