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 -
Ok, so:
You already know these things, I assume, having watched the videos? Or you didn't, and are constructing a convenient alternate scenario that didn't happen.
Either way: do you genuinely, actually believe she found this "fucking terrifying"?
As she smirks, smiles, sneers, and looks delighted, you think she was actually secretly fucking terrified?
This is an actual question. It has a yes/no answer. She was either fucking terrified, or she wasn't. The videos all indicate, to the best of our knowledge, that she obviously wasn't terrified; but you seem to be happy to assume, in spite of all evidence, that she was. Why?
Does it change anything that she wasnt?
Not that it matters at all because it certainly wouldn't move the needle in anyone's mind, but:
Anyway, I just think she wasn't obviously not terrified. Could she have been terrified? Yes. The situation was scary to a reasonable person, and she tried to escape, quickly, which is certainly evidence, not conclusive evidence, but evidence nonetheless. Would it also be reasonable to conclude that she wasn't terrified based on the video evidence and your priors? Also yes.
That's fair -- I was focusing on the guy who opened the car door, but yeah, you're right. I still object to "a bunch".
They had enough time to say "get out of the (fucking) car" 3 times. When people are insisting that 1 second is an eternity for perfect deliberation when an SUV is accelerating towards you, then that 3+ second gap cannot be considered "suddenly". I wouldn't call it a lie, but it's not an accurate characterisation of events.
You're overselling the graininess and underselling how much time we can see her. I'm not "interpreting" anything. You can see her being cheery, smiling, smirky, and -- like her wife -- clearly enjoying being able to LARP as the plucky rebels against the fascist stormtroopers.
Like, come on. The idea that she panicked is based on the idea that she was just innocently turning around in the street, and ICE -- who she wasn't expecting -- spooked her. We know that's not true! She and her wife were deliberately antagonising ICE; they knew exactly who they were dealing with.
It is, in fact, completely unreasonable to watch that interaction and go "oh poor lamb, she was terrified and panicking!"
But you aren't arguing with people insisting that 1 second is an eternity for perfect deliberation. Neither @magicalkittycat nor I made that claim. Taking that into context, isn't it possible for us to characterize a few seconds as "suddenly" and still be logically consistent? And you did call it a lie, not just inaccurate.
I was also not overselling how much time we could see her. It was literally less than a second we get to see her mouth open after they try to forcefully open the door. She can enjoy LARPing as a plucky rebel when the single ICE officer was filming and circling her vehicle and then get spooked by the escalation when multiple other agents approach and try to grab her door. They are not mutually exclusive.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This ignores the context that she had been barricading the road for four minutes. An LEO trying to get you out of the car was an obvious outcome and really ought not create panic.
The panic meme is consistent with “random place at the wrong time” meme. We known that meme is false. Based on video and the context, the panic meme appears false as well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There was a similar streak running through the height of MeToo and the craze over women allegedly being sexually abused or mistreated.
After that night, she was:
1 - Skittish, withdrawn, flighty, uncommunicative, outwardly depressed.
Clear signs of trauma. Tell-tale indicators of abuse.
2 - She was outgoing, social, active, and saw the guy several times afterwards, expressing excitement to her friends.
...Also clear signs of trauma! Also indicators of abuse! Just repressed. Textbook diagnosis.
Which - y'know - both can be true depending on the person. It's also completely convenient and unworkable.
I had a coworker who got held up at gunpoint while opening a store in the AM. By the time I came in, he had a large grin plastered to his face and was almost hysterically laughing. Superficially not what what one may expect, but still registered as obvious trauma to me because of how erratic and unhinged he was. I get that peoples' nerves can fray differently.
But that's not what I see with Good.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link