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 -
Let me stop you right there.
I would, based on what I have seen so far, be inclined to convict Ross of manslaughter if I was on his jury (which I won't be, as a foreigner). I don't know the law well enough to say if the prosecution could sell me on murder 2, and there is always the possibility that the defense could convince me of their story, of course.
However, if you are saying that this is "obviously a murder", you are distorting the truth, almost as much as the bloody Trump administration.
I do not think that anyone will be able to prove that what went through Ross head was "finally that bitch made my day and gave me an excuse to cap her". It seems entirely possible that Ross was unaware that she was not aiming the car for him before he fired his shots and was under the impression that she was going to run him over with her SUV unless he stopped her.
In that case, even a manslaughter conviction would hinge on messy little details of the case. Would a reasonable officer in his situation (who was not previously physically harmed by cars, and not distracted by making his little movie on what was presumably his private mobile phone instead of relying on his body cam) have concluded the same thing? Did he forfeit his right to self-defense by recklessly placing himself in a situation where he would be forced to resort to lethal violence, possibly in violation of tactical rules how to behave around a suspect's vehicle?
If the car had been in neutral while Ross shot, I would agree that it looked like straightforward murder. But it was moving forward, and reasonable people could disagree over the interpretation of all of these messy little details -- many here did disagree with me, in fact.
I have seen nobody here claim Trump's version, e.g. that she was a domestic terrorist, presumably because she was trying to kill Ross (but weirdly incompetent at driving over a person just in front of her car). Sadly, this makes your version "obviously murder" the most outlandish claim I have seen argued here. (Though my the trophy for maximum disagreement still goes to "I would acquit ICE no matter what the facts were", but you could still get a tie if you were willing to unconditionally convict ICE regardless of the facts.)
Just curious; what do you think thé German police would have done in that precise situation? Resisting arrest and attempting to flee through a police cordon is suicide by cop.
More options
Context Copy link
Sort of. As much as I hate the concept, it's just the "non-central fallacy". A terrorist is someone who uses violence for political ends, driving a car at someone is violent, and she did it at an anti-ICE protest, ergo: terrorist. Inaccurate and lame, especially since that a businessman like Trump probably has access to talented marketers that could come with a better term conveying the same message.
I disagree: never mind rioters, this would make every soldier or insurrectionist a "terrorist". The clue's in the name: the salient quality of terrorism is that it involves acts of extreme violence specifically intended to create fear in a wider populace. Breaking your way into the White House, killing everyone, then declaring yourself Emperor of America by right of conquest: definitely political, definitely violent, but not terrorism. Killing a thousand innocent randos across the country, then broadcasting a message in which you demand to be handed control of the country in exchange for the randomized killing to stop: terrorism.
Terrorism is a special kind of evil because it is an attempt by a weaker party to make up for its handicap by fighting maximally dirty, and we want to disincentivize that kind of thing even harder than regular political violence. I'd even go so far as to argue that terrorism needn't necessarily be political (the demands could be anything, really), though apolitical terrorism is certainly non-central.
The claim that Good was a "domestic terrorist" is actually plausible in principle. Had she 100% deliberately intended to run over an ICE officer with her car, and had her intent behind doing so been "this will scare other ICE agents out of doing their jobs for fear of the same thing happening to them", that would qualify as terrorism. I don't believe she was thinking anything like this, mind you. But it would be a perfectly conventional example of the class, car or no car.
More options
Context Copy link
That seems to expand the word terrorist beyond all usefulness.
X is on their way to a demonstration or political convention. X misses a red light and hits a pedestrian. Violence? Check. Political motive? Check. Ergo: terrorist.
Outside of Trump's mind, in what we might call the real world, not even every political motivated violence (which Good's behavior is almost certainly not -- she was politically motivated and reckless, but her obviously politically motivated actions were not reckless and her reckless actions were not politically motivated beyond reasonable doubt) is considered terrorism. Someone who throws a rock at cops in riot gear during a political demonstration (despicable as that is) is generally considered a rioter, not a terrorist.
Terrorism commonly involves serious, generally premeditated violence (most often murder, but arson or maimings would likewise qualify) for the purpose of causing general fear to further some policy. That sick fuck who throws rocks will generally hot hope to cause enough damage to cause widespread fear. If he decides to throw a hand grenade at the cops instead of a rock, then that could well be called terrorism.
In short, there is applying a strong spin to statements (see "the media very rarely lies") and whatever Trump is doing. The press might call the Moon "the brightest celestial body" (implied: visible at that time and place), but Trump will just go out and call what is obviously the Moon 'the Sun'. And then some will come along and try to argue that technically, he is not 100% wrong, after all, most of the light we get from the Moon is ultimately sunlight, and would it not make sense to expand the definition of 'the Sun' to also cover the reflected sunlight from other celestial bodies such as the Moon or Mars -- which would be almost invisible if the Sun went off, after all -- in a blatantly motivated argument.
Yeah, hence the "non-central fallacy". I never said I liked it or that I agree with it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link