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 -
So after a year in which there have been 66 vehicle ramming attacks against ICE agents, you don't think it's reasonable to believe that the hostile activist who has been following you around all morning and is now parked sideways across the street in front of you, is more likely than not to be intending to use their vehicle to disrupt your convoy?
Exactly what is it reasonable to believe about the intentions of the hostile activist who has been following you around all morning and has now parked her car sideways across the street in front of you?
Let me lay it out more clearly.
You are an ICE agent. You are in a city whose governor and mayor have stirred up resentment against your lawful activities, in which activists have been organizing to oppose you.
A woman and her wife have been following you all morning, antagonizing you as you go about your work.
Later, as you drive down a street, you come across these women, with their car parked sideways across the street. You recognize them as people you have been having hostile interactions with all morning.
There have been 66 vehicle ramming attacks against ice agents in the past year.
Given the facts above, what is it reasonable for you to believe in this moment?
I do not believe it is possible for someone whose brain has not been swiss-cheesed by ideological capture to answer "actually I think it's most likely that she has totally legal reasons to be doing that which have nothing to do with me." If that's your answer you are an NPC, you have no theory of mind or independent opinions of your own.
I would be surprised if a single one of those attacks was committed by a protestor who was not actively being arrested. And given how much federal officials have lied about the circumstances of this incident, and even more flagrant lies about things such as why innocent people were sent to a foreign torture prison, I put very little stock in those numbers. Presumably the ICE agents believe them though.
Ah yes, the classic method of productive conversation, where you put words in someone's mouth and then call them names based on the opinions you made up for them. Surely you understand that the only two options are not "they are just there by coincidence" and "they are waiting to murder you"?
The couple were obviously there to document, protest and/or obstruct ICE activities. But I maintain that nobody would have been hurt if the agent had made the slightest attempt to act like a responsible authority figure and deescalate the situation, or if he had given her a chance to follow his orders in order to arrest her.
Sure, the option that I would believe in that situation would be "they are there for the purpose of committing the crime of obstructing law enforcement," and I would approach the situation with that in mind, and you admit this:
Notably, obstruction being a federal crime which, being federal law enforcement, they have the authority to make arrests for.
I really don't know how to get through to you the very simple fact that law enforcement has zero obligation to be kind to lawbreakers, and in fact, being unkind to lawbreakers is their explicit role in society, and if you do not wish law enforcement to be unkind to you, it is very easy to not commit crimes. How have you managed to reach adulthood without understanding this?
She did have an opportunity to follow orders and comply peacefully with her arrest. She used that opportunity to shift her car into drive and accelerate into a police officer. Did you watch the video?
Look, I am well aware that from your perspective her actions leading up to this video are illegitimate, and thus she ultimately bears responsibility for what happened. I obviously disagree but I am not trying to convince you otherwise, not are you likely going to convince me otherwise.
But what I am talking about is the few seconds we see in this video where it goes from angry to violent, and it seems pretty clear to me that that happened when the agent started swearing at her and trying to open her car door. I think this behaviour is counter-productive for any reasonable goal, including that of trying to apprehend illegal immigrants, and indicates someone that does not have the appropriate temperament to be in law enforcement.
My dude, her actions leading up to this video are crimes punishable by up to a year in federal prison.
Arresting lawbreakers is actually a pretty reasonable goal for a law enforcement officer, actually, and I would expect any productive approach to doing this to involve physically apprehending the suspect.
I'm pretty sure that willingness to physically apprehend someone you intend to arrest is exactly the temperament that is required for a job that involves arresting people. Meanwhile, accelerating your vehicle directly into a police officer in response to someone trying to arrest you indicates that you do not have the appropriate temperament to be spending your free time deliberately antagonizing law enforcement.
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