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 -
Something about this case seems much more cut and dried than the rest of the ones you mention. All of the relevant facts are on camera, from multiple angles. There's very little else you need to know. And there's still hardcore disagreement!
For a counter-point, take this this case from 2019 where a cop kills a parent at a school. There's bodycam video of the arrest and shootout . A very left-wing activist was causing a disturbance at a public school. It's unrelated to left-wing activism, more of a co-parenting dispute. Anyway, a police officer told him he had to leave. He refused so the police officer tried to arrest him. During the struggle the guy pulls a gun out and shoots twice. The officer responds with deadly force, killing him.
Consensus was achieved fairly quickly! In public commentary, there was not much disagreement over who in the wrong. A few left-wing anarchist types thought it was unjust but most normal people seemed to accept the police officer was justified.
Today's case makes it clear to me if this exact situation from 2019 was re-played but it was an ICE agent instead of a police resource officer it would be seen as a murder by every Democrat.
There's an obvious point here where ordinary cops have a real job maintaining public order, whereas nothing about what ICE does requires them to act the way they do other than the appetite for ostentatious thuggery.
Please elaborate. Given the Resistance (TM) to ICE doing its job's increasing boldness and aggression, escalations by ICE officers are predictable, if unfortunate.
They could train their agents better, conduct themselves in a less escalatory fashion, stop attacking protestors, stop trying to intimidate people for mouthing off to them, not wear masks, prioritize targeted operations over open-ended sweeps, not racially profile people or violate the civil rights of citizens by detaining them on no grounds beyond their skin color...
Like, the conceit of Millerites is that illegal immigration constitutes this overwhelming problem that justifies extreme, unconstitutional measures and massive expense, but it just... doesn't. These sweeps are not preventing some dire outcome. They're satisfying the anxieties and appetites of thuggish nativists.
It's predictable in the sense that they're bottom of the barrel recruits with limited training working for an administration that tacitly endorses police brutality.
Can you name a single time this happened?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavanaugh_stop
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ice-apprehension-of-us-citizens-derided-as-kavanaugh-stops
https://ij.org/client/leonardo-garcia-venegas/
You're welcome. (I'm sure you'll have some explanation for how explicit racial profiling isn't racial profiling)
Only one of those is even pretending to be an example. So, in the 700k deportations they did last year, ICE briefly detained a single citizen who was on a work crew with a bunch of other Hispanic guys who totally were illegal?
Did the anti-ICE folks finally accept that "guy who was working security on the weed farm that used illegal minors as child slaves" wasn't the most compelling case?
Seriously, if this is the best you have to offer then ICE is doing a spectacular job.
BTW,
You're welcome.
You asked for a single example. I gave you a single example.
This is the product of about nine seconds of research to recall the details of a half-remembered case. I see no reason to put more effort into it when past experience has shown that there is no amount of unambiguous evidence that you would accept at face value, let alone as demonstrative of a pattern.
Sure, it's just that when I do that for things like excessive anti-gun laws I come up with examples like "black mom who had a totally legal gun in the back of her car by her home state's standards who was arrested and prosecuted for having a gun while getting gas because she didn't quite appreciate that her route passed through New Jersey". Or "veteran who was stopped in DC, and then arrested and prosecuted for having a spent shell casing in the trunk of his car".
In both cases, I hope them to be persuasive because of the vast chasm between the extremely minor infraction and then facing years of jail time. Imagine if the best example I could come up with was "The ATF went after this guy just because he owned a gun (and also, he was part of a gang of people that shot up a store and he was totally there but he says he didn't shoot)". I don't imagine that anyone on the other side would find that even slightly persuasive, and I would probably have to have an "Are we the baddies?" moment.
The demonstrated pattern is that you have nothing remotely resembling "unambiguous" evidence. I've been asking this question for a year now, and every single example makes ICE seem actually extremely professional and reasonable.
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
More options
Context Copy link