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 -
She doesn’t seem panicked at all in the video. She is smiling, unstressed, comes across as giddy, arrogant, cognizant
She certainly is earlier in the video, but we lose track of her face as her girlfriend yells at her to drive, I assume that might have been some adrenaline rush at that point that would have contributed to her bad/reckless driving. I would think there is a case for charging the girlfriend.
Felony murder?
One of my group chats speculated about this. She is clearly participating in the crime of obstructing police, but I'm not enough of a lawyer to know if the felony murder rule can be applied. Obstruction is a misdemeanor, and it is the felony murder rule after all. (I am also not enough of a lawyer to know if that's what the word "felony" in "felony murder" refers to)
What I can say is that it is an extremely safe bet that if she gets charged it won't be by the state of Minnesota.
There is in some jdxs misdemeanor murder as well. I don’t know if the law she broke (or rather laws) constitute a felony (including fleeing)
Well, striking the officer with the vehicle is an assault with a deadly weapon, which is a felony, but I am not lawyer enough to know if you can charge the wife in this situation. She does shout "drive!", which is not protected speech because it is an "incitement of imminent lawless action," but I'm not sure what actual law you would charge them under. Conspiracy? My knowledge of the law is mostly limited to what laws I might expect to involve me in some way (mostly self defense), so criminal conspiracies are a lot more of a grey area.
If they are out of a group that coordinates interfering with the enforcement of law, I wonder if you can get RICO charges against the whole group and then felony murder?
I would certainly like to see the attempt made.
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
You do not lose track of her face as she accelerates she is smiling and then closes her mouth with a grin.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
She wasn't panicked until the other ICE employee wearing a balaclava charged in yelling "get out of the fucking car".
Right, except that never happened. There's a video higher up in the comment chain where you can see that didn't happen.
It also conveniently shows her not being panicked.
More options
Context Copy link
I question your authenticity.
I don't think it's a good idea to publicly question the authenticity of people who post opinions that appear to be quite common. It drives me absolutely insane that mods on Reddit accuse me of being inauthentic or "trolling" for posting opinions held by the median Republican. Don't fall into the same trap.
It would’ve been reasonable to post this if hyperbolic yesterday. But after the video today it seems straight trolling.
I really dislike this sort of debating where whoever is in hostile territory needs to be 100% perfect and get everything 100% correct or they get eviscerated and get called intellectually dishonest. Zero charity extended. (I get this all the time on Reddit)
Like, when @LiberalRetvrn said the ICE agent was yelling "get out of the fucking car", but actually the agent was just saying it very firmly in a confrontational way - not actually yelling. So he's technically factually wrong so now everyone gets to sneer and dunk on him. Or when he claimed the woman was panicked, but people here are certain that she wasn't panicked based on half a second of low pixel facial expressions in that video. So he's factually wrong again and is being a dishonest troll and everyone gets to dunk on him.
I think this type of response from the community is primarily driven by a certain type of leftist poster who exists here, on the rest of the internet, and even in real life... who just does not engage in reality based thinking and every time something happens they spin out a narrative, it's never true, they update only if piled on tremendously, and then they move on to the next excuse.
As an example all the woke-trolling here in the wake of the event leaning on "oh no, she's definitely here randomly and is scared of these unknown masked figures" as if it is as all reasonable to believe that given all of the interviews that were available from the moment the shooting happened (and common sense). But if you lie like that you will convince people and some people will never update (see: Rittenhouse shooting).
And if it's not lying then its believing something that is clearly not true (in the sense that it makes little sense) and was untrue last time and the time before that, and therefore becomes indistinguishable from deliberate trolling or excess blindness.
It makes me mad just writing this comment, which is why people so aggressively pile on.
It is the belief of many moderates and conservatives that the woke-left live in a world where things like reason, consistency, and common sense do not apply....and it's frustrating to see and results in piling on.
Left leaning comments on these sorts of things are almost always objectively wrong. A half dozen people have to have "shooting to maim" explained to them every time a cop shoots someone.
If you don't want these people to get dogpiled make them be correct more often about the facts.
From there we can get to the murkier business of ethics and so on.
More options
Context Copy link
It isn’t half a second. It’s the entire interaction. It’s clear that’s the reaction she wanted.
And I’m not asking him to be 100% correct. I am asking him to refrain from making a claim that is pretty clearly more likely than not false.
More options
Context Copy link
I also thought his comment yesterday about how vital states rights are to resisting the federal government interfering with the agricultural productivity of its non citizens to be a little too on the nose. (The phrase "way of life" especially.)
Yeah 80% of the posts are fine but some feel like they're verging on straight up trolling.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's interesting you see it this way, because from my point of you it looks like LiberalRetvrn just gets to make shit up, and to even respond we have to provide timestamped videos.
You can still disagree and say it's not factually correct without calling them intellectually dishonest.
Sure people can be wrong and be honest. I don’t think it’s intellectually honest when someone takes a position, is confronted with new evidence that materially undermines that position, and not only continues to maintain the initial position but continues to support it in hyperbolic terms. That is intellectually dishonest. Intellectually honesty would require saying “look I still think she might have been panicked but I recognize there is material doubt.”
More options
Context Copy link
Well, again, can people like him start off with linking timestamped links to videos, pointing out to specific things that make them reach a particular conclusion, rather than starting off with an unbacked conclusion that later gets refuted by timestamped links to videos? I think this minor change in conduct would dispel most, if not all, accusations of intellectual dishonesty.
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
More options
Context Copy link
This does not mean her intent was to kill or injure the officer. I disagree with your assessment of her affect, but even if I accepted it to be true, that's not sufficient to establish intent to harm. I could just as easily suggest that her expression comes from the rebellious thrill of evading the officer or is an idiosyncratic stress response. Regardless, these questions are long distant from the question of if the shot was justified.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link