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 -
Correct. I think avoiding this situation on his part would require either superhuman abilities, risking his own life in order to save the life of a suspect which already showed herself to be acting with malice, or luck, which was out of his control.
I do believe it, and I think those higher standards were met in this case.
You honestly can't tell what I'm going to say? The answer should be obvious, I don't believe "there can't be any particular officer that went too far", I believe, upon reviewing available evidence, that this particular officer didn't.
Please explain to me why you thought this is a good question to ask, or that defending my position would imply a non-zero chance of answering "yes".
Mostly, yeah.
Let's clear up some factual stuff first: there objectively is accountability - Rene's wife or the Dems can just take ICE to court. They weren't wearing plain clothes, and masks are irrelevant since she knew they were ICE when she got involved. To be clear, I consider these things negotiable, and I think it's fine if you want to advocate for them, but you don't get to act like anyone who disagrees is unresonable or immoral.
As for Vance, I think it's fine for him to say that, and in fact it's throwing the agent who obviously did nothing wrong under the bus, to appease a mob acting in bad faith, that would be unsustainable.
Because everyone knows that the specific content of what politicians say is useless. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's true, and just because they don't say it doesn't mean it isn't. After at least a century of the Constitution being pissed and shat on through actual government actions (most of which you fall under your "the system works, everything is fine" shtick), I'm not about the get my fainting couch over words.
I answered your questions now it's your turn. Contrast the ICE incident to the video I linker above. Contrast Good to Babnit, and explain to me why only Good warrants the amount of outrage you're showing.
More options
Context Copy link