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 lots of things that could have been done differently. Many are not about what Jonathan Ross did but about not allowing situations like this to happen in the first place. Things like (and some of these will be unpalatable):
-Try not to run towards people and grab at their car door handles
-Try not to walk in front of vehicles
-Don't be scary – wear uniforms and ID
-Work to build trust in the community and communicate with residents like other police forces do
-Work in collaboration with local law enforcement and if they don't want to, take steps to understand why and what can be done differently
-Don't draw your gun unless you know what you are attempting to do with it
-Take anger management and body language training so you get less riled up by protesters
-Don't do generalised sweeps where you are at large in a neighbourhood, be more targeted
Maybe local law enforcement could support ICE efforts and manage the protestors? Oh, wait sanctuary city mayors refuse to do this!
More options
Context Copy link
How does one counter the literal government of the state suggesting that you are unwelcome?
Is arresting state officials who are making your job more dangerous on the table? Can you target those spreading the sort of claims that make civilians treat you like an enemy?
We do remember that people have literally set up armed ambushes for ICE, right? They're objectively at risk of being shot by random civilians.
My exact compromise suggestion was "let the Minnesota authorities carry out the arrests safely" so we don't get Feds in the neighborhoods.
Is there any particular reason this wasn't feasible? (Rhetorical, we know they would refuse).
And if their reason for refusal is "we don't want Federal Immigration law enforced" then what exactly can you then do in response? Federal Law overrides state law under our current Constitutional setup!
"Try not to walk in front of vehicles" doesn't work well if the protestors are willing to physically obstruct things with their vehicles.
If you really want to get further and further back to the core causes, I'd point out "Don't allow unchecked illegal immigration when you have the power to prevent it" solves this entirely but that was a decision made WELL above the pay grades of those involved in this altercation.
its my same issue with regard to the demands for "Due Process" for immigration detainees. "Process" wasn't followed when these folks were entering the country, which necessarily makes it harder to provide process when removing them. There's now millions of them running around the country, so a massively increased LEO presence is the only way to make any headway for removal.
And more to the point, all the "We're playing nice and friendly" approach was pretty much how things were during most of Obama and Biden's terms, and THEY WERE STILL DEMONIZED. The 'Border Patrol Agent wielding a whip" framing happened during Biden's term.
So I'm all for accountability for Gov't agencies... but that has to go both ways. If elites and state official don't want immigration law enforced, and they aren't using the standard governmental process to change the law, it is not very reasonable for them to act in ways that gets regular people involved in conflicts with Gov't agents. They should put some of their own skin in the game.
If Trump was giving ICE the same mission in every state, asking local PDs to assist them might be reasonable. Instead, he is sending ICE into cities which voted against him, and agricultural workers in rural areas are not deported at all.
What Trump is doing here is clearly selective enforcement, alike to pardoning Hernández while kidnapping Maduro. I do not feel that local PDs are obliged to help with enforcement action whose purpose it is clearly to annoy the local taxpayer.
Yes- that's absolutely a valid and significant criticism of the program. There shouldn't be exceptions to these policies; both Red and Blue must give up their slaves because "giving up the slaves for the future good of the nation" was the stated goal of this campaign. And if they're so vital in that area- that both Red and Blue agree on the assertion they should be there (and clearly, they do, hence their current immunity)- maybe pass some legislation that legitimizes their presence. They have the House, but that doesn't stop Blue from introducing bills. Why don't they? Well...
And then we could even talk about the more boring logistical stuff, like "well, they aren't really driving up the housing prices as much out in the middle of nowhere", "it wouldn't have as much of an impact per capita in the immediate vicinity", "perhaps food prices were more important than the stated goal", or perhaps most importantly (and likely more fitting for the Trump admin), "isn't going to remind the sizeable minority of city-dwellers that did vote for this that showing up to vote is not pointless".
But that don't bleed, so it don't lead. And I'm unconvinced anything that sophisticated is on the forefront of the average protestor's mind, either; I believe being angry they can't have it their way and the resulting hysteria that they're feeding the neighborhood indentured servant to the functional equivalent of a wood chipper is the dominating impulse there.
And when the better options- say, options 1 through 81- rely on an educated and measured populace, I find it kind of hard to blame the Feds for choosing the 82nd.
More options
Context Copy link
They're not obliged but neither should that be a veto of federal enforcement. From what I gather, more deportations have actually occurred in states that are cooperating, but with no real drama. If the locals do not want to cooperate even to the extent of refusing to enforce blatant lawbreaking when directed at targets they deem acceptable (and how's that for your selective enforcement, by the way), they can't complain that the enforcement measures are harsher there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Irrelevant. In the purely political arena, maybe it's fine to see "rules for me but not for thee" but not in the legal arena. The Constitution is pretty darn clear about due process. You do not get a free pass to ignore the Constitution just because other people in prior years ignored (or twisted) federal law. Full stop.
If the other side can ignore the rules to let in countless millions of illegals, I'm sure as shit not going to support my side fucking around giving each individual one a full hearing/appeal/whatever before deporting them. That just amounts to giving up. I'll wipe my ass on the constitution and your personal moral opinion first, god knows neither one stopped the Dems from letting anyone in.
This is an extremely dangerous opinion and I thank God few people think this way because otherwise we really wouldn't have a country.
You seem to literally exactly think this way, and that's why we're at serious risk of not having a country.
More options
Context Copy link
"Sorry guys, the other side broke the rules to let in eleventy million zillion people, so now you're stuck with them forever and ever. I mean it's either that or break the rules yourselves, and that would clearly be unthinkable."
Keep it up champ, you're helping create those people you're so afraid of.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'll concede that some of my suggestions are at a much higher pay grade than officers on the ground or within ICE. One point I disagree with in terms of reactions to this episode though is to put much of the blame on Jonathan Ross. I guess he might well be a bad guy but I think such episodes are pretty much inevitable and the result of poor leadership decisions as well as poor training.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link