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 -
ICE already has a set of policies (shown on camera in the video), which honestly seem to me to have no obvious flaw, and they weren't followed. That's what's reasonable overall. That's a major point that the video made, where rules that aren't followed effectively aren't rules. Ironically, this is the same argument put forward by anti-immigration folks! And to be clear, although I'm pro-immigration on the whole, I don't actually have a super big problem with enforcing existing immigration law (in fact, I've long said we should hire a shitton of judges so that we can do it, but do it the right way with due process, though smart compromises are also on the table).
And in alternate timelines of course I'm going to back Good being charged for various crimes. That's fine. Let the system work. What threatens the system itself is this idea of immunity. That's caustic in a very serious way. And it's increasingly being thrown around. Yes, the left deserves some blame, but it's the wrong direction for the country. Actions have consequences, and degrading the link is bad for everyone.
To be crystal clear, the point being made in the video, and that I endorse, is that "looking at the situation and believing the officer should face zero consequences is insane". I'm getting vibes from the administration, and implicitly supported by convenient silence in the comments here on the Motte, that "don't even bother charging him because he's so clearly innocent". That, to me, is the insanity. Yes, on some level I'm shocked people don't all see it as murder. But on the deeper more important level I'm shocked that people are shrugging and going "fuck around and find out". That's a bad, bad direction to go, as a worldview. Believing that you're untouchable is practically a human universal recipe for hubris and disaster.
A plethora of these people have gone through the Immigration court system and have simply disappeared into the wilderness after being told to vacate the country. Short of stationing ICE at every hearing and directly taking anybody who fails to secure further time in the country immediately to the border (and that still produces 'heartbreaking FASCISM photo of mean ICE wrestling deportee against their wishes') it's not going to be solved by simply upping the amount of judges if the people involved are inherently noncompliant.
More options
Context Copy link
You:
Also you:
Stop wasting everyone's time. Someone died. Do them the courtesy of saying what you fucking mean, instead of this transparent manipulative bullshit.
"On some level" means exactly what it says on the tin, dude. Again I'm begging you to re-read before replying and apply some critical thinking skills.
I do my best to substantively reply to every major aspect of a comment when I choose to comment, even when it weakens the argument, because I feel that it's more transparent and honest; and yes it does annoy me when people don't do the same. Which is more than I can say for a lot of people who edit their comments to be maximally persuasive instead. I'm attempting to optimize for light, or failing that, honesty. You're out here slinging accusations of "transparent manipulative bullshit". I transparently said that the original transcript called it a murder, but nowhere did I myself say that, and I acknowledged that it was a little confusing. Then, I attempted to clarify. What more do you want from me? Isn't that exactly what we are supposed to do? Jesus Christ.
Knock it off.
You're being consistently dishonest across all of your comments, and then start acting huffy when people point out that you're contradicting yourself to manipulate people who were trying to treat you charitably. Jesus Christ, indeed. You're not optimising for light or honesty. You're not doing anything because it's more "transparent or honest".
But ok! Let's apply your cherished critical thinking skills. Using your definition of "on some level", we get these quotes from you:
Um... are you ok? Because you say that you don't call it a murder; and you're also kinda shocked that anyone wouldn't see it as a murder. I can't imagine why you think that smugly defining the phrase "on some level" lets you wriggle out of how insane that is.
Apply some critical thinking skills.
More options
Context Copy link
Being "partially" shocked at someone for disagreeing with a claim, while not believing it yourself is downright schizophrenic.
why would that be schizophrenic? you have to only believe that you are atypical.
As a big fan of technical correctness, I can only tip my hat to you, sir. However, that sentence doesn't read like he's expressing surprise at not being alone in the world, especially in the light of the rest of his post.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link