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'm starting a new top-level regarding trigger happy Iceman meets wine mom in Minneapolis because, rather than debating the videos, I'd like to focus more on a compare and contrast to get a true culture war angle. People have made an analogy to the woman who died on Jan 6th but I don't think it lands strongly enough. Permit me to cut closer to the bone, friends.
The only fatality on Jan 6th was an unarmed woman being shot by a federal agent[1] because she was opposing what she considered an illegitimate government action. Liberals tearlessly argued this is what happens when you Fuck Around while conservatives argued she was righteously Resisting (TM).
Today the players are the same but the jerseys are flipped. Liberals cry with so, so many tears of empathy for the dead woman in the car while conservatives argue they were obstructing a legitimate state function and put the officer in danger and this is what happens when you Fuck Around.
In broad strokes it's clear neither side cares about democracy or rule of law per se. Conservative faith in rule of law evaporates when it says no to Trump and liberal empathy for the scrappy civil disobedients dries up when it's a Chud. Both sides are happy with mob violence when it's their side doing it and cry tyranny whenever they Find Out.
I think I broadly agree.
"Ashli Babbit and Renee Good both FAFO" is a coherent and consistent view. "Ashli Babbit and Renee Good both died unnecessarily because of law enforcement/state ineptitude" is also a coherent and consistent view. (The latter does not preclude acknowledging that both women, at the very least, made poor choices and could have and should have avoided the situation, which at this point I definitely think is hard to dispute.)
If you think one was an innocent martyr and the other got what she deserved, I would really like to hear the arguments for that.
Sometimes police need to use lethal force to enforce the laws. Like, if a criminal is trying to kill the police, or other people, then obviously the police should use lethal force.
Sometimes police need to use non-lethal force to enforce the laws. Like, a naked man running down the street, or breaking up a drunken brawl.
If the police use lethal force in a situation that does not call for lethal force, that is bad.
I do not think Ashli Babbit was a case where lethal force was warranted. Renee Good is very arguably a case where lethal force was warranted, on grounds of self defense.
Ashli Babbit was a case where non-lethal force was warranted.
A rioter who is just a rioter should be roughed up a bit, thrown in jail, and fully punished under the law.
A rioter who seriously endangers the lives of others, might warrant a bullet, and if not, absolutely warrants all of the above.
Maybe this stance does not constitute 'innocent martyr and the other got what she deserved' but my position is that the office in the Good case should not be charged with anything and the officer in the Babbit case is a murderer.
Perhaps not, but I think there is a general moral principle that when an activist inserts himself into an ugly/violent/explosive situation, the activist needs to be on his best behavior under penalty of forfeiting any claim to charity or sympathy. By this standard, neither Babbit, Good, nor Rittenhouse deserve much in the way of charity. In Rittenhouse's case though, he handled himself extremely well so that even without any charity, he should be (and was) exonerated.
From a legal perspective, these are different questions, of course. I do know that when it comes to private property, you can normally use lethal force against an intruder without waiting to see how much a threat the person poses. [Edit: Apparently this is not necessarily true] Does this principle apply to an intruder in a specific room in a public building? I don't know.
I didn't pay much attention to the Ashley Babbit situation at the time, but what concerns me now is this: If there is a general rule that law enforcement cannot open fire against an (apparently) unarmed intruder in a public building, it opens the door (so to speak) to mob tactics where the authorities won't be able to protect the building (and themselves) until it's too late.
This is not in fact true in most states. Castle Doctrine says you have no duty to retreat within your home (though some states don't even have that), but you still have to have a reasonable fear of grave bodily harm.
Thanks for pointing this out. I had recalled learning at some point that if there's an intruder in your house, you don't have to wait to see if the person has a gun, knife, etc. -- you can just open fire.
I did find this online:
I do think that as a practical matter, a homeowner has a great deal of leeway in terms of using lethal force against an (unlawful) intruder. But it doesn't seem that this is a bright line rule.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I feel like a lot of the talk about Babbitt seems to assume that nothing short of lethal force would work. I think this is because currently our law enforcement uses basically no force when dealing with rioters so riots get out of hand. It is very easy and practical to use non-lethal force to crowd control unarmed people. If the police fully utilized the non-lethal options at their disposal to deal with rioters, rubber bullet, tear gas, water cannons, truncheons, handcuffs, etc. then I think that should be more than sufficient to control such hypothetical situations.
I think this is downstream of American Revolution/Independence hagiography and then Civil Rights.
For historical reasons, the US is very sensitive to the optics of putting down riots. It’s supposed to be done by the nasty people that America was made to get away from. So if it’s not serious enough to start shooting, nothing should be done.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Can you convince me that you would make exactly the same argument if Ashli Babbit had been a leftist protesting Trump's inauguration, and Renee Good had been, I don't know, a Christian at an abortion protest or something?
Babbitt was standing next to several other Capital police officers with no barriers between them and her for several minutes. They were unmolested by her. It is, indeed, hard to imagine a reverse situation given the history with people like Rittenhouse having to gun down multiple convicted criminals just to stay alive in a similar situation.
So you would confidently assert that if a crowd of leftists entered the Capital building to protest/disrupt Trump's inauguration, and a woman who had previously been standing next to several officers for several minutes subsequently broke through a door in the building and was shot, that you would say "This was murder and the Capital police officer should be charged"?
Nah. People shouldn't be charged so much. The guy should have lost a large civil lawsuit meaning his future earnings to eternity go to Babbitt's children if she has them. Its better to let things lie in the middle.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The sort of autist that posts on the the Motte tends to actually hold to principles somewhat instead of broad tribe identification.
More options
Context Copy link
So, if I had argued, for example, that Rene Good was fighting against a rightful authority, and Babbitt was fighting against an illegitimate authority, I would obviously be making an argument that could be very easily swayed by motivated reasoning, even if it could also be a principled argument in theory.
If Babbitt had been a leftists I would absolutely make the same argument, but I am not really sure how I can convince you of that, and I am not really sure which part of my argument feels like partisan hackery to you.
I accept that Babbitt was doing something illegal, that it warranted a response of force from the police, just that, as she did not seem to pose a credible threat to anyone, that force should be non-lethal.
Does that position really seem so devested from baseline reality?
Honestly, I think my position on both of these cases would be the 90%+ majority opinion of Americans if the politics could somehow be removed from them.
To be fair, I was asking a genuine question: how could you convince me? Since I don't know you (and don't really have much of an impression of you, specifically), I'll just have to take your word for it that if the polarities were reversed you'd stick to the same principles.
Provisionally, I will take someone's word for that (unless they've already given me reason to believe otherwise). But generally speaking, I think we're so deep into polarization that I think most people form their opinions based entirely on who? and whom?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not OP, but I'm trying to think of what would actually be an analogous situation for Renee Bad[1] at an abortion clinic protest. There's not a lot of overtly disruptive things she could do in front of an abortion clinic that wouldn't be straightforward grounds for arrest, and I think the overall right generally has enough respect for the law and property rights to understand that even if they don't like that abortion is legal, that it's a matter for the legislators and the courts, not for Renee Bad to roll up and do a direct action.
[1] As in, the mirror universe right wing version of Renee Good. This is a pun and I don't intend it to imply that it's evil to be right wing. I think it's quite okay to be right wing. It's just a pun please don't hurt me.
It's harder to come up with an exact equivalent for Good, true. But I'm thinking something like, an anti-abortion protester has her SUV blocking the street in front an abortion clinic, cops arrive to clear out the protesters, she and/or other protesters are screaming at the cops, and then some cops tell her to 'Get out of the fucking car' and she accelerates- with all the subsequent minute analysis of whether she hit a cop, whether she saw the cop, whether she was provoking the cop, whether she was moving towards the cop, whether the cop was in danger, etc.
I am convinced rightists and leftists would mostly change their opinions about whether the cop was justified in shooting her in that case.
Probably not, no. Pro-life activists being arrested for protesting too hard outside abortion clinics is a thing that happens and conservatives often defend FACE violations, but, importantly, not pro-life activists who use actual violent action.
But the entire dispute is whether Good used violent action. I don't see any leftists who are saying "Yes, she tried to run down an ICE officer and she was justified." Rather, they are claiming she panicked/she didn't see him/he wasn't in danger and shooting her was unnecessary.
In the equivalent situation, no, I don't think the pro-life community would defend a pro-life activist who was actually trying to run over a cop, but they would defend someone in an ambiguous situation like this, where it is not at all clear what anyone's intentions or situational awareness was.
Fine, they also tend to not defend pro-life activists that non-violently drive a car at the police, in an attempt to escape them,
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Doesn't even have to be parking her SUV. Silently praying outside an abortion clinic is reproductive coercion and violence! That is the UK, though, so I think even the USA hasn't reached that level as yet due to robust freedom of speech rights.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I support rioters being shot. Thought they should’ve with BLM. Same with J6.
Of course, if Congress was not illegitimately closed for a bad cold, J6 doesn’t happen.
Problem is, if you're not going to shoot BLM rioters, you don't get to shoot J6 rioters. Simple as.
Sure. I think that’s the thing that pisses off a lot of reds. There was a tepid responses to months of serious rioting and looting.
Then maximal responses to the one red coded riot.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I certainly support the police using force against rioters and ending riots swiftly, but I don't really put rioting into the category of things that get you summarily executed, in the same way that, being an active shooter would. I view rioting as a crime more in line with vandalism or assault. If you are assaulting someone with a knife, then the police are justified in shooting you, if you are assaulting someone with your fists, although it could still be deadly, I would prefer the cops to try and physically restrain and arrest you rather than giving you new holes.
Does that include say arson?
Probably, fire is pretty deadly even if modern electronics have gotten so safe that most people have forgotten.
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