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 -
Oh, I don't take anything you say here to constitute "arguing against me", really. I was very much reacting to Opt-out's premise that it would have been a good shoot even if the specific circumstances did not objectively require lethal force specifically because it would have a chilling effect on other would-be obstructionists. That is the position which seemed to me to be ghoulish, extremist, and impractical. I happily recognize that this is not what the average defender of the shoot believes, and certainly, I would find the notion that Jonathan Ross shot Good for anything even resembling that reason to be farcically unlikely.
(As to the facts of the case: we part, slightly, in that I am somewhat less convinced than you that this was a situation where, in hindsight, lethal force was in fact warranted. Or to put it another way, it seems very likely to me that in the world where Ross doesn't shoot, no one dies at all. Of that, I am something like 70% confident. With a much lesser threshold of confidence, let's say 30%, I suspect that there are lessons to be drawn from that first observation, which, if taken to heart by LEOs going forward, may save lives should similar incidents occur. Even if I'm right about both those points, however, I still wouldn't call this a "bad shoot" in the sense that Ross should be disciplined for it. Some percentage of split-second judgemental calls will be wrong in hindsight, that doesn't make the cops in question murderers.)
I'm actually fairly confident of the same thing - I've been fairly confident since the beginning that she wanted to speed off dramatically, and the cop she struck shot at her because he was struck by her vehicle. Lethal force was not warranted in hindsight, but of course he didn't know that at the time.
Right, well, that leaves us with very little disagreement between us, if any! Fancy that on the Motte. Miracles do happen.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link