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 -
Is obstruction a protestor's right? Are they truly that protected of a class that they can do basically whatever they want? The whole conflation of action and speech really went off the rails somewhere along the way.
We should build a wall around Minnesota instead of Mexico.
Also the results of the last event of insufficient buy-in from the local political system was putting them down by the hundreds of thousands and telling states' rights to get fucked. Federalism won the day, baby!
Was Eisenhower wrong to federalize the guard?
Yes, obstruction for political purposes is something you have a right to in my opinion. That doesn't mean you can't be arrested for obstruction. But they should not be pushed in front of a bus for obstruction when there is a clear alternative.
As for the second part, fair enough, that is indeed not a general principle I actually hold, I'm just judging things based on the object-level morality. It fundamentally just seems clear to me that the behavior of agents on the ground and of federal leadership is just as much about intimidating political opponents as it is about accomplishing their stated goals (I mean the president has said this more or less explicitly).
The same being true of the protestors [and the federal faction they prefer], of course. It's not possible to vote for a party promising not to do this.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean, but I don't believe that any Democratic leadership is promising or suggesting to send federal agents in masks and military gear against their political enemies.
Jan 6 raids and arrests were regularly conducted by FBI agents in masks and in military gear, and this was happening during a chorus of Democratic leadership saying they are going to hunt them down and then the DOJ conducting the largest manhunt in American history.
Tim Walz ordered masked infantry with armed vehicles down the streets of Minneapolis spraying pepperballs at people on their porches to enforce stay at home orders during the Covid hysteria. It's hard to not watch that and acknowledge it wasn't meant to also intimidate political opponents.
The point being made is it's impossible to do something like the above without it also serving the purpose of intimidating political enemies and that the protestors are also engaging in behavior from standing in front of law enforcement, making threats against them, screaming, ramming, etc., for the purpose of intimidating their political enemies and getting them to stop what they're doing.
Neither "ICE agents" nor "Jan 6ers" are comparable to "residents of Minneapolis". The equivalent would be, say, sending the FBI into random red towns and arresting anyone with Confederate symbology on suspicion of hate speech.
One, of course they're comparable. You may not think they're the same situations, but they're comparable in that there are many similarities. FBI agents and National Guardsmen exercising police power are comparable to ICE agents. People committing obstruction are comparable to Jan6ers, many which were indeed charged with a type of obstruction "crime."
Not to mention, it directly addresses what you wrote:
Yeah, this has been done repeatedly be Democratic leadership. This has happened repeatedly for decades from Ruby Ridge to Waco. And each of these things did indeed serve the dual purpose of intimidation of political opponents, just like the "protestors" in Minneapolis, MN, are engaged in behavior which has the dual purpose of intimidation of political opponents.
you think this is a genuine and honest characterization of the people being arrested by ICE in Minneapolis? Not that they're arresting people obviously committing obstruction of justice. Not that they're using violence against people obviously committing obstruction of justice. Not that they're arresting anyone on suspicion of committing obstruction of justice.
But they're just going around and arresting anyone with gay flags?
that's hard to believe
Re: your edit in your post above, that is a response to BLM riots, not COVID. I think it's bad but it clearly was not aimed at the right.
Waco and Ruby ridge were also targeted at specific people, identified in advance, who were believed to be breaking the law.
Meanwhile ICE is cruising around Minneapolis looking for minorities. They have arrested several native americans and apparently are not willing to let them go unless ICE is given jurisdiction on reservation land: https://nativenewsonline.net/sovereignty/oglala-sioux-tribe-rejects-ice-conditions-for-information-on-detained-members They are arresting people who are in the middle of court proceedings to determine their status. And they are arresting people who are protesting without obstructing.
Obviously ICE needs more advanced racists in their ranks. Embarrassing racism 101 mistake to grab those Indians when looking for the other kind.
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