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 -
Not sure I understand what you're saying. Of course this situation required a confluence of factors to end how it did. But I believe one of those factors is that ICE agents are regularly escalating situations that could be deescalated (many such cases in videos coming out of Minneapolis). I assume this is some combination of top-down direction, poor training, and internal culture. It would be better if this wasn't the case.
How often are agents provocateurs interfering with ICE? How often do cops have to restrain drug-addled subjects resisting arrest? Both occur pretty regularly, right? Most of the time both situations end up with no consequences; very rarely something bad happens and then it's the cause du jour for a round of mass stupidity.
No amount of training gets you perfection.
How exactly does one deescalate against people wanting escalation, short of giving up and unilateral disarmament? That's what I mean by expecting perfection.
It would be better if protestors didn't interfere. It would be better if we hadn't spent years ignoring the border. It would be better if men were angels and we didn't need government at all.
Alas, people Will Not Just.
If someone is not being violent, you make sure they are doing something that warrants arrest, you tell them they are under arrest or otherwise make it clear they are being arrested, and you give them a chance to comply before assaulting them. But that is clearly not happening in many cases. Here's a couple more that could very easily have also resulted in someone dying:
https://old.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/1q9xczh/ice_pushes_man_into_oncoming_traffic/ Shoving someone into traffic is clearly not the appropriate response here.
https://old.reddit.com/r/ICE_Watch/comments/1qc21p8/ice_abducted_a_woman_trying_to_get_to_a_doctors/ Hard to know exactly what's happening here, obviously the headline on that post is overblown. But it sure seems to me like agents are telling her to get out of her car and to keep driving at the same time. Most blatant though is at 43 seconds where an agent smashes her passenger side window for no reason. Exactly how is this supposed to help things?
https://old.reddit.com/r/ICE_Watch/comments/1qavmee/ice_in_minneapolis_ramming_civilian_cars_through Again, an overblown headline, and I'll admit that there's no proof this is actually ICE although it seems likely. But the correct response to someone blocking you is to ask them to move, and to arrest them if they won't, not to push their car out of the way.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=QZTxiBQOnZ4 Agent attacks someone for no reason.
I don't doubt that it is difficult for ICE et al. to accomplish their mission while respecting the rights of protestors, and only acting against those who genuinely step over the line. I guess I would just say "too bad". There are many different levers in politics, law, and society, and if you don't control enough of them, you don't get to accomplish your goals. If you don't have buy-in from the local populace, police, or political system, it's a feature of the system that that makes things difficult, not a bug.
The response of an authoritarian to this problem is to send in the jackboots. That is genuinely what this feels like to me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This seems delusional to me. They are dealing with people who are committed to using escalation as a tactic. There is almost no chance de-escalation techniques will do anything other than aid the obstruction.
Just as an example, why at 43 seconds into this video does an agent smash the passenger window of the car? What possible reason is there for that?https://old.reddit.com/r/ICE_Watch/comments/1qc21p8/ice_abducted_a_woman_trying_to_get_to_a_doctors/
Why does this agent push a man nearly in front of a bus? Is that what you would consider reasonable protocol to use to arrest someone who is doing nothing but standing in front of your car? Surely the first step would be to tell them they are being arrested? https://old.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/1q9xczh/ice_pushes_man_into_oncoming_traffic/
You don't have to be under arrest for a police officer to be able to issue you a lawful order to exit a vehicle or move out of the way. If you decide you don't want to, then you are obstructing and that is legitimate cause for arrest.
Often, police don't like announcing someone is under arrest until they are in custody or at least a controlled situation, because it tends to increase the odds that someone will flee or start to fight.
So, in the first case, it's hard to say for sure but it's plausible that this woman has been given lawful orders to exit her vehicle and not done so. The next step is forcible removal, which necessitates breaking the window if it is rolled up.
In the second case, shoving someone out of the way who is deliberately obstructing them is perfectly reasonable, and a lesser use of force than arresting then. The proximity of the bus is less than ideal, but mistakes are inevitable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link