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 -
The difference is they weren't random bystanders whose intentions are unclear and who deserve the benefit of the doubt. They came there to harass and impede ICE officers, and they harassed and impeded ICE officers. ICE officers were entirely reasonable to expect escalation.
No it does not. There were dozens of attacks, including vehicular attacks, shootings, and others, on ICE officers. These attacks are universally endorsed and lauded by the left, and various trainings - one of which Good and her partner completed - instruct how to attack and impede ICE officers most effectively. And as it always happens, among activists there are those who are more active and eager to go further than others. That happened many times already, including to the very same agent who was attacked this time. So it is not a stretch at all that somebody might try to attack the ICE officer with the vehicle, it's a fact. And it's not a stretch that this somebody may be somebody who is already actively taunting and harassing ICE agents, and went as far as receiving training how to do that. It's a very plausible conclusion.
What intentions are you talking about exactly? Intention to impede ICE doesn't come close to supporting a reasonable belief that she had the intention of running him over.
Dozens out of how many interactions? The US has 350 million people. Extremely rare events that will never happen to you or to anyone you know happen every day. Dozens doesn't even come close to that level.
I can totally accept the idea that he might have reasonably thought there was chance she would run him over and that there was a certain level of hostility that made it more likely. But the level of risk aversion it takes to say that that rises to a sufficient level to justify killing someone is astounding to me.
This indicates to me that he putting himself into situations he should not be putting himself into. To the extent this fear of being hit by a car is legitimate, it would be far better for the police to respond to it by avoiding the situations that lead to it. There are reports coming out about how poorly trained and selected these officers are and I suspect that goes a long way to explaining these incidents. Do you really think it's preferrable that ICE kills people to send the message that people should stop protesting them in the way they've been doing rather than adopt standard practices that avoid these risks entirely?
What's a stretch is that this particular person in this particular situation is going to attack him and will do so in a way that poses sufficient risk to him that killing her was the appropriate response.
Where are you getting the idea that she was taunting ICE agents from?
Yeah, I know, that old argument of "why are you obsessing with three people the defendant has murdered, when there are literally billions of people HE DID NOT MURDER?!" That's not how it works. It's not a random probabilistic event that is equally distributed. This is something done by specific segment of people with a specific purpose (shut down immigration law enforcement) and that makes probabilistic arguments against general population a complete nonsense.
You are literally doing The Babylon Bee here: https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-say-things-would-be-much-safer-if-law-enforcement-would-just-stop-trying-to-enforce-the-law
Protip: this is supposed to be satire, not your best argument. It's supposed to be funny because it's supposed to be ridiculous, taking it to the most absurd extreme. Unfortunately, for people like you it's your starting point.
This particular person in this particular situation was already attacking him. That's the whole point why those persons drove to that location and remained there. Their only purpose for being there was to interfere with ICE operations. That is an established fact, the only question was how far are they prepared to go, are they just annoyance, an arrestable misdemeanor or a lethal threat? And that decision needs to be taken in seconds, and if you are wrong then you die or remain crippled for the rest of your life. And it is also a fact that pretty much all of them have no problem with ICE officers being hurt since they consider them Nazi gestapo. Not all of them are fine with doing it by themselves, but vast majority of them are fine with it happening, and they are on record many times proclaiming so. So the question is, when exactly one of them says "fuck it, today it's going to be me!" and goes all in? When you have an SUV driving over you, it's not a stretch at all to assume this is the case.
Her partner was, she is on video doing this. And then she shouted "drive, baby, drive!" while ICE officer was in front of the car. And then the baby drove. Maybe you in this situation would think "well, there are 8 billions of people on Earth, and none of them are trying to run be over, so the probability that this particular one is trying to run me over is vanishingly small, I should just stay in the front of the moving car and it will surely be fine". That's not how normal people think.
Please stop lying and implying I think something that I did not say I think. ICE never killed anybody "to send the message". The particular officer killed someone to stop that someone from driving over him with her SUV. Lying is bad. Please stop doing it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link