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 -
Then why do the police need to shoot suspects to keep them from fleeing? Maybe I misunderstood your point above.
I'm not suggesting they pull back from enforcing basic rules. I'm suggesting that this particular office adhere to the long-established and current practice of not standing in front of moving cars with a drawn pistol to stop them from fleeing. There are other ways of enforcing rules.
Yes, because it's not the same. It's a lot easier to just get out of the way of a moving car than it is to escape someone with a knife. There is a common thread in these arguments defending the shooter where they treat self-defence situations as binary. There is either a threat or there isn't. But in reality, there is always a threat. It's a question of whether the threat is sufficient. The threat posed by someone swinging a knife is much less than someone driving a car at a low speed with unclear intent.
How do you know she intended to hit him with her car? How do you know he was hit with the car?
It also matters that shooting someone driving a car is a terrible way of stopping the car, whereas it is an excellent way of stopping someone with a knife.
It's not hard for me to see how someone who ignores all of these details might think the shooting was justified. What is hard to see how is it remains justified after considering them.
Even if it works as a deterrent, there are better alternatives, which is why it's not standard police practice.
For protecting people's lives, not for preventing suspects from fleeing.
I know, and I disagree with that very strongly. They're not at all like other deadly weapons.
It would be like if it were normal for almost everyone to walk around with a gun, and if someone were being detained by the police and tried to run away, the fact that they had a gun on them justified shooting them. There would have to be some action taken by the suspect that made it likely that he planned on shooting the officer trying to detain him. That action could not be some small thing that had a remote chance of indicating an intention to kill.
I didn't say that.
More options
Context Copy link