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 -
So I understand, you are saying that Good's decision to speed off when an officer is in front of her was set up by the officer in the same way as if he'd handcuffed a knife to his hand?
The decision to speed off was not set up by the officer, but the inability to distinguish between two types of speeding off (fleeing and attacking the officer) was set up by the officer.
Likewise if the officer handcuffs a knife to your hand, and you flee, your decision to flee was not set up, but if the officer says "for all I know he might be trying to use the knife on me", that lack of knowledge was set up.
Does it matter at all that she actually struck the officer?
Imagine a hypothetical where I am on foot, and under arrest. The cops surround me (to arrest me). Would you say that in this situation that the inability to distinguish between "me fleeing" and "me having to attack an officer to flee" was set up by the officer, and as such, they do not have any reason to be afraid when I attack an officer to escape?
If they shoot you because you "attacked an officer" and he "feared for his life" then sure, it was set up by the officer. It's a form of the officers gaming the system.
If the officers try to stop you using a level of force that would be justified in a regular arrest of a fleeing person who is not surrounded but who they (for instance) managed to catch up with, then no.
I feel like this is untenable, and would simply lead to no one at all being arrested. If officers are forbidden from physically stop me from fleeing, why wouldn't I just flee? Under your rules, they cannot put themselves in a situation where they could be in danger regardless of what decisions I made.
I am not suggesting that officers can't stop you from fleeing. The problem is that we already have standards of what they are permitted to do to stop you from fleeing, and those standards don't let them shoot you.
Either let them shoot you for fleeing, or don't. Don't say "they can't shoot you for fleeing" and then let them game fleeing into looking like a threat so they can shoot you for that.
The issue is that (as someone who does not want to be arrested) I can game-theory them into letting me flee under your rules. That means they literally can't do their job, as anyone who does not want to be arrested can force the issue by engineering a situation in which the officers can must choose between:
You have stated that #2 is not permissible - so it collapses back into #1, of every criminal must be allowed to flee.
The issue is that the police can escalate from one level of force (the level permitted on a fleeing person) to a greater level of force (lethal force, permitted on a threat) by creating a situation where the first looks like the second. The first level of force is not zero, so this doesn't require that the police avoid all physical confrontation. It does mean that sometimes people will flee, but if that's a real problem, then change the standard so that more force is allowed at the first level--don't blur the first and second levels together.
Okay, so I think I understand where our disagreement is coming from (thank you for the clarification on your position); I have been operating under the belief that the officers were attempting to arrest Good, and the action of being in front of the vehicle was as part of the arrest. If I understand your position correctly, you believe that the officer being in front of the vehicle was somewhere in the range of "being extremely negligent" to "deliberately there in order to justify shooting Good if she attempted to flee." As such, (I believe that) you believe that the officer should not be permitted to use the vehicle accelerating into him in his defense, as it was due to his own actions that it happened. Is that correct? (If it's not, please correct me; I'm trying to phrase this in a maximally "I am trying to understand" way, not in a "I am putting words in your mouth way", but I understand that may not come across via text).
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link