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 -
There are certain tells that you know someone is lying about this. This is one of them.
By way of example, because I guess this is what schools do now, or maybe just my daughter's old school, "Please walk away" was the prescribed phrase kids were told to use when another kid was bothering them. Sounds polite right? Your inner monologue reading that probably made it sound as nice as can be, yeah?
Yeah, that's now how the kids say it. They've found a way to pour as much passive aggression, or even overt aggression, into that polite phrase as possible. It became a universal means of taunting. Get up in another kid's business who was quietly doing their work, and start chanting it at them in that shitty sing song way that comes so naturally to kids.
If you actually watched the video, you'd know how Good was saying "I'm not mad at you" was not at all matching the blank page reading of the words. Nor were her actual actions consistent with it, nor were the goads and taunts of her wife. And the fact the left is falling back on the same defense of their shitty behavior as a pack of feral 6 year olds is concerning to say the least. "But she said 'I'm not mad at you'! This is unfair!"
It reminds me of other protests actions I've seen, with crowds of antifa beating people senseless while shouting "nonviolence". Or punching people in the face doing nothing while screaming "I'm being attacked!" I don't know if the cognitive dissonance created by them saying the exact opposite of what they are doing is the point. Or if it's purely to enable liars like you (or maybe you are just repeating the lies you've been told, you are a liar by proxy. I'm not mad at you), to say with a straight face "The crowd was chanting 'nonviolence' as police fired tear gas canisters and waded into the crowd with riot gear".
Anyways, this whole screed is pack of half truths, lies of omission, and naked emotional pleading. I'd rather have a country, thanks.
The complicated but true thing is that Good appears to be de-escalating, but her wife is obviously escalating. It's tempting to treat them as a single unit, but that's not really true. Shocker: they are different people. And anyways, good policing is telling Good, "if you continue to block the road you will be arrested" and then taking it from there. Bad policing is for example the other agent reaching his hand into her window to try and unlock the door from the inside as she's got the car in gear. Bad policing is boxing in a car from all sides including the front with bodies. Good policing is using the minimum necessary force for a situation, something the policies and law alike instruct to do. Bad policing is jumping directly to force on a whim, and lethal force on a split second.
But all of this is beside the point to some extent. You are implicitly (!) alleging that Good is correctly and objectively categorized in with dishonest protestors who would punch a man while screaming they are being attacked. There's insufficient evidence to claim this. And that's the point about how strong the biases have become that you see this shooting and go "well, she/they deserved it".
Do you believe that the officer should be charged, or punished in some alternate way? I'm not asking what you think the result should be. I'm asking whether you think he should even be investigated and considered for punishment.
I'd also like you to address the Trump and Noem comments. It's plainly obvious that they are deceitful, that's not even really up for debate. How serious a problem do you think the comments are and why?
How on earth is insisting we go through the process for Ross risking not having a country? Talk about hyperbole. And you really don't think the overall response was callous in the slightest?
My personal opinion is that this agent is too trigger-happy, possibly due to his having been attacked with a vehicle in the past, and that it would be appropriate to reassign him to different duty while he conducted psychological examinations and additional use-of-force training. But that's me holding him to a much higher standard due to him being a police officer. I don't think he should be criminally prosecuted or personally liable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not at all. My first impression is to read it as either a condescending sneer or a threat of violence, depending on the tone. It’s crazy that someone would offer that to children as a social script.
"Just walk away." is the first thing I think of ... I can't believe it didn't make the Trope page!
"He's pretty good!"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am predicting that "I don't hate you" is gonna become a common right wing troll against leftists in the same way.
'I'm not mad at you!', even better. Should go to the same list as 'Bless your heart' (LOL), 'i'm sorry that you feel this way' (the way Japanese prime ministers 'apologized' for war crimes, I guess?), 'I hope one day you'll be able to feel less hated and persecuted' (h/t darwin2500).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Surely in saying this you're actually agreeing that Good was acting like a teasing teenager in a school hall or a sarcastic sitcom character, rather than like a domestic terrorist?
You seem to be implying that using these phrases is a kind of acting of the type: "teenager-y" which you juxtapose against "terroristy." It's you, you are the one being dishonest in exactly the way previously mentioned.
These phrases allow for a disconnect between the words and actions. What Good is saying is irrelevant to how she was acting. How she was acting is she struck someone with a car. The steelman for calling that a domestic terrorist is people use cars all the time for domestic terrorism.
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t think domestic terrorist in the right word. But she was part of an organized group trying to illegally, routinely thwart the legal exercise of federal police power. She was targeting civilians so I don’t terrorism fits the bill. But it isn’t civil disobedience either. It’s some third category.
More options
Context Copy link
If Regina George hits you with a car, did her Mean Girls taunting somehow positively affect the transfer of kinetic energy?
More options
Context Copy link
Two things can be true at the same time. She was being a profoundly obnoxious and immature criminal. Hardly unique, nor exculpatory.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link