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 -
Are you being purposely obtuse here? You know why - because she tried to run him over with her car. It's on video. It's had been mentioned in this discussion dosens of times. How anybody engaging in good faith in this discussion could not know that?
No, it can not. It can kill you for trying to kill them. And that's what happened. You are being purposely obtuse again by making it sound like only one second of the whole event happened and other events, immediately preceding and following it, did not, while you perfectly know they did.
It is possible, in theory. In this case, however, trying to kill a police officer with her car does justify the response. We are discussing a specific event, and you keep purposely ignoring the actual circumstances of the event, while making theoretical statements.
I think by this point it is clear you are not interested in discussing the particular event, but interested in extracting something like "since there could be a theoretical situation where police shooting would be wrong, the police can be wrong, therefore you just admitted the shooting is not justified!". I do not have any interest in this kind of discussion. When you are interested to discuss facts you may continue with somebody else.
I don't think she was trying to run him over. If she had been, why did she turn away from him? I can understand the argument that he didn't know that at the time he started shooting, but I can't understand the argument that she actually was trying to run him over.
The question is whether his false belief that she was trying to run him over was reasonable in the moment. It can only have been reasonable for him to go against standard police procedure and walk in front of a moving vehicle if he had a very strong prior based on the circumstances that she would not try to run him over. For that strong belief to have been immediately overcome the second she started moving towards him (something he should already have known she was about to do when she started backing up), it would take an enormous amount of information to update that. I don't see what happened for him to overcome that prior. He saw the car moving, he heard his partner yelling at her to get out of the car while she kept the doors locked and backed up. He had to know she was going to drive away. He stopped when she stopped, so he knew which way the car was facing. How could it have been such a big surprise when she started moving towards her that he immediately made the decision to shoot and kill her?
Not necessarily. The belief that you're trying to kill them must be reasonable, what they do to try to stop you from killing them must be necessary to prevent you from doing so, they must not have provoked you, and they must have made all reasonable attempts to avoid the situation.
Everything I know about what preceded the event made what he did less reasonable. For example, the fact that he knew she was uncooperative, the fact that he deliberately and recklessly put himself in harms way, and the fact that she seemed calm and not aggressive towards him. What do you think happened that supports his self-defence claim?
You keep making overly general statements that do not apply in many circumstances and don't apply here for the reasons I've given. It is not generally true that the police have the right to kill people who threaten their lives. Initiation of violence does not on its own justify a violent response from the police, especially not a lethal one.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your argument, but you keep making general statements to support your argument without addressing the particular details that I bring up that show why those statements don't apply, which indicates you think those are generally applicable statements. But they're not. You can't just fall back on a general rule when I bring up the details of this case if you admit that they are not general rules. The reason I'm bringing up hypothetical examples is to prove that the rule doesn't generally apply. It's not to avoid talking about this particular case. I'm showing that there are exceptions and other rules that apply and explaining how they apply to this case.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link