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 -
Her panicking is not "deceit", nor is the point that she very well might not have seen or been aware of him (both of these directly contradict nearly everything we know about human attention and psychology), nor is the point that she wasn't fully "blocking" traffic (that we know of, this could well turn out to be wrong). We only see her wave cars by, we don't see her actually stop an ICE vehicle. And there's the point about the "third shot" which seems a valid point. Cars insofar as they are weapons, are inherently directional weapons. Unlike a sword or a gun or a person, cars only go forward and backward. So any threat is inherently focused on a small moment in time. Why? Contextually her intent does matter. If she's actually trying to kill officers, as the administration deceitfully suggested, then sure maybe a third shot is merited because otherwise she's going to turn around and come at them a second or third time. Such is not the case by any stretch of the imagination. And it's correct and just to be horrified that that's the messaging they decided to go with.
This seems like pure, unadulterated projection of a caricature of the modal anti-ICE protestor, and is a second thing that has upset me, specifically around here. Do you truly believe that this is what a large chunk of lefties think?
I myself probably would shy away from calling it outright "murder", but I wouldn't blink if someone used that word; I essentially posted that statement as my own so I'll own that I guess. However, the more salient point here from the OP: "the reflexive defense of it is grotesque". I realize this is a cerebral forum. But I think nearly everyone claiming to not be affected by the emotionally charged aspects of the case are lying to themselves on some level. It shapes what things we pay attention to, what things we say or do not say. And I think it's genuinely distressing and worrisome that tribalism even here has progressed to the point where the first instinct of some is to bad-mouth protestors and throw the blame entirely at their feet for brainwashing some poor lady as if the Trump administration's plan were not essentially, as one Mottizen put it, "cruelty is the point". I realize that's reading between the lines a little bit to say that they believe the unspoken "and thus we shouldn't even bother to ask if Ross should be punished", but some of the responses here above and below seem to demonstrate the point quite nicely.
You can see her on camera, extremely plainly, not panicking.
Given how ready you are to say this was "obviously murder", I think I'm allowed to infer that a person who is smirking, excited, and exhilarated is not, in fact, panicked; and that saying otherwise is lying.
She locks eyes with him. But ok, I'm willing to concede she may have, in that short window of time, have glossed over his existence and not acted rationally. I look forward to you extending the same courtesy to the person whose body was about to be intersected by her SUV.
Or, as I suspect, are the rules: infinite psychological understanding for her, and none for your ideological enemies, who are obviously out to commit murder?
No one said "fully", and I can see you smuggling that word in. You are, of course, fully aware that she was not parked perpendicular to the road just cuz.
Do you know the easiest way to wave cars by? It's by not parking perpendicular to the road. Given that she did, in fact, do this, we both know that her intent was not to not block the road.
Why are we bothering with this nonsense? Do you think this is convincing?
I don't understand this or the subsequent point. A weapon like an SUV can kill.
So, do you agree that the other 10-12 lies told by "your" side were, in fact, lies? It may seem unfair for me to list so many, but it's no less a gish-gallop than your OP. I'd genuinely like to know if you consider the other 10ish points to be true, or irrelevant, or genuinely lies on your side. Leaving them implicitly unaddressed seems dishonest.
Based on the reaction to Charlie Kirk, and her behaviour in the video: I believe with high probability it's what she would have thought. I may be wrong.
Where did you get "a large chunk of lefties"? I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth, seeing as you know full well I was talking about her specifically.
If you're upset by that, then calibrate yourself.
Oh. Ohh, I'm a fucking idiot, sorry. Because when you said this:
... I took that as you calling it outright murder.
Now that I understand your words don't actually correlate to what you believe, and you're just fucking with me, I realise I've wasted too much time dealing with someone who doesn't actually care about what's true. Life and death and truth actually matter -- if you're not going to take this seriously, get out of the kitchen.
Facial expressions are not super strong indicators of panic, and the video is way too blurred to draw conclusions, I just rewatched it. She also could have simply misjudged the distance to the hood. At least personally I can attest I'm quite bad at knowing when my bumper will hit something, despite being a zero-accident driver for 15 years. But at any rate, the statement "You can see her on camera, extremely plainly, not panicking" is untrue, I don't know how else to say it.
Blocking strongly implies - to me - a complete block. She's in the way, but cars are passing. Therefore calling it blocking alone lacks significant context. I would never say "I-5 is blocked by a truck" unless I meant the whole road was closed. I would say "the truck is blocking a few lanes" because blocking is typically an all-or-nothing thing. So I think this one might be chalked up to differing personal connotations.
The point about cars being only directionally threatening to people was clear and I guess I can't help you if you claim not to understand it.
Okay, minutiae aside, let's talk about the meta-conversation and point.
People are free to sympathize with the cop. People are free to think the shoot was justified. My whole point is that thinking that "ICE did nothing wrong and does not even need investigation" is a higher bar than that. Please reread my intro/conclusion. On a meta level, the point is that the way the Trump administration portrayed the event is deceitful, and reactions along those same lines as their portrayal are callous and polarizing.
I was going to say that you avoided answering my question, but I can now see how you thought I might have misworded it. To be clear, this is a follow-up question, and no, it's not about Good, it's about what biases you may or may not have about leftie protestors, and I think it's highly relevant, because we're talking about the meta-reaction of people. So I'll ask again: do you truly believe that the portrayal I described ("if he were to die, that'd be great, and totally justified") is what a large chunk of lefties think? But sure, if you want, I'll ask it about Good too. How confident are you that that portrayal is accurate of Good? Where are you epistemically there?
I think you'd do yourself some favors re-reading my comments and waiting a few minutes before replying because you're mischaracterizing me. I'm attempting to engage in a way you don't seem to be, so I can't understand why you'd think I wasn't serious?
Knock it off, again.
You're filling this thread with contradictory claims (e.g. it was obviously a murder + you're shocked anyone could think it wasn't a murder + you don't think it was a murder), and then complaining about being "mischaracterised"?
I think you do yourself some favours by concisely, honestly saying exactly what you believe, rather than switching back and forth depending on what's convenient.
Well, I didn't. As you'd say, please re-read my comment.
... Sorry, is it a "follow-up question", or are you asking it "again"?
I reject your grounds for asking that question. It smuggles in a frame and implications that completely unjustified. Suppose I asked you this question:
If I asked that, you'd be within your rights to go "uh, dude, what the fuck? I never brought up puppies or puppy-murder; stop implying that I hold positions that you have no evidence for me holding".
I specifically described my best (obviously imperfect) guess of what Good might've been thinking. You tried to conflate that with what I think "a large chunk of lefties" think. Who cares what my opinion on "a large chunk of lefties" is? Was the car being driven by "a large chunk of lefties"? You are trying to turn my specific guesses about Good into evidence for a general bias/hatred/whatever of a political bloc.
I invite you to re-read my comments, take a few minutes to think, apply critical thinking, and whatever other passive-aggressive instructions you think are appropriate.
More options
Context Copy link
Some people are getting a bit heated by your words here, so good job keeping cool.
Your definition would mean that the roads to the parade weren't blocked off since this guy was able to get past them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link