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 go in reverse order because I think that orders it best in terms of most to least serious objections. But I should say first that I greatly appreciate your comment and how you laid it out.
Frankly, I don't. I don't trust them to present anything appropriate to a Grand Jury at all! Four other people IIRC have been killed by ICE just this year; none of them have been charged as of writing for anything. I don't think that's actually a huge gotcha, these things take time, but we've also seen some shocking incompetence out of Kash Patel's FBI when it comes to legal charging decisions so I think there's some grounds for it.
The other and worrisome point is that I'm getting the sense some people genuinely seem to believe that there shouldn't be any consequences at all - i.e. don't even bother to review it or charge him or anything. It's strongly implied when comments show up - like above this post a short ways - that essentially say "she deserved it" and then say nothing else.
This is important, because it's a hint to state of mind. It also wasn't just swearing. He (and I think after reflection it's almost certainly him) called her a "fucking bitch" immediately after. The vibe is "you deserved it", not "oh shit I almost died". Those two things to me don't actually have that much overlap.
Honestly I think the jury might still be out on this. There are some pretty callous videos circling around, including ICE agents pulling their guns out in situations where they really shouldn't. But even so, we have to think about incentives, you're right. What message does it send to ICE agents and cops that the administration thinks zero consequences are ever justified? That's the message being sent. That's terrible. We should be emphasizing higher standards, and under no stretch of the imagination were Ross' actions the highest standard.
Specific to this case, I should mention that Ross pulls his gun out almost immediately at the moment she comes to a stop and switches the gear to Drive and out of reverse. Immediately. I think that point is underemphasized. It strongly suggests that he's pulling the gun to avoid her leaving, not because he's in danger, because at the point of drawing the gun (not firing yet!) the car is just barely beginning to move forward.
I don't think it is, because he was hit by an SUV. It isn't possible with the information we have to differentiate between demonizing her in his head because she was an activist and demonizing her in his head because she hit him with her SUV.
I agree. Law enforcement should not be made "absolutely immune", and activists should obey the law. Frankly, it seems to me that left-wing orgs are not being properly educatng their members on the law. In the past year I have been told (via chain emails) that "an ICE "warrant" is not a warrant," to "not open your door to an officer", and that "you have the right to remain silent". These are all technically true, but if an immigrant is legally in the US, their residency is usually conditional on cooperation with immigration authorities, and those here on conditional permanent residency are required to open their home for inspection by immigration authorities to maintain their status. Let me say that again. Left-wing orgs are giving out advice which if followed will result in immigrants losing their green cards, because it will inconvenience ICE.
More options
Context Copy link
Ok, let's play this game:
So, when exactly is he allowed to react to the woman driving a 1.5-ton machine towards him? Half a second later? A second later?
There's obviously no point in time that won't make you go "ah! Of course! This PROVES he's a murderer!"
This is damning for your character, not his.
If he already had his gun out, that would be an unnecessary escalation unjustified by law enforcement policy. If he pulled out his gun on approach, ditto. Is there any reason to conclude otherwise? There's a reason cops during traffic stops do not pull their gun out on everyone, every time. I do not claim that he wanted to kill her anywhere. It's possible though. It's also not the point I was making in the OP. At any rate, there is, yes, clearly a point with sufficient evidence where pulling out a gun on someone driving at you is justified. Why would I think any different? Don't play slippery slope games unless you're actually alleging something.
hopefully-quick edit: I'm also not, and nowhere did, claim that we have indisputable proof that she was murdered. We had some evidence that cuts both ways. We have enough evidence in favor of "murder" that we should at least be discussing punishment. And more relevant to the original point, we have enough evidence that Ross did at least something wrong to be, again, at least discussing punishment.
I should add that my mental model of police is basically very, very rarely would they ever deliberately kill people. Somewhat common is killing people due to bad priors, however, partially due to the nature of the job but also partially due to flaws in ICE/law enforcement. I should reiterate that the standard is not "murder or not murder". It's "did he/they do something wrong" or "they were 100% innocent". The former is grounds for reasonable disagreement. The latter is what the OP discusses as being ridiculous and worrisome.
This is a lie. You said:
I don't care that your defence is going to be "sigh, apply some critical thinking skills -- that's from the transcript; I didn't literally say it!"
No. You dropped a massive transcript in your OP as if it were your own words. You said it expressed things better than you could yourself. You said you "vibe" with it. You presented it as a something you fully endorsed.
You did not go "actually I disavow the part where he says it was obviously a murder". The rules say to speak plainly. If you're going to drop a transcript with maximally inflammatory claims that you don't actually agree with, and then later go "b-but I never literally said those words!", then people are going to assume you're fucking with them.
This is some god-of-the-gaps bullshit. Any part of the transcript that becomes indefensible or inconvenient -- "oh, I never actually said it". All the other parts -- well, they get to stand as part of your argument, until the exact part where you need to discard them and pretend you never held them at all.
This is deceitful.
More options
Context Copy link
"This is so obviously a murder" means that it is, in fact, indisputable that she was murdered.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The vibe is "oh shit I almost died because someone hit the accelerator while I was standing directly in front of their car". I have to say, I think you're demanding an impossibly high standard of behaviour from police officers. It's one thing to say that police officers should endeavour to remain courteous and professional to the best of their ability. It's quite another to say that an officer cursing in the middle of a stressful situation, literally seconds after he was very nearly seriously struck by a car, is dispositive proof that he's a vicious murderer. And as I pointed out elsewhere, it's entirely possible that Ross didn't even know that Good was dead at the time he spoke.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link