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's a non-zero chance they believe protestors are a protected class with extreme leniency, that well could include a grey area around "you can hit cops if you don't intend to kill them," but I'm not familiar enough with op to be confident in that.
Wait, there are multiple people confused about what OP is confused about?
I'd have presumed the grey area here is a belief like "it's illegal to hit cops with your car, but the response to a crime that poses no threat of death or grievous injury is supposed to be an arrest, not a shooting" (correct!) combining with a belief like "it should have been immediately clear to the ICE officer that that suddenly-accelerating SUV posed no threat of death or grievous injury to anyone" (not "obviously" correct, unless there's some really good video that contradicts what I've seen from seemingly-good-enough videos).
This actually is a scissor statement out of mythology, isn't it? It's not just obviously true to some people and obviously false to others, but so obviously so that people can't even imagine what chain of reasoning might lead someone to take the contrary position.
Hopefully @EverythingIsFine will pop in to explain that I'm right ... or that someone else is, or a different chain of reasoning still. If my guess is right then there's so many failures of theory-of-mind going on right now that I have to wonder how badly I'm doing myself.
This was my point, maybe I should have put it at the end and not the beginning. The official position is that Good, after "stalking, harassing, and impeding" then committed a coordinated pre-trained "domestic act of terrorism" and "violently, willfully, and viciously" ran over an officer with who "followed his training and did exactly what he was taught to do." Nearly every load-bearing part of that entire position is false. And it's batshit insane that people read that, do not seem to care that it's so clearly incorrect (falling back to an unintentionally bailey of their own interpretation).
Instead their conclusion is, to tweak your phrase, "it should have been immediately clear to the ICE officer and to viewers that that suddenly-accelerating SUV did pose a threat of death or grievous injury" and that there is zero doubt about that conclusion whatsoever. It's an affirmative claim that is plainly wrong. Perhaps coupled with a claim: "None of the ICE officers did a single thing wrong in the leadup to the shooting". And it's coupled with an emotional "she deserved it" reaction. That final point about emotional response makes it worse, but is not indispensable to the argument.
Another more central statement of the thesis (of the original video, perhaps more accurately, since my own was the first quote up top):
Do you think the administration's reaction to the shooting is a "reasonable path for America"?
edit: edits to second half
When was the last time any administration had any "reasonable path" response to stochastic tragedies? I'm not there's been one since... at least the birth of social media.
More options
Context Copy link
Your main point could have been that "this is an amazing pasta maker!", and could be entirely correct, but no choice of sentence placement is going to get people to ignore any other inflammatory points you happen to make along the way. If you hate inaccuracy, callousness, and polarization, you have to be very careful not to drop a blood libel in the middle of your post; otherwise it doesn't come off as hate, just jealousy.
No, it wasn't. So many failures of theory-of-mind going on right now.
For me, too, to be fair. It now seems that my theory (that you think it should have been clear to the officer that the car hitting him posed no serious threat) was wrong, and instead your mistaken belief is that it's a requirement for self-defense that the threat be immediately clear? That would just get us back to my first SNL gag reference, days ago,
"I think a good gift for the president would be a chocolate revolver. And since he's so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him and hand it to him."
Obviously suddenly brandishing a chocolate revolver will never be an clear threat, because it's not actually a threat, but a reasonable officer would construe it as a threat and would be justified in using deadly force to defend against it. Likewise, even if the driver of a vehicle wasn't gunning it hard enough to spin out her tires on ice, an arresting officer in the path of the vehicle is allowed to interpret the criminal's car suddenly accelerating into them as a grievous threat, and is not required to think "but what if I double check the tire angle" before it may become too late.
Nope. Goods crimes were obstructing justice, harassment, and vehicular assault, not terrorism. But I can't really directly respond to the administration, not with anything more serious than upvoting someone else's twitter response to a higher-but-still-rounds-to-the-same-number total. Trump never became a Motte poster. (Even if he did, I couldn't imagine him obeying the rules here well enough not to eat a permaban within a year.) If an administration called Good's actions "terrorism" here, I'd give them the same pushback and chance to correct that that you got for "murder", and the same downvotes to posts where they either failed to correct or repeated the libel.
I get that it feels unfair that you're being held to higher standards than the White House just because you're here and they aren't, but what's the alternative? If I said you couldn't meet standards higher than theirs I'd deserve a mod warning for such an egregious insult.
Holy shit that was good. I did not really know who Heather Lochlear was (beyond a vaguly famous name from before my time) but she killed it there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The ultimate truth is that it was a tragic accident, of the exact sort that often happens when two groups which despise each other are in open confrontation and neither trusts the other not to escalate to deadly force. People in the thick of it misread cues, do things that are themselves misread, and somebody dies. Good drew the short straw.
Trump put out blatantly-false claims that Good was a domestic terrorist. That's bad. Reliable Sources put out blatantly-false claims that Ross summarily executed her when he knew she wasn't a threat. That's also bad. I suspect part of the reason for this is that nobody wants to admit to "people can die in violence without somebody being malicious", and another part is that the blame for a foreseeable accident depends on who could most easily have avoided it, and that turns on "did ICE have to be in Minneapolis" which is of course subject to intense disagreement.
It was not an "accident" the word accident would imply that there is no one is at fault.
"Accident" implies that the outcome was not intended by anyone - this is true when zoomed-out here, though admittedly not so much when zoomed-in.
Certain people have been trying to erase the use of the term "accident" to refer to incidents where someone has a degree of non-intentional fault (e.g. negligent fault) as part of a Whorfian language game, but Whorfian language games are literally Orwellian and I generally refuse to play them. I did note later on in that post that fault for a foreseeable accident does exist.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Actually, every part of that is meaningfully true.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link